css, 2 conflicting interests, and why I, You, and the Dw team get it wrong.

[pziecina]

I could have posted this in 'that other' discussion, but this is not about 'splitting Dw up', more about 2 different types of user and why we will never 100% understand each other, but do need each other in one program.

First I would like to point out that I do not work for Adobe, do not take part in any decision making, and do not participate in Dw CAB or pre-release..

I read this article a few days ago, then looked at how the W3C specs are written, and took a really good look at this and other forums posts concerning web development. No I will not include web design because if you are writing any code then that is development -

https://alistapart.com/article/the-story-of-css-grid-from-its-creators

The passage in the above linked to article that got me thinking was -

"Peter Linss, then Co-Chair of the CSS Working Group, also suggested that they incorporate the concept of grid lines in the spec (instead of only talking about tracks). He believed including this familiar graphic design concept would make the spec more accessible to designers."

(It's about 2/3rds of the way down "The spec evolves" section)

The bit about making the spec more accessible to designers, really made me laugh, because if a designer can understand the specs for css grid layouts, then actually use those specs to produce a working rwd layout. without lots and lots of of trials and errors, they are a much better coder than I.

That is where I think the understanding of coders and the Dw team, regarding designers knowledge and requirements, even those who may like to code, is being miss understood, (and visa-versa).

The Principal Dw product manager, is also responsible for the Brackets project. This means that he is probably more of a coder than a designer, but like Peter Linss of the css working group thinking that the specs from css grid layouts makes the feature more accessible to designers, does it really?

This is no insult to the Principle Dw product manager, as I am just as guilty as he is of the following -

If you watch -

https://video.tv.adobe.com/v/19908t_876d7009-77fb-4a67-86bc-70475fddf88e/?autoplay=true

In the section about the roadmap, if you listen carefully you will hear an audience member ask the question, "Does Dw support Flexbox?". To which the answer is a simple, "Yes".

The answer should have been, "Yes, but only in code view", (Live view is irrelevant for this discussion).

Now why is the simple "Yes" wrong.

css is no longer the simple 260 properties it was in the 2.1 specs, but is now well over 700 properties, many of which like flexbox and css grid layouts, are not 'so simple' to understand, even for someone who has been reading specs and interpreting the meaning of them for years. For someone who does NOT know how to read and apply them, such as a designer who has no interest in keeping up with what is happening, beyond what is required of him/her for their work, simply needs more info, and I am not talking about telling them what the specs say, which is all that is currently provided.

They need visual info, or feedback of how the property will look and work, not after they have applied the property to their code, but before they apply it. Even coders learning how to apply many of these 'newer' css features, and then using them in their actual work, would I think appreciate such feedback, and that is to me what Dw is or should be about.

So why is Dw, me and you wrong?

Dw now simply assumes that everything is so easy when it comes to html, css js, and even php, without even looking at the terminology or the requirements of the modern web site or browser based app. It has stopped being about web development and more about the 'other' trends in  web development, (the 'what 3rd party feature is missing' ones). After all who creates custom sites anymore, now that we have frameworks and cms's. Code hinting, mvc, object/function referencing, databases, etc. etc. are things of the past no one requires them or would use them, and even if you would you can still use code view, but just remember to turn linting, code completion, hinting and anything else you may require off, (and that's if it is included).

Nothing in Dw is provided for anyone not willing to work with frameworks and cms's. Designers and developers are at war trying to get their requirements included, and the coder has become a 'dirty word' in these and a number of other forums when it comes to Dw, and trying to get ideas across and accepted that are not based on css 2.1 is no longer allowed.

We have all decided that, 'It's never going to happen', 'no one is listening', or that it does not matter what we say, but maybe it's time for everyone to take a good look at Dw anyway. Time for the Dw PM's, and other Dw/Adobe staff to take part in discussions, and all 'camps' to stop looking at Dw as 'their personal program', thinking that it should be based on past or their personal requirements, and as a complete heresy, maybe the Dw team should actually look at what is required without thinking 'they know best, and dam the rest'.

More to come!!!

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

Photoshop is aimed at professionals as is Illustrator and InDesign, if amatuers want you use them there is nothing stopping them but Adobe aren't sitting around a table discussing how do we cater for amatuers to the detriment of ignoring the professional market in those programs, I don't think anyway.

That's just it Os, the web has moved on and Dw users are being treated as though they are not interested.

I always thought that anyone calling themselves professionals wants professional tools.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

osgood_   wrote

Photoshop is aimed at professionals as is Illustrator and InDesign, if amatuers want you use them there is nothing stopping them but Adobe aren't sitting around a table discussing how do we cater for amatuers to the detriment of ignoring the professional market in those programs, I don't think anyway.

That's just it Os, the web has moved on and Dw users are being treated as though they are not interested.

I always thought that anyone calling themselves professionals wants professional tools.

My goodness . A code editor is a code editor. If it's a good code editor then advanced coders will use it. A robust coding environment should be part of Dreamweaver, or it could be an integrated program like Homesite was. But certainly not Brackets. That said, this thread has become so trite and so misleading that it will be lost and never accomplish anything. Take a piece of paper. Draw a vertical line down the middle. Place a heading atop each column: 1. Coders 2. Designers. Now build two sets of features. And since I'm fairly certain there will be more customers fitting the Designer category, and many discerning/knowledgeable coders, do not skimp on either side. Now, here's the trick...

Do everything possible to keep Adobe from trying to portray Dreamweaver as a be all/end all tool. Keep them from stuffing in other people's code -- code they are unable and unwilling to keep updated. Prevent repeats of Spry, Fluid Grids, and Bootstrap. Keep jQuery out of the equation, not because it's bad like Bootstrap, but because within a couple of years some of the best parts of jQuery will become native to browsers and the paradigm will be shifting. Radically.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

My goodness . A code editor is a code editor. If it's a good code editor then advanced coders will use it. A robust coding environment should be part of Dreamweaver, or it could be an integrated program like Homesite was. But certainly not Brackets. That said, this thread has become so trite and so misleading that it will be lost and never accomplish anything. Take a piece of paper. Draw a vertical line down the middle. Place a heading atop each column: 1. Coders 2. Designers. Now build two sets of features. And since I'm fairly certain there will be more customers fitting the Designer category, and many discerning/knowledgeable coders, do not skimp on either side. Now, here's the trick...

Do everything possible to keep Adobe from trying to portray Dreamweaver as a be all/end all tool. Keep them from stuffing in other people's code -- code they are unable and unwilling to keep updated. Prevent repeats of Spry, Fluid Grids, and Bootstrap. Keep jQuery out of the equation, not because it's bad like Bootstrap, but because within a couple of years some of the best parts of jQuery will become native to browsers and the paradigm will be shifting. Radically.

You are saying what i have also been saying, except maybe i am saying it in bits and pieces across a number of posts.

You already know my opinion about that code editor i will not name, you already know my opinion about the 3rd party so called features, you even know that i think Dw cannot cater for every type of user if it continues on its current development course.

Where we do differ is that i think that if Dw has all the requirements of a coder as standard, and 'helper features' such as dialogues for the use of srcset/picture, it would give Dw a good base program from which  to build. Having a good base program with coder features, would allow the type of user who wishes to use paid for extensions to be catered for by producers such as yourself, and if done correctly it could then cater for all types of user.

Sorry if i get this bit wrong AL, and correct me if i do.

You are saying that Dw should offer just a basic code editor, with no real coder features, or features for those wishing a more visual environment, and that paid for extensions should then build on that very basic product.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

ALsp   wrote

My goodness . A code editor is a code editor. If it's a good code editor then advanced coders will use it. A robust coding environment should be part of Dreamweaver, or it could be an integrated program like Homesite was. But certainly not Brackets. That said, this thread has become so trite and so misleading that it will be lost and never accomplish anything. Take a piece of paper. Draw a vertical line down the middle. Place a heading atop each column: 1. Coders 2. Designers. Now build two sets of features. And since I'm fairly certain there will be more customers fitting the Designer category, and many discerning/knowledgeable coders, do not skimp on either side. Now, here's the trick...

Do everything possible to keep Adobe from trying to portray Dreamweaver as a be all/end all tool. Keep them from stuffing in other people's code -- code they are unable and unwilling to keep updated. Prevent repeats of Spry, Fluid Grids, and Bootstrap. Keep jQuery out of the equation, not because it's bad like Bootstrap, but because within a couple of years some of the best parts of jQuery will become native to browsers and the paradigm will be shifting. Radically.

You are saying what i have also been saying, except maybe i am saying it in bits and pieces across a number of posts.

You already know my opinion about that code editor i will not name, you already know my opinion about the 3rd party so called features, you even know that i think Dw cannot cater for every type of user if it continues on its current development course.

Where we do differ is that i think that if Dw has all the requirements of a coder as standard, and 'helper features' such as dialogues for the use of srcset/picture, it would give Dw a good base program from which  to build. Having a good base program with coder features, would allow the type of user who wishes to use paid for extensions to be catered for by producers such as yourself, and if done correctly it could then cater for all types of user.

Sorry if i get this bit wrong AL, and correct me if i do.

You are saying that Dw should offer just a basic code editor, with no real coder features, or features for those wishing a more visual environment, and that paid for extensions should then build on that very basic product.

Not really what I'm saying. You still seem to get around to the paid extensions negativity.

Good code editor

Complete CSS support with a Homestyle-type panel

No "other-people's" libraries that could become obsolete mid-cycle

What do extensions, paid or FREE (because yes, if Adobe loosens up on extension support then I guarantee you the FREE market will also grow) have to do with this at all?

[B i r n o u]

hello Paula,

you can't image (I'm sure that yes) how many users I've met around the world that use DW and that don't use it for making a leaving...

the percent oif university users is also really amazing....

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

hello Paula,

you can't image (I'm sure that yes) how many users I've met around the world that use DW and that don't use it for making a leaving...

the percent oif university users is also really amazing....

Hi Birnou,

The problem with university users is that they are only paying cut-price subscriptions, which does make the large financial profits for Adobe.

Adobe also offers enterprise subscriptions, which allow enterprises to literally 'pick-and-mix' what programs they install, how many computers they are installed on, and gives custom support. That is the area i work in, and Adobe takes that market very seriously, as even though one would think single user and student/teacher subscriptions make up the majority, it does not, they are only two of Adobes revenue sources.

To give you an example of how serious Adobe takes the enterprise market, feedback goes through a completely different channel, than that for other users.

When Dw 2017 was released both myself and the IT manager were asked by the finance director why we did not use Dw, at which we both looked at each other and started to laugh. We then went on to explain what was wrong with Dw, and why it was not suitable for our production work.

The point is that he had read our purchase reports for the last five years, which had to include justifications for those purchases, then he had read the press release for Dw 2017. He was shocked to find that Adobe and Dw in particular did not offer a serious development program, that the Dw press release was rubbish, and that Dw did not offer what it appeared to offer, and he was even more shocked that it did not even come close to our requirements.

I know Dw is not taken seriously, but it could be. Enterprise developers cannot justify the purchase of extensions for everything, and we certainly cannot justify multiple purchases of extensions. We are not represented in Dw CAB or pre-release in any numbers, (nor are we often allowed to be) in order to make our requirements known. Conversely students, teachers and single subscription users are all represented. Even people who know nothing about coding or web development are represented.

Maybe Macromedia catered for a different market, with the none developer being thought of more. Adobe does not know what Dw is for, the majority of feedback they get is from single/educational users, and it is no surprise to me that the Dw team is cut year after year.

[B i r n o u]

yes what I said ... so many users around DW, but not so much who uses it to make a living (sorry I've miss seplled in the previous mail)

[B i r n o u]

I completly agree with what you said, and that's why, I told in the previous thread...

« … Moreover, today, the notion of a website itself can be completely different. Depending on whether one are trying to present a newsletter, or building a one page site full of animation, parallax effects, transitions.... , or having a hard dynamic website 'à la papa' ('old fashion look and feel') completely PHP/SQL based, or a web application that meets innovative needs relying on 'modern' conception, or being distributed as a complete integrated mobile consultation... »

the problem, is that each one of us in this thread, just watch the thread by its own angle of vision... and don't really try to understand what others propose and say...

when one say one word , in occurence, the word EXTENSIONS... woaw, it become a very hot and stretched talks...

then from there, if one talk about extensions... at least I... talk about extension sin a general way... in the absolute range... from the David's lorem ipsum to the Interact panoplie (I voluntary speak about a killed, huge killer)

so to answer precisly to your question...

yes there is some type of users (whatever they are, coders, non coders, whatever) that would like that DW will propose the full use of standards (HTML, CSS, APIs, ECMA) without any use of extensions...

and

yes there is some type of users (whatever they are, coders, non coders, whatever) that would like that DW will propose an easy way (for both side of the use (creator and end users)) to use and set extensions.

beside that extensions makers should really respect the use and feel of semantics, accessibility, metadata, when the extension has to handle the core content of the web site...

[B i r n o u]

OFF TOPICS
Hello Paula, I've just had a Cabernet - Syrah for diner... woaw... purely semantic, stuffed with metadata of red fruits and undergrowth humus ...... accessible by everyone around the table and responsive to both glasses

[B i r n o u]

OS said

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea  wrote

3)  It was not so long ago that DW users like Paula and David Powers, Massimo Forti and others were writing custom DW Extensions and giving them away on their websites.   I had a great little extension that self-populated form Select lists with all the countries or all the states & provinces I needed.

I'm not taking about those kinds of extensions, they can be useful along with other scripts which remove blank lines from the code etc. I see them as superficial helpers, not something that forces particular workflows or method down your neck or as in the case of extensions can lead to lethagy leading to stagnation in ones progress and knowledege.

(SORRY I don't know how to answer to a particular message without having to get the full text... and just part of it... so all the above was said By OS and Nacy... so below is my feedback)

I usually use snippet for such a purpose

[pziecina]

Can we call this didcussion finished?

All everyone is doing now is repeating previous posts, or saying, "no I don't, yes you do", and the discussion is going nowhere.

[osgood_]

These discusions always decsend into a chaotic mess which is to be expected given the wealth of different opinions. No one is ever going to convince a non-believer from either stance. This one has run its course l think.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

Can we call this didcussion finished?

All everyone is doing now is repeating previous posts, or saying, "no I don't, yes you do", and the discussion is going nowhere.

Agreed, but that is the nature of this forum, especially when it comes to a few select regular posters. I'm trying to get Adobe's attention, not necessarily fly-by users, and certainly not the regulars. So, I'm using the forum to embed a message that may or may not get through... but at least I tried.

[B i r n o u]

concerning the Al / OS last exchange... some times ago, I felt the same on a large number of exchange and especially when Al was answering, whether it's in response to one of my messages or to other people, and I thought to react... but time has past on, and I didn't do it... then I thought that I was alone on this perception.

I don't think that the term is 'insulting',

without wanting to offend you, or anyone else, that could feel to be concerned .... please do not take offense ... I feel in some remarks and the manner in which the answer are addressed to people a fairly condescending way.

maybe I'm wrong, and the language barrier is a big part of it, but that the first time that subscribers to a public forum, which I'm involved in, cause such embarrassment.

I think we are all here to exchange ideas and confront each other, to bring our differences, to compare uses by expressing wishes ... in some interventions, I have the impression that some answer explains that the others do not understand anything, and that only the one who answer can explain life to all.

again, my goal is not to attack anyone, but simply to inform of this feeling, certainly that many of us on this forum do not know native English, and that makes even more participation in these exchanges very unpleasant.

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

concerning the Al / OS last exchange... some times ago, I felt the same on a large number of exchange and especially when Al was answering, whether it's in response to one of my messages or to other people, and I thought to react... but time has past on, and I didn't do it... then I thought that I was alone on this perception.

What you are reading is two different ways of stating a view, and illustrates how different english is used in different countries and areas in those countries.

Os i know from having lived in the north west of the U/K, is very straight spoken, and many in his area of the u/k simply say what they think, without wrapping it up in phrases that can give hidden meanings.

AL, I don't know where he lives in the US, but he is writting in a different manner in which hidden meaning can be read into what he writes, depending on how one wishes to read it. Which means it can be read in two different ways.

I did think of 'locking' this discussion when i posted that it was now going nowhere, but i left it open as one or two posts that where not by Os and AL, still required answering. Now it is at the point in which most people who may have read the discussion and taken what was written seriously, will simply ignore everything written, except perhaps to see how far it will be allowed to go before someone does say, 'enough is enough' and locks it.

[ALsp]

Fabrication is fabrication Paula. I don't care where you come from. And I have NEVER heard anyone make the kind of ethnic profiling implication you just made in a very long time.

[pziecina]

If you think that was ethnic profiling AL, i think you had better read -

http://www.aranchodoc.com/different-types-of-english/

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u   wrote

concerning the Al / OS last exchange... some times ago, I felt the same on a large number of exchange and especially when Al was answering, whether it's in response to one of my messages or to other people, and I thought to react... but time has past on, and I didn't do it... then I thought that I was alone on this perception.

I did think of 'locking' this discussion when i posted that it was now going nowhere, but i left it open as one or two posts that where not by Os and AL, still required answering. Now it is at the point in which most people who may have read the discussion and taken what was written seriously, will simply ignore everything written, except perhaps to see how far it will be allowed to go before someone does say, 'enough is enough' and locks it.

I wish more would get involved in these discussions because it would provide valuable feedback and a truer reflection about workflows and to what degree they are involved in web-development, but there seems to be little appetite apart from the regular few, who mostly disagree amongst themselves..........hummmm.

[pziecina]

Once this discussion moved to extensions, it became the same as a Bootstrap discussion -

"Everyone has their own opinions, and none will agree".

I don't think serious discussions on web development are possible anymore, unless we do one with 'invited poster' only, (all other posts deleted ).

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Once this discussion moved to extensions, it became the same as a Bootstrap discussion -

"Everyone has their own opinions, and none will agree".

I don't think serious discussions on web development are possible anymore, unless we do one with 'invited poster' only, (all other posts deleted ).

We'll I agree, its absolutely pointless in most cases to be honest. I think you just have to be comfortable with your own ability and skill at whatever level you are, a beginner, intermediate or expert, whether you use extensions, frameworks or go extension-less and manually code, be humble about it and if you can help a few others along the way.

I'll be out of this in a few years anyway. I could walk away now but at the moment I'm stll getting some kind of warped satisfaction out of it, maybe Al is right, I must be mental When the satisfaction goes so will I - it creeps closer every day.

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

pziecina   wrote

Once this discussion moved to extensions, it became the same as a Bootstrap discussion -

"Everyone has their own opinions, and none will agree".

I don't think serious discussions on web development are possible anymore, unless we do one with 'invited poster' only, (all other posts deleted ).

We'll I agree, its absolutely pointless in most cases to be honest. I think you just have to be comfortable with your own ability and skill at whatever level you are, a beginner, intermediate or expert, whether you use extensions, frameworks or go extension-less and manually code, be humble about it and if you can help a few others along the way.

I'll be out of this in a few years anyway. I could walk away now but at the moment I'm stll getting some kind of warped satisfaction out of it, maybe Al is right, I must be mental When the satisfaction goes so will I - it creeps closer every day.

I'm not sure what it says that Paula gave your response a "Like". I see a few of my responses were "liked" by persons I have some respect for. Bu suffice it to say, at least one person has ignored a few untruths here. The problem is that this forum is politically driven in that the rank and file user is going to find it hard to discern what is true and what is not. But in the final analysis, none of it matters because this forum is indeed, as I've suspected for quite some time, highly toxic.

[pziecina]

If a post, or even only a small section of a post makes me smile or laugh, i will give it a 'like', i will also 'like' for other reasons, and if you look i have 'liked' a number of your posts.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

If a post, or even only a small section of a post makes me smile or laugh, i will give it a 'like', i will also 'like' for other reasons, and if you look i have 'liked' a number of your posts.

That's not what I was implying, Paula. I not only like some of your posts, I like you. But that doesn't change the fact that Osgood lied. I don't hate him, but I'm confounded whenever someone feels the need to use untruths to make a point... or to attack someone. The fact that he can skate through this with thin rationalizations is mind boggling. It truly is.

[pziecina]

I have no idea if he lied or not, and i am not going to search through other discussions to find out.

Such things are for you and Os to discuss, and i doubt if anyone else will or even wants to become involved.

[Nancy OShea]

Hey Paula,

I streamed an interesting film last night called Arrival (2016) - IMDb   If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend it.

The film's protagonist is a linguistics professor tasked with interpreting  communication from an alien life form.  Trouble ensues when the alien symbols are misinterpreted by humans.   Go figure! 

Boys,

According to Forum Guidelines, we're all supposed to be supportive.  And owing to language & cultural differences, we should make every effort to assume the poster's remarks are well-meaning in intent even if it doesn't always seem that way.