Is there any way to display the Design View in fluid grid pages?

[Ron Kurtus]

After upgrading to the newest version of DW CC 2014, I noticed that the Design View is disabled in Fluid Grid pages. You can only use the Live View to edit those pages. The Design/Live button displays on non-fluid pages.

I'm wondering if there is a work-around to allow Design View editing on fluid pages. It is a major hassle to try to edit some things in the Live View. It would nice to have a choice.

[Beezoid]

Having looked at the link I'm not sure enough that the d/load will be 2014.0? I'd worry that it'll be 2014.1

On my Adobe App Manager I have a "Previous Version" option in the lower half which whilst not showing 2014.0 does show CC - which is version 13.0. Not sure if one gets a Trial or Real version under the subscription but may be a way of getting back to sanity.

Cheers

[GA_]

I wouldn't trust the link either... it was given to me by Adobe Support

[Vernon_Benjafield]

Guys,

The link is OK - it's the exe file for Dreamweaver CC 2014

I've used it to revert to this version.

[macgarvin]

Thanks for that Vernon and and following on from GA_'s link . The (explicit) link to download 2014.0 is under FAQ. So I'll try that later when I have time!

[bradm44645584]

So I removed DW 2014 (1) and downloaded the previous version to install it

Now I am getting this error message... anyone know a way around.. considering I clearly have internet?

[Beezoid]

Did you trigger the 'activate' link? Did it just result in the same outcome?

I think the problem is with Adobe Application Manager (AAM) and DW2014.1 (and maybe any other 2014.1 CC programmes??) as I am having problems with it that are weird to say the least, Even though DW2014.1 is active and my account is recognised (and I can use it, not that I particularly want to use it being so crippled) and the Creative Cloud app has it listed, within seconds AAM pops up and demands I buy a subscription, start a trial or license it. Obviously I license it and get thanked for the effort but the whole scenario starts over if I re-boot but not always if all I do is close and re-open DW2014.1. Maddening (and, Yes, Adobe have been advised but so far to no avail).

I have returned to using DWCC (v 13) for now on my MacBook but 2014.0 on Windows desktop. As a client uses Contribute this plays havoc with syncing especially as apparently a Mac has additional security which stops locked files being synced, which is another issue altogether!

[bradm44645584]

yeah I got the same results when clicking activate. So I had to reinstall 2014.1 again

I am lucky in one way that I haven't used fluid layouts yet, but the need has came up and I was prepared to dive in and get working with them. Only to be stopped cold with this latest 'upgrade' as they called it.

Given the stand off like comments such as 'There is really no option but to move to Live View." . The way the ticket was handled opened by GA, and also as I have seen with promises to address issues like this only with no follow up.. I have no reason to believe Adobe will make good fixing this issue.

Or how about asking us to a live meeting when they have tons of feedback here to resolve this.

ARE YOU HEARING US ADOBE? Or are you just waiting for this to fade like other complaints?

Here is a challenge to the Adobe Staff.. Post an exact date on when do you plan on changing the live view back to design view.. or something very close.

[Nancy OShea]

I am lucky in one way that I haven't used fluid layouts yet, but the need has come up and I was prepared to dive in and get working with them. Only to be stopped cold with this latest 'upgrade' as they called it.

In the meantime, I can recommend several Responsive framework/alternatives you should consider.  IMO, these are actually better than FluidGrid Layouts.

Foundation Zurb

http://foundation.zurb.com/templates.php

Skeleton Boilerplate

http://www.getskeleton.com/

Initializr (HTML5 Boilerplate, Responsive or Bootstrap)

http://www.initializr.com/

DMX Zone's Bootstrap FREE extension for DW

http://www.dmxzone.com/go/21759/dmxzone-bootstrap/

Project Seven's Responsive Page Packs (Commercial CSS Templates)

http://www.projectseven.com/products/templates/index.htm

Adobe Edge Reflow

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-edge-reflow/introduction-to-reflow/

Nancy O.

[GA_]

Thanks for the useful links Nancy O.

The only problem there is that personally I bought into DW as a one-stop solution. No doubt I could match EVERYTHING DW does with various freeware from the web... but that would be bitty and awkward. Hence the one-stop solution.

It's a bit like leasing a car, taking it for a service, and the mechanics removing the engine because they intend to make their vehicles more environmentally friendly... Sure it's now less polluting, but I can't use the vehicle as I intended!

They should have asked first!!!!!!!

[Nancy OShea]

I bought into DW as a one-stop solution.

That's where we differ.  I don't view DW or any single tool as a "one-stop solution."  It isn't possible for me to do everything I need with only one tool.  The web is just way too complex now.  

Nancy O.

[worker69]

It may be for you, all I want is what I have paid for and the Adobe BS about design view is exactly that.... watch this space Adobe will be forced to fix this definite programming mistake once they get over trying to make excuses.

[Nancy OShea]

Guys,

I understand your frustration.  But any updates or upgrades you make are totally optional.  I never  update my software or operating systems until I'm certain it won't disrupt my workflow.  I usually hold off for quite a while before making any changes to my main work box.  I can't afford the down time.  That's my position. That's not an official Adobe response since I don't work for Adobe.

In the meantime, there's nothing preventing you from dropping back to an older version of DW until the engineers figure this out.  But don't put too much hope into the future of Design View.  It's an old gray mare that needs to be retired from service.

Nancy O.

[Herbert2001]

I concur with Nancy here. DW's Design view is a dinosaur that should have gone extinct years ago.

Although I understand change is HARD - especially in this transitional time.

Remember when Apple made the switch from PowerPC to Intel? The first MacOSx versions were dreadfully buggy, and unsuitable for real production work. Dreamweaver must move forward, because the current design view is holding it back in so many ways.

Ideally you want the live view to work similar to Pinegrow, where everything can be done both visually and through code, and the engine behind the visual rendering is based on webkit and/or Gecko (mozilla FF).

I think that is where the dev team is trying to go with this. My question would be if a complete rewrite of DW would not be a better idea in that case, but we will see where this development will lead to. Dreamweaver used to be one of the standards for web coding, and it lost that status quite some time ago (in my opinion).

Let's see if it can regain some of its former splendour - just be patient. Change IS hard, but in the end inevitable.

[Nancy OShea]

Thanks Herbert.  I couldn't have said it any better .

Do you use Pinegrow?

Nancy O.

[worker69]

Nancy, whilst I believe you are an Adobe apologist, I do thank you for helping our college for coming to a decision which is to drop including Dreamweaver, in any of our coursess  starting with the 2015 sylabus.

A once great web tool, according to a number of students, has become slow and unweildy since upgrade to 2014.1. 

[Nancy OShea]

I am not an Adobe apologist.  If you've followed me for any length of time, you know that I call things as I see them.  In fact, I'm still using DW CS6 (12.2 #6006) on my work box because it performs well and does everything I need without all the hassles.

Nancy O.

[worker69]

Sorry Nancy if you took offence to being called an apologist. I also have to call thing as I see them.

At least you admit that CC and above is far from hassle free! That is exactly why we are ditching it. The last update is the proverbial straw.

Bye

V

[Tropical Soul]

Herbert,

I dont have a problem with change but I fail to see where Design view is a dinosaur as it is the basis for Dreamweaver as a WHISWIG editor and it works just fine. Does any one here have real issues with design view?

Design view should not be removed until the replacement is workable. Here is a good idea, if current trends are making the existing incarnation of design view unworkable from an engineering point of view then put in some time to make it workable - that is called development I think. If there is a workable replacement in the wings then why wont Adobe come out and explain themselves a little better and therefore possibly settling some folks down instead of ignoring users as they do.

Like most here I too received an email from Subhadeep requesting that I join the "conference call" and to be honest I don't feel that I should need to as the forum and in particular this thread should give them a great start point of their customers gripes so I wrote a fairly long letter pointing out what to me is relevant and almost a week later not even an acknowledgement of them having received it - what does this imply.

So don't hold your breath in the hope that this design view thing will be reversed it  is already decided.

On another point I see where some folks here advocate or suggest a reversion back to earlier versions and while I have been forced into this my self (CS6) because the work flow is just too slow  with current versions ( CC thru 2014.1) it makes me angry to be paying for a subscription so I can use 2 year old software - does this make sense? 

Fortunately the other two Adobe programs I use Illustrator and Photoshop have actually not lost any features that I can see, they have had heaps of great improvements made, the speed increased and made generally better all round  so why is Dreamweaver going backwards,by removing and depreciating features that users still use and making the whole thing so slow that it is unusable in a good workflow sense.

[Nancy OShea]

I fail to see where Design view is a dinosaur as it is the basis for Dreamweaver as a WHISWIG editor 

DW is not a WYSIWYG editor.  Never has been; not even in Macromedia's days.

Does any one here have real issues with design view?

I sure do.  That's why I so rarely use it.  It can't support REM font sizes, box-sizing is ignored. Don't even attempt to use Viewport units or any other advanced CSS properties.  Heck, it still can't fully handle some CSS level 2 properties.  I can show you examples of really basic web pages that don't display correctly in Design View.  For me, it's not workable and hasn't been for quite a while.

Nancy O.

[Tropical Soul]

Nancy,

I respect your opinion and thank you for it but if Dreamwaever  is not a WYSIWIG editer then what is it - back in the Macromedia days, around the time of MX it was touted as exactly that - that is why I bought it in the first place and for a non coding person as I was it worked a treat. It was nice and fast too right tup to CS6. It just might be that your interpretation of a WYSIWIG is a little different to mine and I do understand that it is not an exact rendition of the web page that is why we test in browsers which even with live view around you still do  - right.

These things you say DW does not do may be so AND that is my point, and thank you for making it, that the engineers could be moving it along with the times and making it do these things and more that you point out - you can say that live view is a step in that direction and maybe in time it will be BUT why take out design view before they get Live view right????

[Nancy OShea]

if Dreamwaever  is not a WYSIWIG editer then what is it?

It's a code editor and site management tool.  It hasn't been touted as WYSIWYG for many years because it isn't.  At best, DView is a bad approximation of what you can expect to see in older IE browsers.  LView is slightly better at rending because it uses a Chrome emulator.  Perfect?  By no means.  But still better than DView.  I keep my browsers open all the time and refresh regularly to check my progress.  I mainly work in Code View.

Tropical Soul wrote:

you can say that live view is a step in that direction and maybe in time it will be BUT why take out design view before they get Live view right????

<shaking head> I have no idea. This isn't the only faux pas DW made to this release. They did other things that crippled some vital 3rd party extensions, too.  What were they thinking?! </shaking head>

Nancy O.

[GA_]

Defensive and unnecessary comment. Semantics! Stick to the topic. If you're not here to talk about Design View Responsive Layout, please don't muddy the waters for those of us that are trying to get Adobe to take this seriously.

[Nancy OShea]

GA_ wrote:

Defensive and unnecessary comment. Semantics! Stick to the topic. If you're not here to talk about Design View Responsive Layout, please don't muddy the waters for those of us that are trying to get Adobe to take this seriously.

I am neither defensive or unnecessary.  You are not the forum police. I will not censor myself to suit your wishes.  Everyone's point of view is valuable here.  Even yours . 

Like it or not, Design View in it's current state can't last.  In the short term, I agree that Design View needs to be brought back to all layouts.  In fact, I voted for it in the Ideas section.   However in the long term, Design View must be replaced with something better. DW simply cannot stay competitive by dragging a dead horse. 

Nancy O.

[bradm44645584]

So you do support a design view like interface for DW? Or do you think what we have now is enough?

[Nancy OShea]

madwebllc wrote:

So you do support a design view like interface for DW? Or do you think what we have now is enough?

@madwebllc,

I did not mean to ignore your question.

I do support a working Design View (or whatever you care to call it) that promotes quick editing AND accurate screen rendering.  The current Design View is not reliable at rendering. It needs to be replaced.  Neither is Live View adequate for editing, it's too slow & clumsy. 

Nancy O.