1 Correct answer
Like I promised, I checked with the senior management about the future of Dreamweaver, and their answer was that they see no reason to stop developing the product. Dreamweaver will continue to exist, period.
I understand that no amount of reassurance will suffice, but I do want to put other Dreamweaver users visiting this post at ease.
I am marking my answer as correct only because I want this question to be addressed upfront for visitors that will not care to read the rest of the discussion. If
...
55
Replies
As I've partially said previously,
pziecina wrote
tiff_meek wrote
Adobe doesn't need to understand web developers, it needs to understand how to build a fully capable website using a WYSIWYG interface.
Congratulations tiff_meek, you have won the "have not got a clue, what you are talking about" prize of the week, (and it is only Monday).
I've worked on HUNDREDS of websites with many many developers over a career of 30 years, so whether you think so or not I'm in a position to talk. Not to mention that I'm on an Adobe forum, talking about the need for an Adobe application. So I think, all round, I'm in a position to have a view. Some web developers have resisted Muse because it threatens their industry. I don't blame them. If I was a web developer I'd try to come up with every reason under the sun NOT to argue against Muse too! Cheers Tiff 
20 years ago, no 10 years ago, everyone and their dog though they could build a web site,
hmmm... you overestimate the past ... 20 years ago ... everyone did not necessarily know that the web existed ... we were then in 1997 ... and the HTML celebrated just its second candles ...
pziecina wrote
tiff_meek wrote
I've worked on HUNDREDS of websites with many many developers over a career of 30 years, so whether you think so or not I'm in a position to talk. Not to mention that I'm on an Adobe forum, talking about the need for an Adobe application. So I think, all round, I'm in a position to have a view. Some web developers have resisted Muse because it threatens their industry. I don't blame them. If I was a web developer I'd try to come up with every reason under the sun NOT to argue against Muse too! Cheers Tiff
You can have a view, but just because someone has worked on hundreds of web sites, it does not meen they can build web sites to modern requirerments or know what they are talking about.
20 years ago, no 10 years ago, everyone and their dog though they could build a web site, (and lots of them looked and felt like the dog had). The web is still evolving, it now has legal requirements that a site must satisfy (that Muse ignored), it is not static as dtp is. Muse and programs like it do fill a requirerment, but such programs have discontinuation built into them, because they cannot keep up with the evolutionary processes of the web.
Saying that there is or should be no requirerment to code, illustrates that you think that the web has reached its final stage, and nothing new will ever be required.
I never claimed to be able to develop at todays level (otherwise I'd be a web developer instead of a web designer), but I know how the industry works, and I've watched plenty of developers at work. You don't have to be a baker to smell the loaf burning.
I'm simply defending Adobe Muse as a legitimate innovation in the digital world that had a place, has a place and will continue to hold a place, whether anybody likes it or not. WYSIWYG applications like Muse may be yet to take into account the latest developments in web capabilities, but they WILL at some point in the future. These applications have yet to be innovated, but they are coming (ie. Muse).
I didn't even remotely suggest there's no requirement to code or that the web has reached its final stage. The opposite in fact. I'm saying that we shouldn't need developers for the vast majority of web site builds. Muse agrees with me. Wordpress agrees with me. Shopify agrees with me. Wix agrees with me. Countless organisations who are coming up with solutions agree with me.
Muse was a new innovation and it had a long way to go, and now Adobe is giving up mid stream, but nothing changes that it is the way of the future. Many people get 'stuck' thinking about what IS and what HAS BEEN and cannot envisage what WILL BE. Muse is a taste of what WILL BE, and whether Adobe continues their work on it or not, another product will fill its place and continue on with the job of providing what will become the future's 'norm' for web development all but at the highest level. That's my view. Night night all. Cheers Tiff
W_J_T wrote
tiff_meek wrote
I've been in the game for 30 years so I'm in a position to speak freely on the topic. I used to develop websites (using coding)
tiff_meek wrote
I've worked on HUNDREDS of websites with many many developers over a career of 30 years
30 years ... So you started here huh ? Lets time travel shall we.
A History Of The Internet: 1988
And now 30 years later you are on an Adobe forum to advocate the following...
tiff_meek wrote
support the idea of a WYSIWYG web development tool for designers
tiff_meek wrote
WYSIWYG technologies for website development and/or design are the way of the future. Website design/development should be in the hands of designers, not developers.
What an interesting journey the web and you have taken.
WYSIWYG is the evolution and destination of the web huh, thanks for the edification. Its good to know designers will take it from here what developers have built. Maybe developers on all levels should have a walkout for a few months across the entire world (#vacationsfordevelopers) and see how this idea of "development should be in the hands of designers" works out. I am sure infrastructure will be the first to improve, no doubt databases will run smoother also. What an eloquent solution you have come up with, "just let the designers to it".
Carry on designers take the torch.
Oh please. I'm here to talk about the web development industry in relation to Adobe Muse vs web developers/coders per se. Please try not to get all 'personal'. This is a debate not an argument. If you don't like my opinion don't read it. Simple as that. I'm not forcing myself upon you and if my view is getting you all in a huff then why not go and do something more pleasant perhaps? It is of course impossible to create the tools to serve the designers without developers and programmers who make them in the first place. That's a no brainer. High end developers and programmers are an amazing bunch with an amazing skillset. That's a no brainer. My point is... well I think I've made my point several times over. Ultimately, very few developers are going to appreciate my view or wish to see the future in this regard. That's fine. I never expected to be greeted with open arms on the topic. Cheers Tiff
pziecina wrote
tiff_meek wrote
Oh please. I'm here to talk about the web development industry in relation to Adobe Muse vs web developers/coders per se.
O/K, lets talk about WYSIWYG and visual web site creation. Lets not talk about Muse vs code.
The problem with code editors is that even for developers they never match what one requires, and any help they give is more often than not simply a memory jerk, in that they will only suggest the code to use if you have some idea of what the code is in the first place, (code hints). The other problem with them is, is that they are often years behind in code hints anyway.
Now to WYSIWYG and pure visual site creators. The problem with them is that they take a snap-shot of what the web can do at the time they are written, also that they try to hide from the user requirerments such as WCAG Level 2, (they simply ignore them). They also due to the users they try to support, generalise everything. In that they allow the user to do simple things but never allow the user to go beyond the basic requirerments. As for semantic mark-up forget it.
Programs like Dreamweaver did in the past try to support a visual workflow to some extent, but due to the abuse of those features by those using them, and advances in things like mobile device browsers, social media, etc... the methods used became 'unfit for purpose'.
So what is required?
instead of the code vs no-code stance, maybe like everything else in this modern era there should be a middle ground. Instead of saying it should work like a dtp program, (none coder) or a code editor (developer) it would be better to first admit that the web is not the same as dtp, and that development can be overly complexed if just using a code editor.
Somewhere between the two extreme views there could be a middle ground, and that middle ground requires a new understanding. Trying to understand something based on the past, or on specifications alone, will no longer work.
It is like saying that a piston engine works the same as a jet engine, and can be understood using the same words, (which they can, if you boil it down to they both work on the principle of - suck, squeeze, bang, blow).
So as you started this phase of the discussion, any suggestions?
It's a tough one isn't it? I appreciate the predicament. It's incredibly difficult to meld the creative space and the technical space. Back in the days of yore it was easy. A paintbrush and wall - and a creative could go nuts. Technically we needed to provide a creative with paints of varying colours, and erect a wall. That was about it. Easy peasy. These days it's not so organic and the line between a technical and a creative is not so easy to define.
The internet is a very cool mixture of many mediums that need to be tied together to form a product for the consumer. Behind the scenes this is where the code comes in. It's the fibre of the wood that makes the brush that holds the paint that fills the canvas. The problem we face is that the fibre (code) in the wood is affecting the capacity of the painter (web designer) to paint freely - to express, to innovate and to provide joy and experience to the viewer. This might all seem like waffle but it's fundamental to the expression of humanity, and that is the ultimate purpose of the internet.
It's like having a human brain that can process, sort and organise information, but has no imagination. This does not devalue the side of the brain that processes, sorts and organises, but speaks to the necessity of the human mind to be expansive in order to reach its true potential in EVERY way.
I have no idea how we get there, that is for the technical geniuses. I just know that get there we must. Cheers Tiff
pziecina wrote
Thank you, at least you show you appreciate the problems.
With the web and creation of web sites in particular, the first problem that must be solved is one of terminology, as I think everyone will agree that html and css are not easy to understand but must be understood.
Lets take layouts by way of example -
html5 has a semantic mark-up structure for the layout, in which every individual part of that layout has a specific meaning. The trouble is that it is structured and not very intuitive unless one learns that structure. I think we both can agree that designer or developer, we both sketch a page to a rough idea of how we want it to look.
In dtp the structure uses simple terms and the flow would be something like, heading, sub-heading, body text, image, additional body text, footnote, erata.
But in html5 one must not only decide if that translates to an element order of -
h1, h3, p, img, p, ul/li, p. But also decide what the flow and the relationship to each other those elements have.
So we could end up with an html structure of -
main, section, article, h1, h3, p, article, h3, img, footer, p, ul/li, aside, p.
Getting from a dtp structure to an html structure alone, and one that is understood by both groups is necessary just to define the layout, and not how the layout will flow on the actual web page, (thats for css).
To get the dtp structure to an html structure, the first thing we require is some form of graphical interface in which the user defines what is to be included, the relationship each individual part has to each other, how each part should flow, and the hierarchy of each individual part, (you can have multiple h1's on a page if the html semantics used allow).
Getting Dw let alone Adobe to think about such an idea though, i gave up on years ago.
I think the advent of the 'way' that sites are coded is part of the problem. The 'flow' is a constraint. Perhaps there needs to be a rethink. Perhaps instead of working from a top to bottom, left to right 'flow' hierarchy we need to have options to radiate out from a fixed point that could be of our own choosing. Perhaps we need to be able to define the relationship between elements ie. this point on this container is this far from that point on that container, so that a page can be constructed in what to a viewer might seem a random way, but still remains mathematically structured from the software's point of view. In many ways this is already possible of course, but I'm talking about a more over-arching re-think of the 'typical' way that sites are structured. Perhaps ultimately it means that the code becomes really complex, and that tools need to be developed to assist coders (imagine that!). Ultimately if we code according to the common denominator (the average IQ of a coder) we will constrain ourselves, whereas if we use the power of the computer to write code that contains further complexity we have the capacity to advance ourselves, innovate and create in ways that are only constrained by the power of the designers imagination. Cheers
pziecina wrote
The css property for what you are suggesting are part of both css flexbox layouts and css grid layouts, (the order property).
It allow a user to keep a semantically correct layout, but change the order in which the browser displays them, and can be applied to any and all element(s) and display them in any order.
And therein lies yet another problem. There may be solutions available, but many coders learned their craft a long time ago and fail to keep up to date. They cannot advise the designers of what if possible, or implement much of what is possible. This is where WYSIWYG software comes in. In this way we actually have the capacity to implement what is possible in the most recent and up-to-date way for the most people. I know that this won't please high end developers who are working on the cutting edge. But for the 'average joe' this is an effective solution. Cheers Tiff
https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u wrote
don't you have any rought, or mockup of what you would like to experiment... visually... structuraly.... ? do you have any URLs of people exploring concept or new way of concieving web design ?
where are you located ?
Here in france we have some place allowing people from different profiles to join and discuss around projects, ideas... so designers explain what they have in mind... developpers demonstrate what could be possible here and there... using thechnologies... those groups had born with Macromedia... it was called MMUG.... MacroMedian Users Groups... and most of them still exists... either virtually...
I'm in Australia. I'm sure there are many online spaces that I could visit. I think that's a great suggestion. Thank you.
AdChoices