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!!!

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

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 -

The DW Product Manager is obviously a large part of the problem. The fact that he does not interact with customers, and people like you, on this forum, is telling. The fact that he is in charge of Brackets is a little frightening, as Brackets is not even close to tools like Visual Studio and Aptana. The video, as hard as it was to follow, finally casts some light on why Dreamweaver is floundering, and it's a real shame.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

The DW Product Manager is obviously a large part of the problem. The fact that he does not interact with customers, and people like you, on this forum, is telling.

I am as much to blame as him, i will not take part in CAB or pre-release anymore, as both are in my opinion a complete and utter waste of time. Why should he and his team think that my time is less valuable than their time, and ignore anything and everything that i posted in those forums and think that is o/k. All both groups are any good for is logging bugs, and even that i have doubts about as one CAB member admitted recently that he knows nothing about code or web development, (how does one log bugs, if you do not know how it should work).

I am available for discussions through this forum, or via PM's and emails, but as i and others are ignored by them, obviously don't know anything about web development, and i in particular am obviously only a trouble maker, those possibilities are not going to happen either.

Still, is it worth someone worrying about, probably not.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Why should he and his team think that my time is less valuable than their time, and ignore anything and everything that i posted in those forums

Because you're just a minion

[B i r n o u]

yeah but she's at least, Kevin... well Kevina

[pziecina]

I like the missunderstood part of the name, very true

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

If you watch -

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

30mins in and all I saw was some 'charlie' faffing around with some 3rd party Bootstrap snippets and using jquery 1.11.3..........??????????? .............yawn.

[Nancy OShea]

osgood_  wrote

30mins in and all I saw was some 'charlie' faffing around with some 3rd party Bootstrap snippets and using jquery 1.11.3..........??????????? .............yawn.

If you listened closely, approx 80% of the room was using Bootstrap in their workflow.  The remaining 20% used Foundation or something else.  

[pziecina]

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

If you listened closely, approx 80% of the room was using Bootstrap in their workflow.  The remaining 20% used Foundation or something else.  

That's just it Nancy, we are all caught up in what Dw has to offer, not what it should be able to do if that 'offering' is not what one wishes to use. Once a feature such as bootstrap is the only known possibility for the creation of rwd sites in Dw, then that is the one users will have to use, as they have no other choice.

We have all contributed in some way to what Dw has become, and even though we all want the same result in that Dw should be a forward looking program, none of the feedback unless it is what the Dw team wants to hear is even being thought about.

Lets just suppose that Dw offered 3 alternative methods for creating rwd sites -

1. Bootstrap, with all the features available to users that it currently has, (plus v4 incorporated as a choice).
2. A custom solution, say one that uses flexbox, with all additional components available via a menu selection just as bootstrap is.
3. A 'future' solution, such as one based on css grid layouts, but all components based entirerly on html and css.

Offering the above is not difficult, but would require more than 'plug and play' incorporation into Dw. It would however require a visual layout method for some of the properties, as i am the first to admit spec code is for coders not designers who wish to code. It also requires templates, (which is easy) and those templates must be well documented.

The big question is though, which would be the most popular in say 3 years time?

Note: flexbox is now in the request for implementation stage of w3c approval, the next stage is making it into a recommendation, and css grids is not far behind, (at the moment).

ps - i already know what you are going to say Al

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

Nancy OShea

ps - i already know what you are going to say Al

You only think you do

When Spry was introduced. I was a vocal critic. What the public never knew was I'd had numerous discussions with the people responsible for Spry. Originally, Macromedia wanted us to develop extensions for Dreamweaver - extensions that would be delivered with the product. Only problem was they refused to pay us, stating that the resultant notoriety would be the payment. So they slogged on with Spry. Even then, I told Macromedia that if Spry was at least fixed, if the code was made right, we would redirect our efforts into extending Spry. Obviously, the penchant for the last Macromedia Dreamweaver product team to blunder, must have been something Adobe chose to carry on.

Extensions are the answer. Most Dreamweaver features are, I essence, extensions. So whether Adobe makes them, or commissions them, or we make them -- the bottom line involves extending Dreamweaver.

Making visual layout tools, like our Harmony and Layout Builder Magic, tools that are far more valuable than Dreamweaver itself, is the direction. Dreamweaver should have a Flex and a Grid module, allowing users to lay out pages. Those modules can then be extended for the beginners, to include styling add-ons, themes, and other goodies.

Adobe's fatal flaw involves either shortsightedness, stupidity, or incompetence in throwing in with canned frameworks. In the final analysis, Dreamweaver is being managed by unimaginative people unwilling to invest in the effort to make a quality tool. Thank god Adobe doesn't make cars or other things that could actually, physically cause damage

[pziecina]

O/K, i was wrong, but i had the last sentence in my thoughts correct

[Nancy OShea]

I like extensions.  One of the things I liked about Brackets was the ability to quickly turn an extension module on or off as needed.  I had high hopes for that same level of support in Dreamweaver CC.   Nothing yet.

[pziecina]

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

I like extensions.  One of the things I liked about Brackets was the ability to quickly turn an extension module on or off as needed.  I had high hopes for that same level of support in Dreamweaver CC.   Nothing yet.

It was promised that Brackets extensions would be installable in Dw at some point in the future.

I did try to convert the autoprefixer extension so that it would work in Dw, and even though i can get it to work purely on save, all the other features like which browser versions to target, and prefix only selected css, i could not get to function correctly.

The reason for that is that Dw's code view, no longer 'plugs-in' to the main menu selections as previously, and without proper up to date documentation, i cannot see how such simple, (or should be) extensions can reliably be created.

Then of course there is the problem of distributing, (and installing) such extensions.

[osgood_]

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

osgood_   wrote

30mins in and all I saw was some 'charlie' faffing around with some 3rd party Bootstrap snippets and using jquery 1.11.3..........??????????? .............yawn.

If you listened closely, approx 80% of the room was using Bootstrap in their workflow.  The remaining 20% used Foundation or something else.  

Well presumably those present have some kind of 'leaning' towards DW or otherwise why would they be there. If DW insists on shoving BS down its users throats what are the expectations - zombie developers, with little skill other than point and click, extension and framework junkies.

Did the latest update include Bootstrap 4 or are users still being deceived into using an outdated responsive solution......nope they had to settle for a 'new welcome screen'.....gulp?

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

Nancy OShea

Well presumably those present have some kind of 'leaning' towards DW or otherwise why would they be there. If DW insists on shoving BS down its users throats what are the expectations - zombie developers, with little skill other than point and click, extension and framework junkies.

Um, most of Dreamweaver is built on the extensibility layer. Most web authoring applications are extensible. I think your problem with extensions is a personal issue of sorts. But I digress. Dreamweaver was created as a visual web design program where people pointed, clicked, and dragged to create web pages. And extensions added timely behaviors to fill in the gaps. And as I'm sure you recall, when Macromedia promoted extension developers, most of us had substantial portfolios of free extensions to go with the commercial ones.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

I think your problem with extensions is a personal issue of sorts.

Of course it is, I'm a coder.......so naturally I think extensions for those that may want to consider becoming a serious developer are a poor choice - for those that don't it doesn't matter.

My problem is I don't know who falls into which bracket in this forum. I'm quite happy for those who don't wish to learn code and be some what confined to only being able to produce what an extension allows, to use an extension. No problem.

If someone comes on here and says 'hey I'm a bricklayer, I want a menu system for the site I'm building for my company and I dont what to faff around with all this boring code stuff', more than happy to point them to your site, but they hardly ever do that.

[ALsp]

osgood_

If someone comes on here and says 'hey I'm a bricklayer, I want a menu system for the site I'm building for my company and I dont what to faff around with all this boring code stuff', more than happy to point them to your site, but they hardly ever do that.

I think you are injecting something perhaps a bit more personal into the issue. An efficient web designer might not want to take the time to code a menu every time he designs a site for a new client. Either he is going to create snippets of code and then tweak them manually, often laboriously, or he might opt to use our menu systems, because the quality is known, and it speeds up the site-building process. I'll repeat myself again, but I know you are generalizing about extensions, or perhaps recalling something from 10 years ago. A coder can have a field day with our tools. We just do the busy work and allow them to get straight into the customization with some very powerful CSS hooks in the UI. It would be apparent to any coder who actually spent some time with one of our newer tools, just how valuable they can be to an , um, coder

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

I think you are injecting something perhaps a bit more personal into the issue.

Nothing personal at all, just an opinion really. I'm not against extensions at all but I can't recommend them based on what I know. If that's personal then ok, it's personal but I've been their and done it and if someone wants to progress and liberate themsleves then they need to learn to code. I don't know what can be wrong about thinking of something and being able to build it.

ALsp  wrote

Either he is going to create snippets of code and then tweak them manually

Do it myself all the time but I know exactly what the code does, it has my own naming convention, styling, workflow etc. I can tweak it to do this or that or extend it. Not sure most users of your extensions have a clue what's going on under the bonnet to be able to do something if its not quite to their liking. Not much time saving really if you have your own snippets of code.

ALsp  wrote

A coder can have a field day with our tools. We just do the busy work and allow them to get straight into the customization with some very powerful CSS hooks in the UI. It would be apparent to any coder who actually spent some time with one of our newer tools, just how valuable they can be to an , um, coder

I'm sure they could but some 'developers' have very specific requirements, or maybe even simple requirements that an extension just can't do or doesn't have an option to do.

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

ALsp   wrote

I think you are injecting something perhaps a bit more personal into the issue.

Nothing personal at all, just an opinion really. I'm not against extensions at all but I can't recommend them based on what I know. If that's personal then ok, it's personal but I've been their and done it and if someone wants to progress and liberate themsleves then they need to learn to code. I don't know what can be wrong about thinking of something and being able to build it.

ALsp   wrote

Either he is going to create snippets of code and then tweak them manually

Do it myself all the time but I know exactly what the code does, it has my own naming convention, styling, workflow etc. I can tweak it to do this or that or extend it. Not sure most users of your extensions have a clue what's going on under the bonnet to be able to do something if its not quite to their liking. Not much time saving really if you have your own snippets of code.

ALsp   wrote

A coder can have a field day with our tools. We just do the busy work and allow them to get straight into the customization with some very powerful CSS hooks in the UI. It would be apparent to any coder who actually spent some time with one of our newer tools, just how valuable they can be to an , um, coder

I'm sure they could but some 'developers' have very specific requirements, or maybe even simple requirements that an extension just can't do or doesn't have an option to do.

Just as I thought. I think perhaps you looked at one or more extensions many years ago and are using them to judge all extensions - even today. That said, in our experience, there are precious few developers with the knowledge to actually write or even tweak a widget. For instance, if most people need a light box-type widget, they download or buy a free script. No way do they write their own 🙂 So, how many people posting on this forum actually write a script? So, then, by coding, do you mean copying a free script and pasting it into your page markup? And then reading a doc file only to change script variables and perhaps data attributes on a tag? Is that what you mean by coding?

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

Just as I thought. I think perhaps you looked at one or more extensions many years ago and are using them to judge all extensions - even today. That said, in our experience, there are precious few developers with the knowledge to actually write or even tweak a widget. For instance, if most people need a light box-type widget, they download or buy a free script. No way do they write their own 🙂 So, how many people posting on this forum actually write a script? So, then, by coding, do you mean copying a free script and pasting it into your page markup? And then reading a doc file only to change script variables and perhaps data attributes on a tag? Is that what you mean by coding?

No, I mean a coder, if you code or produce coding should have some idea of how the bloody code they are using works, not just change  a few variables or add some data-attributes to a tag.

You say 'if most people need a light box-type widget', not 'most developers' - and there perhaps is the distinction people who produce websites for a hobby or as a one off and developers who produce websites for a living.

Sure I've used scripts for lightboxes BUT I'm intrigued enough to want to know how it works so if I want to make some subtle changes, whatever that may be, or if its outside the scope of the extension/script, I can. Even re-write it so I can better understand it. Some scripts are so bloated to do the simplest of things, its unbelieable, if you dont know code you don't know if what you are using is any good or not, that to a non-coder of course doesn't matter.

I'm a great admirer of craftsmen, those who can open up an editor and start writing without having to stop, start, stop, start, refer to this website or that, a book, a doc etc. That's not coding or developing, that's doing something by trial and error. I've helped absolutely numerous people in this forum who if had a little knowledge of coding wouldn't need my help. I can't think that being in charge of a runaway train is much fun really so that's why I would like them to spend a bit of time learning, that's of course if they produce enough websites where the time it takes to learn is beneficial. Theres no point in investing time if youre a 'here today gone tomorrow operator'. That's when extensions might be suitable, in my opinion.

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

ALsp   wrote

I think your problem with extensions is a personal issue of sorts.

Of course it is, I'm a coder.......so naturally I think extensions for those that may want to consider becoming a serious developer are a poor choice - for those that don't it doesn't matter.

My problem is I don't know who falls into which bracket in this forum. I'm quite happy for those who don't wish to learn code and be some what confined to only being able to produce what an extension allows, to use an extension. No problem.

If someone comes on here and says 'hey I'm a bricklayer, I want a menu system for the site I'm building for my company and I dont what to faff around with all this boring code stuff', more than happy to point them to your site, but they hardly ever do that.

Again, I believe you are making assumptions without actually having used any of our modern extensions. You, as a coder, can use an extension to insert bulletproof, consistent mark to, say, create a flex or floated layout. You can then create one or more exception CSS files to make that code do whatever you want. The extension simply ensures that you can create that page in seconds, rather than minutes or, more likely, hours.

As for the extensions that deal with script, you can easily customize that script if you understand how to write modern, object-oriented script yourself, rather than following tutorials on jQuery.

I think this is why Fortune 500 companies, as well as many governments around the world, use our tools 🙂

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

As for the extensions that deal with script, you can easily customize that script if you understand how to write modern, object-oriented script yourself, rather than following tutorials on jQuery.

We'll youre just echoing what I'm saying - if you know code you can customize it - whatever - modern-oriented, jquery, php whatever you believe is right for you or just write the script yourself in the language of your choice not the extension developers.

I think this is why Fortune 500 companies, as well as many governments around the world, use our tools 🙂

Those kinds of companies, especially Government centric ones tend to employ poor developers on high wages that mostly dont know how to write anything without using an extension.

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

ALsp   wrote

As for the extensions that deal with script, you can easily customize that script if you understand how to write modern, object-oriented script yourself, rather than following tutorials on jQuery.

We'll youre just echoing what I'm saying - if you know code you can customize it - whatever - modern-oriented, jquery, php whatever you believe is right for you or just write the script yourself in the language of your choice not the extension developers.

I think this is why Fortune 500 companies, as well as many governments around the world, use our tools 🙂

Those kinds of companies, especially Government centric ones tend to employ poor developers on high wages that mostly dont know how to write anything without using an extension.

This topic will likely be locked before logic prevails, but I can try...

jQuery is like Bootstrap's script persona. It is intended as a one stop shop for people with a partial understanding of JavaScript. There are very few "coders" around today who can actually write a complete, purposed script. So, no matter what you say, at least in terms of JavaScript, you are very heavily dependent on other people's code and techniques 🙂

And your comments regarding governments? I'm not sure I'm following, unless it is that because some of them might be doing something you do not agree with, they are open for ridicule.

This forum could be so great. It really could. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, Osgood. It's not because you disagree with me. I can handle that. It's the way you do. But I guess it's a reflection of modern society.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

osgood_   wrote

Those kinds of companies, especially Government centric ones tend to employ poor developers on high wages that mostly dont know how to write anything without using an extension.

This topic will likely be locked before logic prevails, but I can try...

First as someone who works for many governments, (on both sides of the Atlantic, and in many different countries) i can honestly say i am not on high wages.

I am on a salary.

As for being a poor developer !!!

As for fortune 500 companies and governments using extensions, i have yet to know of any that do, but maybe out-sourced front facing sites may do so, those i do not get involved with or have any say in what they do.

As for locking this discussion, only if it gets personal.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wroteALsp

As for locking this discussion, only if it gets personal.

Yeah, well, that's another thing. If you have the authority to lock a discussion, then you should have the authority to guide this forum in a more productive way toward the interests of the typical Dreamweaver user. It's all extremely fascinating to me. But pleas do not take it personally.