Muse users thinking about using Dreamweaver.

[pziecina]

Dreamweaver is seen by many Muse users as to difficult to use, that may not really be a realistic view.

With the use of Dreamweaver extensions, it is often possible to build a fully responsive site using the latest html and css, (and javascript or server-side/database) without having to 'dive into the code'.

If you are interested and want to know more, information on Project Seven and the high quality extensions they offer can be found at -

http://projectseven.com

DMXZone also offer extensions for Dreamweaver, and the server-side/database extensions are considered the best, so will also be of interest to many -

https://www.dmxzone.com

[pziecina]

drewbiker  wrote

Rubbish. Taditional coding doesn’t have to be the only way to create websites. Programs continue to evolve. We are just not there ”yet”. If your statement were true, we would never have evolved beyond inputting 1’s and 0’s. The goal is to simplify the tools to build great sites. Great sites is the goal.

It will be years before a program can build web sites equal in functionality and features to that of a good web developer.

One can use Microsoft Word to create print designs equal to the many print flyers or book layout created in inDesign. It is when one has to go beyond 'average' or 'run of the mill' that inDesign comes into its own, and it is the same with drag and drop, or click to insert web site creation compared to one created by a good coder.

The web is like a new born baby compared to print, and there is a lot more being added to what it is capable of every year. Web GL, Web VR, Web Components are among the new features that coders are now using, even if there practical use is limited to use by only large organisations with the required large budget at the moment.

[B i r n o u]

I completly understand what you mean, but I think that the metaphor with word is not really appropriate...  Word doesn't handle layout design for pure designer...

what people talk about is having a design tool to produce design layout content...

so if one stay on Microsoft software, perhaps that comparing Publisher to what can't be done in real Postcript Printing will be a best one...

[pziecina]

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

I completly understand what you mean, but I think that the metaphor with word is not really appropriate...  Word doesn't handle layout design for pure designer...

No, but it does handle layout for none designers, which is my point. Designers saying that Dw or any other program should create websites without the need to know code, can also be applied to any design program, (should allow the user to design without knowing how).

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

so if one stay on Microsoft software, perhaps that comparing Publisher to what can't be done in real Postcript Printing will be a best one...

Does any print process still use postscript ?

[B i r n o u]

word doesn't ahve any layout tool to dispose content... publisher does...

the metaphor with postcript was to compare a tool and a labguage... during years people was using Page maker, then Quark to design their work... without knowing a single fragment of the language used underwear... that was Postcript...

[pziecina]

Word does have page layout features, even though most people do not use them or know they even exist. Having text flow in columns, pull-quotes, insert images and have text flow around a shape in the image, (css shapes). Move from full width content to multi-column, rotate images, etc are all possible.

The problem with Word is that 95% of the features are not used by 95% of its users. If you like it is similar to css or html5, in that 95% of the specs are not used by 95% of sites.

[osgood_]

I don't know why people continue to compare web-design applications with dtp applications............my mind boggles. There aint and isnt going to be a web application ever that can replace coding, period.

Why, because there are so many issues that you run into when constrcuting for the web which no web application can address fully. Sure if you want to keep compromising your design and your visions all the time, use some old crap like Bootstrap or Wix.

Im seriously concerned about this forum as it mostly now comes over as no-one has ever really built a website beyond using a framework, template or extension, no wonder they are so very blinkered.

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

Im seriously concerned about this forum as it mostly now comes over as no-one has ever really built a website beyond using a framework, template or extension, no wonder they are so very blinkered.

100% agree. The reason I mentioned word, is because many think that a web page is like a printed page, and that is why none coders think they can use dtp features to build web sites.

The other problem with forums, is that they only rarely represent web development beyond helping beginners, or those who watch videos to learn anymore. I'don't blame anyone for using frameworks like bootstrap, as most articles in this and other forums that should help users to get started, tend to direct users to framework, and users no longer think they need to know anything beyond those frameworks.

[B i r n o u]

sorry if you interpret my words in the sense that suits you but that is not the original meaning ... I never said that Word does not allow to lay out content, I said that Word does not offer visual tools for this layout as proposed by Page Maker, Quark Xpress, or InDesign ... but Publisher offers this kind of tool.

hence my correction between Word and Publisher, because, the idea was to say that pure designers can very well create content visually (by drag & drop) to printed thing, and that's fine ...
in that sense, web authoring tools must be able to offer this kind of tools too ... even if the code used is not of superior quality

Since the notion of web 2.0 has appeared, the web has been able to democratize, and evolve, and that because it came out of the closed system in which it was locked due to the exclusive knowledge of HTML ... do not go back to this exclusive limitation and let us further open up the democratization of tools by making them accessible to all.

having visual tools will contribute even more.

[osgood_]

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

hence my correction between Word and Publisher, because, the idea was to say that pure designers can very well create content visually (by drag & drop) to printed thing, and that's fine ...

in that sense, web authoring tools must be able to offer this kind of tools too ... even if the code used is not of superior quality.

How can a web authoring tool offer anything other than positioning a component it provides you with?

What you are not understanding is there is zero functionality to add in a desktop publishing program.

How can one alter the Bootstrap default menu or accordion if you dont like it by default.............yes thats right you need to be able to code, add some bespoke javascript to suit your requirements. Theres no click button in any web authoring programme on the planet , beyond whats built in, that will provide you with that bespoke styling, and there never will be.

So are you suggesting when this fantastic piece of web authoring junk finally arrives we all just use the same solution and be done with it?

Oh wait a minute thats these frameworks and extensions we talk about isnt it where the majority have no clue how to manipulate any of the components because they cant code.

[B i r n o u]

I admit I do not understand your energy not to try to see, or to glimpse, what could be positive in the establishment of such tools ...
well, there are already some that come to mind ... pinegrow, wappler, webflow or pingendo, to name only those there ...

this does not remove the fact that it is widely recommended that everyone learn the code, but at least these tools have the merit of existing and allow those who do not know the code, or who have difficulty to learn it, to be able to express themselves and make copies that are more than nice.

in an other hand, no one prevents designers from getting closer to coders if necessary to improve their work

[pziecina]

I'm not trying to be obstructive Birnou, just giving an alternative point of view

Dw could go back to using AP Divs for a visual approach to web page layout, using % values and changing the positioning and size of the AP divs when the layout starts to break, (various media-querys).

Being able to do that though, leaves open the question of, "do/did we really require css layout techniques such as floats, grids or flexbox"?

[B i r n o u]

who said that you was obstructive ???? youps... put your glasses off and try to read better carefully... arf arf...

Why are you talking about DW and AP... talk about moder editor... like the ones I listed to OS... pinegrow, wappler, webflow or pingendo,

[pziecina]

It looks like I am replying to your earlier posts, and you are reading it as though I am replying to your latest post.

The programs you list are for framework and only for what I consider as established css, the real test with such programs is what happens in 2-3 years time when the possibilities of the web have moved forward. How will they handle css grid layouts, (not design grids), how will they incorporate web GL, and lets not even mention web VR, web assembly and graphics accessibility.

Do they make it easy for picture/srcset usage, and will any of them still be thought of a 'up to date' in 2020?

Then we come to Wappler, I have no idea of its capabilities as I have no intention of paying for anything I cannot try first.

[B i r n o u]

so to which message you was responding ?... I just ask it because I don't think that I treat you of being obstructive... so I want to learn to better use english language and culture ?

[pziecina]

The reference to being obstructive, was an abstract reference, not an actual reference. Meaning that I did not wish you to think I was being obstructive just because I was presenting a different point of view.

That explanation probably made it even worse to understand , which is why much of what we write in these forums discussions can be taken wrongly, (not dictionary definitions of usage).

[pziecina]

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

Why are you talking about DW and AP... talk about moder editor... like the ones I listed to OS... pinegrow, wappler, webflow or pingendo,

The real question of those programs is -

which do you use, and why?

If you do not use them, then why not?

[B i r n o u]

the real question is what I think... is why not making software for designer... does creating web site and web content today should only be reserved for coders... ?

now having them using grid, flex or what ver other display... is question of help and being involve (as Al) to make third part better fit the w3c...

for getting an answer of which tool do I use ... well as you already know, I'm node oriented... so I use Sublime text....

[pziecina]

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

the real question is what I think... is why not making software for designer... does creating web site and web content today should only be reserved for coders... ?

now having them using grid, flex or what ver other display...

It should not be the reserve of coders, but without knowing the 'what' about what you are doing, then the reason for , and the the reason why a particular layout technique may be better for a particular layout, is not up to the user, but is left up to the program designers or framework they are using.

If a program supports one css layout spec visually, then it should support them all visually. It is also necessary for those who do not want to learn code, to at least understand what css to use, and why to use it. Unfortunatly that is also something many who ask for a visual tool do not wish to do.

[B i r n o u]

so back to web 2.0.. luckly for all of us that at that time all coders that make it happens, didn't ask themselves so much questions... they just open the web and give people access and possibility to fill it up...

[osgood_]

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

I admit I do not understand your energy not to try to see, or to glimpse, what could be positive in the establishment of such tools ...
well, there are already some that come to mind ... pinegrow, wappler, webflow or pingendo, to name only those there ...

Unless you're an amatuer and are prepared to settle for what they offer you still have to write code. right? Those web applications are ALL amatuer focused in my opinion.

If they dont offer the menu or accordion or modal etc etc you really require well what are you going to do, just use what they offer (this seems to be the focus of your mesage, - use a framework, extension, off-the-shelf solution etc) or be professional and build your own, or at least acquire the skill to tweak the default styling they offer?

Not a day goes past where I dont have to deploy something which no web editor could even come close to doing by default, so I dont really know what kind of websites you are knocking out without the necessity at some stage to use some bespoke coding.

[B i r n o u]

they are amateur... so what ?... what the matter ?.... I haven't any statistic under hand... but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the web is made by 'amateurs'....  including social networks content, blogs filling, associative web site, photographs portfolio, student resume, small compagny presentation, and so on... so what's the matter... ?

does a web site to be present on the web must be as YOU like ? or only be made by 'professional' ?

that's a strange perception of democratie... web was supposed to be a free access to everyone to express themselves... well as soon as content structure is made by HTML, design applied by CSS, interaction controlled by JavaScript... having or not a database, being readable from any device is something that most dummy design editor do...

now the question is.... does any designer can user it... YES... without having to code... YES....

if they can't ... wow... there are forum around there... there are third part developper around there...

we should'nt forget that we are a community

[osgood_]

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

they are amateur... so what ?... what the matter ?.... I haven't any statistic under hand... but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the web is made by 'amateurs'....  including social networks content, blogs filling, associative web site, photographs portfolio, student resume, small compagny presentation, and so on... so what's the matter... ?

Personally I dont care what amaturers use, I'm a professional loking at it from a professional point of view. Dont confuse the two please. Professionals would not use the kinds of programs you mention and if they did then I would certainly hope they know how to manipulate code to their own requirements when the program cant provide what they want.

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

does a web site to be present on the web must be as YOU like ? or only be made by 'professional' ?

Its not as I like. Im being logical in the fact that you just cant do some things that you need to do unless you write code and if you dont write code then what you produce is not really as you imagined it. A  professional would not accept that. You talk like an amauter so maybe you are. If that is the case then your probably not as discerning as a professional.

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

that's a strange perception of democratie... web was supposed to be a free access to everyone to express themselves... well as soon as content structure is made by HTML, design applied by CSS, interaction controlled by JavaScript... having or not a database, being readable from any device is something that most dummy design editor do...

I have no idea what you are talking about. I dont want to deprive anyone making a website for fun. I kick a ball around a field on Sunday morning but I dont class myself as a professional footballer.

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

now the question is.... does any designer can user it... YES... without having to code... YES....

if they can't ... wow... there are forum around there... there are third part developper around there...

Is it really the result they want or are  they restricted by what the program offers, there is a big difference......

[B i r n o u]

As usual, you always answer beside the real question....

they are amateur... so what ?... what the matter ?.... I haven't any statistic under hand... but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the web is made by 'amateurs'....  including social networks content, blogs filling, associative web site, photographs portfolio, student resume, small compagny presentation, and so on... so what's the matter... ?

Personally I dont care what amaturers use, I'm a professional loking at it from a professional point of view. Dont confuse the two please. Professionals would not use the kinds of programs you mention and if they did then I would certainly hope they know how to manipulate code to their own requirements when the program cant provide what they want.

the point is what is the problem when 'amateurs' as you qualify them complete content on the web?
does that bother you?

does a web site to be present on the web must be as YOU like ? or only be made by 'professional' ?

Its not as I like. Im being logical in the fact that you just cant do some things that you need to do unless you write code and if you dont write code then what you produce is not really as you imagined it. A  professional would not accept that. You talk like an amauter so maybe you are. If that is the case then your probably not as discerning as a professional.

here again it was the same question as the previous one but formulated differently ... does this embrace you if sites that do not match your sense of work are online?

Does it hurt your work? is this embarrassing your clientele?

that's a strange perception of democratie... web was supposed to be a free access to everyone to express themselves... well as soon as content structure is made by HTML, design applied by CSS, interaction controlled by JavaScript... having or not a database, being readable from any device is something that most dummy design editor do...

I have no idea what you are talking about. I dont want to deprive anyone making a website for fun. I kick a ball around a field on Sunday morning but I dont class myself as a professional footballer.

why qualify people, who approach a job differently than yours, people who do this for fun?
why this metaphor with Sunday football players ... I know a lot of amateur football players who play just as well as pseudo professionals ...
here again the question is that many designers produce remarkable web site and never put their hands in the code ... and yet, do not mind, they all have the same right to work as anyone else ... as long as they do not usurp their client, as long as their client is satisfied, as long as everyone finds his account ... who are we, who are you to say who can or not work, who is amateur or who is professional?

now the question is.... does any designer can user it... YES... without having to code... YES....

if they can't ... wow... there are forum around there... there are third part developper around there...

Is it really the result they want or are  they restricted by what the program offers, there is a big difference......

neither you nor I can answer that ... and it is by working to find solutions that are practical for non-coders, and not by denigrating them, that things will advance ... and that graphic tools 'will improve .... do not you think?

[osgood_]

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

As usual, you always answer beside the real question....

they are amateur... so what ?... what the matter ?.... I haven't any statistic under hand... but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the web is made by 'amateurs'....  including social networks content, blogs filling, associative web site, photographs portfolio, student resume, small compagny presentation, and so on... so what's the matter... ?

Personally I dont care what amaturers use, I'm a professional loking at it from a professional point of view. Dont confuse the two please. Professionals would not use the kinds of programs you mention and if they did then I would certainly hope they know how to manipulate code to their own requirements when the program cant provide what they want.

the point is what is the problem when 'amateurs' as you qualify them complete content on the web?
does that bother you?

It doesnt bother me at all as they are NOT in competition with me. Its not about bothering, as I've always maintained if a plugin-style workflow fits with ones low expectations or more to the fact 'I cant do what I want as I dont have the necessary skills then this pre-packaged solution wil do me and my client just fine', then there is nothing wrong with that. You have to make the distiction between a professional, who will code something which follows closely their vision and expectations, as oppsoed to an amatuer who will use an extention or default component of a framework, even though it might not be exactly as they really require. Difference between me drinking a cheap bottle of wine and trying to convince a connoisseur its really, really good.

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

As usual, you always answer beside the real question....

No, YOU always avoid the obvious and sensible answers.

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

that's a strange perception of democratie... web was supposed to be a free access to everyone to express themselves... well as soon as content structure is made by HTML, design applied by CSS, interaction controlled by JavaScript... having or not a database, being readable from any device is something that most dummy design editor do...

I have no idea what you are talking about. I dont want to deprive anyone making a website for fun. I kick a ball around a field on Sunday morning but I dont class myself as a professional footballer.

why qualify people, who approach a job differently than yours, people who do this for fun?
why this metaphor with Sunday football players ... I know a lot of amateur football players who play just as well as pseudo professionals ...
here again the question is that many designers produce remarkable web site and never put their hands in the code ... and yet, do not mind, they all have the same right to work as anyone else ... as long as they do not usurp their client, as long as their client is satisfied, as long as everyone finds his account ... who are we, who are you to say who can or not work, who is amateur or who is professional?

This answer is easy. An amatuer will start off with a vision and will most probably end up with a cookie-cutter site if they cant incorporate what they really want, down to lack of skills. A professional will start of with a vision and hopfully their skill will take them a long way to realising their initial vision. Its pretty simple logic. A skilless person (amatuer)  has no alternative usually but to compromise their expectations.

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

now the question is.... does any designer can user it... YES... without having to code... YES....

if they can't ... wow... there are forum around there... there are third part developper around there...

Is it really the result they want or are  they restricted by what the program offers, there is a big difference......

neither you nor I can answer that ... and it is by working to find solutions that are practical for non-coders, and not by denigrating them, that things will advance ... and that graphic tools 'will improve .... do not you think?

Yes, I can answer that. If a 'developer/designer' has to resort to a plugin or default component that plugin/component may not be exactly what they require, simple. As in the case I cited eailer regarding the Bootstrap accordion and as in the case that frequently gets asked in this forum, how do I do that or how do I do this, most by those who use Bootstrap. The very point you are making, automated solutions allow people to put together a website easily is having the effect of not bothering to learn to code so they rapidly become blinkered, cant rresolve simple issues and restricted to what that framework/program offers.

Of course we have to clarify amatuer and professional, as Ive already said I have no interest in what an amatuer does or uses. If someone wants to seriously consider web-development as a career then they must learn to code, there's no getting away from it if you want to progress beyond the limitations of a farmework, extension or program. Im stating the obvious to anyone with a full bunch of bananas.

[Nancy OShea]

The question isn't whether one is pro or amateur.  Very few website owners are web pros.  The question is how does one maintain the site after it is built?

If the app uses a proprietary file system as Muse did, the workflow for adding & maintaining advanced programming features later becomes twice as difficult.   If you're working directly with native HTML, CSS and JS files, the task is much simpler for coders. 

Thankfully Dreamweaver, Pinegrow and other code editors use native HTML, CSS and JS files.   But that's rarely the case with so called "click & drag" apps like Sparkle which use an abstraction layer to facilitate that ease of use.  And as we all know from experience, exporting proprietary code from one app to use in another app brings on ts own set of problems. 

I think we can all agree that "ease of use" comes at a price.   That price depends largely on the skills of the person building the site and what the site owner needs today plus 5 years from now.