Adobe Muse EOL announcement - Alternatives to Adobe Muse?

[Preran]

Hi all,

For those of you that haven't received the email around the Adobe Muse EOL, see the FAQ Product Announcement that tries to answer some the common questions around the announcement including the reasons behind the decision.

Before we proceed with discussing alternatives, the Muse application will continue to open on your computer. You will be able to continue to edit existing or create new websites with the application. Adobe Muse will continue to be supported until May 20, 2019 and will deliver compatibility updates with the Mac and Windows OS or fix any bugs that might crop up when publishing Muse sites to the web. However, it is quite possible that web standards and browsers will continue to change after Adobe stops support for the application.

While there is no 1:1 replacement for Adobe Muse at this stage, the FAQ link above provides some alternatives. Also, Adobe is making our own investment in DIY website creation and welcomes all Muse customers to join our upcoming pre-release program for a new format that will be introduced this year as part of Adobe Spark. Build a beautiful website—in minutes | Adobe Spark

That being said, I would like to open up this discussion for discussing other solutions and migration paths. It would be ideal if we could focus our efforts on the topic at hand.

Thanks,

Preran

[fotoroeder]

I did never get the idea behind XD (and Invision to name just one), I must admit. Without the ability to get the result from XD to a website. SMALL clients won`t pay a designer and a programmer, I was and still am afraid of.

From a quick view I realize some parallels between XD and Pinegrow/Blocs/Wappler, etc. so why would someone use XD except for Apps-developement? And finally I won´t push and corrupt this thread too much, though.

I agree with Port and Coffee and some cake, of course

Kind Regards,

Uwe

[Peter Villevoye]

Tools like Adobe XD, Axure, Sketch, Balsamiq, and Invision (and dozens of plugins), they all fill the need of scrapbook-like platforms, to design (and watch out for the very loosely interpretable word "design" here) visual ideas for web and app, share lo-res wireframes or hi-res mockups, present click-flows and animated prototypes, comment on and communicate about them, and hand-off some stuff and specs to front-end developers.

From mid-sized to larger websites and mobile apps, there's this steep distinction between the phases of the design and all actual technical execution, we've easily forgotten after using sophisticated print media tools for three decades. Any design created in those popular (Adobe) tools used to be immediately ready for production. Well, it doesn't work that way in web and app design. At least not for the league of projects ranging beyond our beloved Adobe Muse's capabilities...

So these new tools are retro-active: they bring us back to the time of (visual) designers, knowing the possibilities of their trade, and handing over a sketched impression of what needs to be produced. There's not a single HTML tag exported from it, merely some CSS properties and values, and imagery (if used and left in a good quality).

[fotoroeder]

THX Peter for that. Although I was pretty much thinking like this as well, there´s always some hope from designers point to have it all in one platform. Thanks to clear this up totally.

Very kind Regards,

Uwe

[Peter Villevoye]

...there´s always some hope from designers point to have it all in one platform.

Well, you actually touch on the most sensitive part of it all...

Adobe 'owned' the arena of print media tools, because PostScript and PDF are their proprietary technologies. Even though PostScript is no secret at all and certain PDF formats are an open standard, Adobe still governs most of the stuff going on in the print and imaging industry. That doesn't make them a monopoly, but at least a very dominating and curating force – which happened to be a good thing, for print, for designers, for their tools.

The web isn't governed by Adobe, or anyone else. Apps aren't built with Adobe's technologies. Everyone who feels confident and capable enough to create some tools or services, can ! HTML5 is totally open, many related technologies are open source, scripts are clustered into free frameworks. So tools and platforms are abundant, all competing for users and uses.

And there's much more going on in these new areas. Print media were about images and texts. Web and apps are so much more. It's not merely a designer's area anymore. Doing teamwork in a digital way is crucial. (The only teamwork thing print media came up with, was the JDF format and scribbling comments on a PDF, at best...)

So it's a totally different ballgame, nowadays.

That splendid list of Alternatives for Muse you initiated is the best reflection of this huge difference...

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Peter+Villevoye  wrote

The web isn't governed by Adobe, or anyone else. Apps aren't built with Adobe's technologies. Everyone who feels confident and capable enough to create some tools or services, can ! HTML5 is totally open, many related technologies are open source, scripts are clustered into free frameworks. So tools and platforms are abundant, all competing for users and uses.

Not strictly speaking 100% true.

The governing body for web tech, and standards/specifications, is the world wide web consortium, (often refered to as the W3C). Which not only produces standards specs, but also governs how the web works overall, (including protocalls such as http and how one connects to the web).

All browsers now do stick to the specs and rules provided by the W3C, and even though things like javascript are governed by the 'ECMA', they are also affiliated with the W3C.

HTML5 is not totally open, just as css is not open. Both are governed by the working groups from the W3C now, (the 'live spec' version is not, but is a closed to most as a live document) but both are also open to discussion and suggestions from anyone who wishes to join in. Then there are the actual browsers, which can choose what and when they implement something from the specification, (except security related issues, which must be reported and if possible fixed).

The tools one uses to build pages and sites, are the only things that are not subject to any control, and there is a massive variation in what W3C specs they support and how 'up-to-date' they are regarding specs, (just for info, Dw is way behind, but so are many, many other tools).

[Peter Villevoye]

For the sake of the discussion and the comparison, I thought I've chosen the term "open" carefully enough.

But it's good to be more precise...

Of course, the pillars of the web (HTML, CSS, JS) aren't standards without a clear and binding directive (especially since HTML5). But its government (the W3C) is indeed "open" to anyone. So the web is not being dominated by any company, holding patents or issuing licenses (like with PostScript and PDF). And that's a boon because it stimulates a healthy competition in the field of tools and services development. But it's horrible if you're trying to find the right tool for a task !

[Peter Villevoye]

I came across this image on the web, showing exactly the trouble with "web design"...

Okay, it may be a bit exaggerated (after all, we did have Muse and we do have other visually inclined tools), but it's still funny to hear web professionals say that you can't regard yourself a true "web designer" if you don't know how to code. Of course you have to know a lot of technical stuff as well, when dealing with disciplines like 3D design or game development. But web design is strangely enough still hugely hung-up with coding for any real production work.

[Path11]

As for the picture...well, yes and no. I work with video and 3D. You work with real 3D software and that coding looks a lot more enticing. 3D is HARD and video isn't farther behind it (plus the monster investment in equipment). Of course, to someone looking to start a career, the graphic stuff looks a lot more exciting but, you can code with a text editor. Video is a monster investment in cameras, lighting, sound, grip, etc plus a fat investment in software and learning that software. 3D is a big investment in software, plus hefty annual fees (except with Blender) and ALL are really really hard to learn. Visual effects? Spend a little time digging through After Effects. I came from a strong background in CAD/CAM systems running every kind of CNC manufacturing equipment, even wrote books and training systems, and the 3D software makes all that look like Pong. So, coding is low investment compared to the others and you can elegantly create with just lines of code. The beauty of code is something simple doing so much. Yes, I think there should be more Muse type software for web design but as long as schools are churning out coders, the developers have little reason to jump.

[Peter Villevoye]

I'm so happy you're acknowledging my assumption that most "design" professions and tools can range from fairly cheap and easy (with modest features and use cases) to extreme and expensive rocket science (for very specific, heavy duty, and integrated workflows). It's actually just the print industry which is/was the exclusion to this pattern, bringing us the most convoluted software in seemingly simple tools with pretty interfaces, letting us tap into a shallow use, or dig into the depths of the (typo)graphical trade.

Thanks to Apple and Adobe, for 34 years of Mac and PostScript !

I guess Muse was a freakish venture, inspiring unfulfillable dreams...

[Path11]

Unfortunately, as much as we all wish the golden unicorn had arrived, it is really what all unicorn siting's are, just an illusion. A tip-o-the-hat to Adobe for getting close with Muse but when you really dig deeper, to get a program like Muse to work, you have to rely on a stable starting point because it would take a massive amount of coding to make a system that would address a near pure graphical layout system, and even then it would be just for that one point in time. Along comes a new system, the ever evolving HTML systems for example, and it leaves a developer much like someone trying to break the Guinness record for a domino fall but each time they get near done, a gust of wind knocks it all over. I guess Adobe recognized it was unsustainable. It would have been nice to ease this out. Adobe had to recognize this a few years ago and started to warn people and phase in a product that was the "Goldilocks" product for them and us...not to hard like Dreamweaver, not too soft like Muse, but a "just right"  balance between coding and graphics that allowed them to take the core of graphical layout that was the least vulnerable to the evolving HTML system and putting a little responsibility for basic coding on the user. It really is best to learn the basics of coding HTML and Java/JavaScript for your own good as much anything. I think people don't need to get too afraid of coding, once you break that initial introduction hump, it really is a rather creative endeavor and gives you a lot of marketing strength in meeting a clients needs if their particular request wasn't already a button on your menu bar or a widget someone else coded. You can say "yes, we can do that" and get the sale. People need to recognize what all the other products they are exploring are. The internet is controlled by code, like all computer operations, graphics in these systems are tools to save a coder steps, not shield the graphic artist from coding...Adobe tried but, like stepping off the edge of a building, you can't fight the rules of gravity and you certainly aren't going to avoid coding computer systems.

[sebrame]

But web design is strangely enough still hugely hung-up with coding...

And there is a reason for that. Eliminating the coding aspect of web design/development, such as Muse did, makes it quite possible for 'non-coders' to create very functional sites. This took business away from the coders, and therefore, money.

[Path11]

I wouldn't jump too quick into the conspiracy theory realm. Adobe got up about ten stories and realized they were building a card house, you just can't go any further and what they had was technologically doomed (with todays systems, maybe in five or ten years that might change).

Glad you found a solution. I'll check it out too.

[sebrame]

Not a 'jump' at all. I've been aware of it basically ever since Adobe Muse appeared. Back then it was really very obvious, because 'back then', I was in the coding world - I know what the 'talk' was. At the time, I was older than most of my counterparts - much older. I was also growing very tired of writing 'code', and was in search, or rather 'hope' for a solution that reduced or eliminated it. Enter Adobe Muse, although at the time I was using Serif Webplus. Webplus did an admirable job, but after a several week trial I realized that Muse blew it away.

But yes, the 'talk' was that such tools were going to take a lot of business away from the 'mainly' WordPress crowd. There were huge smear campaigns released against Muse, spouting what we know now was total nonsense.

[Peter Villevoye]

Web designers/developers who were creating websites with WordPress, and fearing that Muse could take over that kind of business, weren't using WordPress for the right kind of websites. WordPress starts where Muse ends. I'd almost say: they had it coming 😉

[ItsFlybye]

Hi all.  My apologies for not having the time to search through this thread.

Has anyone mentioned of a good Muse alternative? Or has anyone heard any feedback from Adobe?

[Peter Villevoye]

The fact that this discussion counts well over 2000 posts, indicates that there isn't a definite answer to that. Check out this list, and do browse through some of the pages in this discussion to find some reviews or comments on any mentioned tools.

[buglegirl101]

Good grief!  I made a list of 5 different alternatives  (trying 2) but your list leaves mine in the dust!

I guess the bottom line here is that its up to us to find our perfect and probably temporary match.  I'm trying Pinegrow... and still using Dreamweaver for site management.   Way too many files to update!

THANKS so much for shariing.

And thanks for the great converstaions. 

nancy p

[ItsFlybye]

Thank you, Peter.  That is a huge list!

Adobe Spark being on that list is pretty interesting because it is so limited in comparison to what Muse can do.  I tried it and had to laugh at it.

[Minoumax]

Peter, great list but I do not see Wappler (https://wappler.io/index) a desktop app.

Thank you

[Peter Villevoye]

First of all: it's not my list. It's fotoroeder​'s inititiative, if I'm not mistaken.

Secondly: Wappler.io is definitely on the list ! Currently on row number 11.

[ItsFlybye]

With Peter's list, I think one great addition would be a Widget's column.  Ive found that feature really helpful with Muse and would be nice to see which others have the feature.

[Nancy OShea]

ItsFlybye  wrote

I think one great addition would be a Widget's column.  Ive found that feature really helpful with Muse and would be nice to see which others have the feature.

You can build as many columns as you need with Bootstrap's responsive grid framework.  Bootstrap is well supported in Dreamweaver, Wappler, Pinegrow,  Bootstrap Studio, Mobrise  and many others.

https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/layout/grid/

Bootstrap comes with many built-in components (aka widgets) for things like forms, menus, buttons, , carousels, modal windows and much, much more.

Bootstrap 4 Tutorial

[ALsp]

The only downside is that (at least in Dreamweaver) there is not a full UI with which to both create and manage Bootstrap code. For instance, there would be no means to add, remove, or re-order columns, etc. I would think (and hope) that at least Wappler has that capability. In any event, here is our Harmony UI as it opens in Dreamweaver, in edit mode (for changing an existing page structure).

The thing is that unless there is a UI for laying out pages an adding stuff, how would it appeal to the average Muse user? I think it's been established that Muse users tend to be design-oriented rather than code-oriented.

[estherau]

If you have a mac you could try sparkleapp which is different software makers and software to adobe spark (confusing I know)

[buglegirl101]

Hi Estherau.   

Yes, I’ve also downloaded sparkle and it looks really easy to use.  I’ll be using Pinegrow and Sparkle and eventually reporting my experience back...but, this thread could go cold by then.   Not enough hours in the day for all these new challenges;))

Thanks,

nancy p