In browser editing is a stop gap solution for people that need to collaborate between different designers... Well of course ! That's not what IBE is intended for. Just like Acrobat is not the best solution for editing a brochure. But in many scenarios in which the client just needs to edit some texts, swap an image, and create a new or different link, it saves their day and a dollar. ... View more

Okay, to clear up some stuff: If a Muse website is published on any decently fitted PHP-supporting webserver, then "In Browser Editing" is available to clients and others who know the credentials to log in on the host. Any such online edit will be reported to Muse the next time the native file is opened, to verify, accept, or even roll back any changes made online ! Muse's code works, but it's not elegant. In stead of using humanly logical naming conventions for IDs and such, Muse simply whips up some numbers. After all, a browser won't care about associating id="u1153-26" to the proper style. But for coders, it's a nightmare to untangle this way of addressing elements. Nevertheless, it's code, just like anyone else's. And a developer will always utter that someone else's code is "terrible"... A developer would probably prefer to rebuild the layout of a Muse website in his own framework, than to try to manipulate Muse's output. As said repeatedly: Muse certainly has a roof, and going beyond that roof requires reproducing the whole enchilada. BTW: There are several initiatives to hook Muse to WordPress ! Check out MuseXPress and Muse to Wordpress. ... View more

Dear Stitch, you're exactly the right kind of person, with the right kind of purpose, to put Muse to your use. You described correctly the advantages and limitations of Muse. And rest assured, as Jon already explained, editing your Muse file and publishing it again is a breeze... ... View more

After reading over and over, I don't understand your recent post, Ussnorway​. First, I didn't state that a CP status is worth more when in search of a designer or trainer. I meant to say that most Office or IT-inclined HR staff probably won't know or notice much of a difference between any of them. Next: you suggest that these "standardised tests" (ACE?) can be cheated with. I wonder, how ? The on-line recertifications were pretty easy to deal with, but the full-blown proctored exams are not something to be taken lightly ! Finally: you would hire a CP over an ACE when hiring a designer or trainer ? Because their knowledge is "less irrelevant" – that double negation is intentional ? Anyway, I don't get these last two sentences at all... Shoot again ! ... View more

As an ACI, I'd like to add some thoughts on these ACE exams matters. I've been doing these exams since 2003 in very early (and even pre-CS) versions, as the certification program became introduced here in Europe. What strikes me is that the format and the content haven't really changed that much over the one and a half decade. So whatever we'd like it to be (rather than what it was and still is), Adobe didn't and doesn't budge... My comment on these exams (dating from 2003) is still the same: "Some colleagues and me have taken the exams and we all share the same sentiment: they're difficult, tricky, and almost unfair. About one third of the questions is about the task at hand, covering topics having to do with the actual trade without going into the application too much. The other two thirds are about the application, and half of that is rightfully dealing with the proper use of it. But the other half (the final third) is downright tricky. They are about the exact knowledge of the most secluded commands and dialogues, assuming you never got confused by the various versions over time, and expecting you to know both your native language versions and the English one, by heart." E.g. is it really a big deal not to know whether the guidelines ("Raster" in Dutch) to line-up items in Acrobat is called a "Grid", "Document Grid", or "Layout Grid" ? Most of the exam candidates will hopefully know and probably remember very well there's some kind of a grid thing, so they just look under "View" and see what the "Show/Hide" command offers. Is the 100% value of the flattening conversion setting in Illustrator towards the "vector" or "pixel" side ? Is a unit of measurement to be found under "Preferences", "Settings" or "Document Settings" ? Another issue is the number of questions about uncommon situations, almost hypothetical ones, or at least problematic stuff only helpdesk staffers would need to deal with. Okay, the daily workflow of a designer does involve quite a few nasty scenarios and materials, often created (or should I say slapped together) by less proficient users of the software. But why bother designers with it in an exam ? My experience in taking these exams for almost 15 years, is that quite a large part of the questions are just about us (and many users), trying to deal with the unintuitive and inconsistent idiosyncrasies of these Adobe applications. Is this one of the key goals of this program ? To puzzle users and blame them for not knowing these things ? After all, these applications and their very professional users are largely visually inclined. So what's the point of textually quizzing them with any of this verbatim nitty-gritty ? So my conclusion then and now is that these exams should be exclusively aimed at helpdesk departments of large design studios, Adobe-related support staffers, trainers, and technical trouble-shooters. But are these nerds the ones we'd like to celebrate as "Adobe Certified Experts" ? Rest assured, I'll manage, honestly. I usually took the recertification exams without any preparation, and the proctored exams with an hour on average in each application (mainly checking out even the smallest detail in any new feature). I've been fortunate enough to get acquainted with all Adobe applications and their versions as they were introduced, so I've been able to learn them on a grade. But I doubt if any new user of a current CC application will ever be able to pass these exams... The benefit ? An increasing number of clients in corporate industries are required to ask for a certain certification when hiring designers or trainers. But showing them any badge with an Adobe logo (whether it says ACA, ACE, ACI, Partner, or Community Professional) would probably all be the same to them. I regard the ACI status more as an acknowledgement towards 'those in the know' like Adobe staff and training colleagues. But failing the ACE exam tells me really nothing about the talent and true proficiency of a designer or any user of an Adobe application. That's why Adobe fortunately came up with the ACA program. melissapiccone​: if you think an AATC is incorrectly using their status in their promotion and business, then let Adobe know about this. Only by reporting such inappropriate use, we can let an ACI status claim and keep its value. ... View more

Why ? And to answer your question, I don't. I've just been around in these industries for three decades, so you see stuff repeating history, making the same strategical moves like earlier media and tools. And for what it's worth: Dreamweaver behaves like the Linotype 2000, and Muse is like the renegade Pagemaker. Of course, both phenomena in the comparison deal with totally different media and formats (print vs web), but the marketing of the tools and the attitude of its users are largely the same. ... View more

I always get this uneasy feeling when people talk about "real" solutions, "real" products, and "real" applications, for "real" people... And beware, AuthorWare is still in use by some "real" developers ! In this quickly evaporating digital world, only a few out of a thousands of achievements need to last longer than a pack of cigarettes. And what defines a "real" website anyway ? One that is so crammed with dozens or even hundreds of useful "real" SEO scripts, that it's screaming for Google AMP just to get across ? Apart from some technically and visually pristine web creatures, the web is an ocean of stuff that moves, changes, comes, and goes. I don't regard Adobe Muse as the ultimate solution, but it gets a lot of jobs done, in a reasonably easy way. BTW JosephBarone‌ I adore your expression about developers: "Masochists, but perfectionists to say the least." ... View more

Hi Paul, could you please describe which part of my response is "nonsense" ? All of it, or anything specific ? And to some extent your response is fitting exactly into my perception: "they have developed their own customized CMS". With its own quirks and features, and its very own syntax. Will another developer be able (and willing) to get a grip on that ? I wonder... ... View more

Nancy, you're portraying the same kind of professional pretentions and attitude, I experienced when Desktop Publishing put an axe to the business of typesetters and lithographers. If some Muse users put out bad websites, just be happy for that ! You need this undertow of rubbish to let clients experience the difference. Besides, not every client needs a dynamic website, with a CMS, full-blown SEO, and lots of scripted bells and whistles. I wonder how many of those 18 million WordPress websites could just as well have been built as a static website, with Muse... And although Muse is in its 4th year, it's still in an early phase of implementing or integrating more complicated technologies. At least it succeeds in keeping the interface completely visual, while holding onto some very crucial principles of HTML. And I think it takes less time to see more wishes and requests granted by new versions of Muse, than to wait for more designers to develop a coding skill set. My 3 cents. 😉 ... View more

I just ran into this energizing discussion Most of the answers and advices here are right, albeit a bit polarized into Camp DW or Camp MU. There're however some aspects untouched or misleading. It's true that a Muse website can't grow into a more sizable website, built with a CMS and all. (Adobe Business Catalyst offers some integration, but for most Muse users it's not very common to take that road.) And the website's HTML/CSS/JS indeed can't be simply opened in or added to by other web tools. There's no seamless way to build onto what's already there. But that warning is valid for probably all web projects, whether or not they've been produced with Muse. Most popular or home-grown frameworks being used for larger websites are also a lock-in. Apart from the 'raw' database, most scripts, queries, templates, often need to be rebuilt just as well when a client decides (maybe for other reasons than growth) to move to a different platform. Since a typical Muse website won't be very large, rebuilding it completely in a CMS compliant framework shouldn't take too long either. I'm sure professionals like Nancy and Max8jake will gladly construct it from scratch, with just a relatively small share of time spent on recreating what was already available. Most developers are not happy with someone else's code, and claim theirs smells like daisies. So when a couple of different professional web developers or agencies have been working on a website subsequently, the code gets messy anyway. At some point the client will be advised to do a complete overhaul. Another important aspect is the fact that designing and building a website with Muse can be a one-man performance. Designing and building a larger website, with a CMS, some back-ends and front-ends, implementing all wishes and features, often requires (very rightfully) a team of specialists. Which is of course making the undertaking less dependent from a single individual (a good thing), but also creating extra workflow challenges like briefing, communication, co-working, etc. (an additional difficulty). BTW: Muse is catching up with Responsive Web Design, making it possible again for a larger number of web designers to create a proper solution for their client's needs. ... View more