Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Exit
pziecina
LEGEND
pziecina
LEGEND
Activity
‎Jul 24, 2019
08:43 AM
osgood_ wrote pziecina wrote It is no use arguing the case of making the code portable in web development, when 99% of sites will never ever go beyond the clients initial requirements. I disagree. Its not about going beyond the initial requirements (infact that might be easier to implement) its more about adding to what already exits. If the workflow used is unfamilar it could be a problem to find someone who is knowledgable in that respect or willing to spend the time needed adding even minor additions. O/K, lets take a simple case. (simple, but long to explain). You have used vue.js to create a simple slide-in animated sub-menu. You then retire, and your client comes to me asking if I can change the menu from not just a slide-in animation, but to also do it from being 1px in height at the bottom of the page, to enlarging it to 100% height over 2.5 seconds. (Unlikely senario, but you and I were the only developers within a 20 mile radius of the client at the time, and they want personal face to face contact). Now I can do that using just css, but not vue.js. But I have no idea without going through all the code if or where you have used vue for anything else. Youmay have not, but I don't want to spend hours reading through the code, so I may decide to just leave your links and references to vue in the files. I then override your use of vue and use just css. A few months latter, I retire. The next developer reads the code and has no idea what is going on, as although vue is referenced, it is not used, (but they are not 100% certain, so they leave the reference in). That developer does not know css animations, but does know jQuery, and so a complicated and needless code structure has begun, just because you used vue.js. Is that 3rd developer creating a complicated and needless code structure, or is it your use of vue causing the problem, especially when it could have been done using css?
... View more
‎Jul 24, 2019
07:59 AM
osgood_ wrote Is that by desire or ignorance? Its a short sighted approach for freelancers to spend 2/3 years building websites using a visual site creator, then the work dries up. What skills have they aqcuired which will enable them to get another job easily and quickly or are these the very people I talk of who really have no passion from the outset, just looking to make a quick buck while it lasts, leave a trail of unpleasant code behind and move on to the next job, whatever that maybe. By many it is desire, for others simply because they do not want to learn to code. Very few people have a passion for web development, beyond earning a living and making it as easy as possible to do so. It is no use arguing the case of making the code portable in web development, when 99% of sites will never ever go beyond the clients initial requirements. Yes, the design may be updated at some point, but thats it. Growing from a small 'here we/I are/am' buisness requirement is very rare, and I doubt if those building such initial sites could 'grow' the site into anything more if required to do so.
... View more
‎Jul 24, 2019
07:38 AM
1 Upvote
osgood_ wrote Of course there will always be exceptions to the rules - those that are just in it for a short ride, those that are creating something for themselves, those that are too old and know they will never get another job within the industry. Isn't that what everyone has decided when it comes to those who use Dw, (etc) or visual site creators. That they are not looking for employment in the profession?
... View more
‎Jul 24, 2019
07:32 AM
2 Upvotes
If you are using % or px values you are in effect setting to a specific value, (be that of the viewport of actual) which negates the 'flex' in flexbox. If however you use a keyword like 'auto' you are setting the flex-basis to be dependant on the content, and available space for the container, as opposed to a given proportion. Once you start using the other flex properties such as 'grow' and 'shrink' you can then tell flexbox to grow or shrink the flexbox child element to fit, (or fill) the available viewport no matter what size. By using wrap, you can also tell it the 'how' of wanting the document to flow. Just as a note, you should use the shorthand 'flex' property, as the individual properties are mainly for exeptions to the flex, and not the entire container. see - https://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/#flex-common
... View more
‎Jul 24, 2019
06:03 AM
1 Upvote
Not wishing to inflame the discussion, anything can be called a 'niche' workflow, and any claim of 'its used by millions', does not carry any weight, as there are now over 1.5 billion web sites, so anything less than 200 million is for me a 'niche' workflow. For years there have been 'niche' workflows that have nothing to do with the clients best interests. But, for small sites who cares? After all wordpress, angular, wix, Dw, Webflow, Wappler, all create what could easily be called 'niche' code, (deliberatly using the word 'code' as opposed to 'workflow' now). For me it is not the code these programs generate, or the workflow used by the developer(s), it is the understanding of the code generated that matters, (if one does not understand it, how can one say it is good?). As for the workflow, the philosophy should always be to keep it as simple as possible, both in requirements, and in recommending it to others, (if you cannot walk away from using a workflow, then come back to it 2 years later, without any problems, or learning how to use any part of it, it is overcomplicated).
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
09:52 AM
Thanks Jon, That is what I was thinking. I also thought that if the more complexed srcset structures are to be handled by code hints alone, it would be an indicator of 'how the team was thinking', (or not). Simply because a casual or beginner coder would have serious problems with anything more than the basic 1x, 2x or the 'w' descriptor usage, (I know I do, and I know how to use it).
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
08:35 AM
Just going completely left field with this question. If Dw is going to include what is new in html5, I am wondering if they will include some form of srcset builder, in which one could actually build the 'media type query' that is possible when using srcset, or if anyone thinks that a straight forward 'code hints' approach would be all that is required. After all, some of what one can do with srcset goes way beyond the simple 1x, 2x, 3x. type of use most commonly seen. If you look at the resolution switching, (different sizes) example, you will see what I mean, and much more complicated structures are also possible - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Multimedia_and_embedding/Responsive_images
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
08:05 AM
https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u wrote perhaps you should practise golf ? No offence against anyone, but that gave me the best laugh I have had today .
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
07:47 AM
https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u wrote but, for what I think, this does not give us any right in the way we address people, employees moreover as you specify in message #27, on a public forum, a forum that is neither English from the North, nor from Marseille... but pluri-cultural and international I'm not addressing employees in message #27, I am saying that truth is better than silence from Adobe when it comes to Dw now, as we are all asking 'Is Adobe interested in Dw"? No one knows who or how many people use Dw, but Adobe, and they will also at least know who installed it and have an idea how much they use it, (otherwise the db node creates has no meaning). Each products customer base that Adobe has, will probably be reflected in the development budget assigned to that product, (unless it is to be EOLd). If as appears to be the case with Dw, there is little investment, then either Adobe is not reinvesting, or there are too few actual users to justify extra investment.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
07:15 AM
1 Upvote
Just to add to my reply Birnou. I do know why employees from Adobe cannot say anything, but all it would take is someone to be truthfull and say something like - "we do not currently have the resources available to do more". Which I suspect we all privatly know is true.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
07:03 AM
1 Upvote
I think you misunderstand the mindset of people in the u/k, and especially in the north Birnou. We do not try to be insulting in any way. What we do though, is say what we think, and when talking we certainly do not respect anyone just because people think we should. To us respect must be earned, and the simple fact that no one at Adobe or on the Dw team will engage in constructive discussions, leads to us having an even lower opinion of them. A nurse working in 'accident and emergancy' in an hospital, who expresses an opinion on the state of the NHS in the u/k, has more respect from most people in the u/k, than the prime minister of the u/k expressing their opinion regarding the NHS in the u/k. That is what I mean by respect must be earned.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
04:56 AM
We are back to SB's. SB's could not be updated, simply because many of those concerned with Dw's development did not have the manpower to do so, (wordpress etc had a greater importance). It also goes back to Adobes aquisition of Macromedia, in that Adobe thought Flash was the future, html5, css3 and modern js did not realy exist, and mobile devices had been abandoned as far as users where concerned, (yes there was smartphones before the iPhone). Adobe still has not come to terms regarding web sites/apps creation. You just have to look how much and for how long they denied the death of flash. As for Dw, it was never really a product Adobe knew what to do with, if you look at Animate you will see just how much it is trying to become a 'psuedo flash' for the web. Dw does not offer Adobe a captive market.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
04:43 AM
osgood_ wrote Those people should be quickly identified before they cause insurmountable damage. You've worked in large organisations, as I have Os, and we both know that is not how it works. Simply because it is the people at the top making the decissions, and if someone below 'rocks the boat', they go not you. I don't know who is deciding the future of Dw, but I would bet that whomever it is, is not reading forum posts and not interested in forum members opinions. Look at the profiles at the Dw team members posting the blog posts, which should give you an idea about how important 'what we think' is.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
03:46 AM
osgood_ wrote Many would assume git is just a swear word. Don't swear at me . (I wonder if that is something only understood in the u/k?) In many ways I feel sorry for the Dw team, simply because what they are doing, may be all they are allowed to do. We all like to think we are important, and that our opinions matter, but in the wider world, they do not. If an Adobe director had come into the organisation I worked for, and started telling us what was wrong with the application, we would have just nodded, said their opinions are important to us, thanked them, then proceaded to do what we were going to do anyway. Which is probably what Adobe and the Dw team are doing. Asking for opinions and acting on them, are two completely separate things. That's why I prefer this discussion, as even though the impression in the other one is that the Dw team are reading it and taking notice of what is said, they are not.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
03:04 AM
osgood_ wrote Unless you are a top exponent or an amatuer I don't really think it matters what editor you use these days. If you are working for a large company or organisation, then the editor to use is normally decided for you. osgood_ wrote Those who cant code and dont produce complex applications will use wix or one of the many builders. That's the message many are still denying. The days of producing small sites as a living, are I think numbered, as we have discussed before. The problem, (or maybe not) for Dw users, is that too many still think of wix, and similar site builders as they use to be, and not as they are now. Even 1&1's site builder offers individuals a personal help service, in which the inexperianced can have someone walk them through the process of building the site, and adding plug-ins as required. Dw on the other hand have made everything look overcomplicated for those who only want a simple site for their buisness, and for plug-ins they must then find them for themselves. For Adobe CC subscribers, Dw may be all they require if it was not for its limitations. In that the use of bootstrap, scss and git, are not features that make visual site creation, (even with a little code knowledge) any simpler for them. How many CC subscribers look at Dw and think pre/post-processors and git are features they should use. Application developers are probably not typically Adobe CC subscribers, simply because Adobe offers nothing they require. Yes, they may use the experiance cloud products, but Dw does not offer any support for them, so another editor is required anyway.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
12:57 AM
I was asked if I wanted to rejoin CAB back in 2016, but I decided not to, so it must have been going after 2014. I said the blog said about Dw team members was before the 2017 roadmap was posted. C2014 was led by Alejandro, (may have spelt that wrong) so its CAB group was in 2013. At the closing stages of the pre-release for the version before that CAB was formed from previous pre-release members, with only a few of the previous prerelease members being invited. The alpha prerelease did not replace the CAB for CC2017, but some previous release CAB members where invited to the alpha and not CAB.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
12:34 AM
1 Upvote
I think it matters because we all remember how easy Dw was to use. I used it mainly to create quick and easy concepts, that I could show others. And VS Pro as my production code editor. The reason I prefered Dw, (CS versions) was that along with fireworks, going between the two was so easy. It was also very easy to create extensions to update code hints, and add features I thought would help me.
... View more
‎Jul 19, 2019
12:27 AM
All I remember Birnou is that it was posted in the Dw blog, just before the anouncment that they where going to incorporate the Brackets code editor, (thinking about it it may have been in the same post). So look for the roadmap for Dw 2017, and it was probably the one just before that. I am not passing any blame on to them, because as I said, at first glance it looked like a good idea.
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
01:05 PM
Paul-M wrote How many people requested Brackets to replace the native code editor? Who's idea was it? My point is does the opinion of Dreamweaver users matter because I don't believe some of the big decisions made have really taken into account their opinions. I'll answer that question, (the Dw team will not). A couple of senior members from the Dw team, flew to Germany and attended a meeting of an Adobe user group, (nor a web designer/developer group). Then asked those attending what they thought was wrong with Dw, and guess what, they complained about the code editor, and compared it with the Brackets code editor, (which also had support for languages seldom used on the web). They then asked a few select members of the CAB group, what they thought of the idea, (which at first glance, looked like a good one, I was not a member). The problem everyone concerned forgot, was that Brackets was not built for web design/development together. Instead it was ment for designers working only by using the accepted idea of splitting html, css and js into seperate files, which could then be passed to a developer. Plus for those learning and using all those 'other' languages in 'other' Adobe products. The fact that in web design the profession itself requirers that a web designer now must include the server side code in pages as required, was not known or maybe not thought of by the team. They also overlooked the way Dw works, which is why many of the features one used with Dw files and code view, stopped working. They also overlooked the simple fact that Dw would then have two very different code bases, (3 if you count CEF) the old Dw code used for everything else except code view, with code view using modern js, with html and css, to work. Edit - One other point I forgot, was that either the Dw team did not get, or Adobe forgot to send them. The reasons why Muse was being EOL'd, in that diy site builders where replacing the market for small sites. dw will be dead in a couple of years anyway, if it continues to think that market will continue.
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
11:40 AM
F.I.O. Just in case anyone is interested all the old, (and some new) items from Adobe web platform and other Adobe open source tech. Can be found at - http://opensource.adobe.com The reason I looked is that Brackets has had a basic js debugger for years, but Dw does not. So I looked into what was happening with it.
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
11:05 AM
1 Upvote
Thanks Brad. I could not see any reason for a compatability problem. I even have the Edge Dev preview installed but thought I may have missed some update or other in Dw CC versions, that somehow causes a problem, as my Edge preview even works with CS6.
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
10:49 AM
O/K. The general response to the blog post is at best underwhelming. Those who want a more visual approach get nothing, those who would like a more comprehensive IDE type of Dw are also getting nothing. So can the Dw team tell me/us who they expect to use Dw, both now and in the future? (please do NOT say, 'the designer who wishes to code' as that is a nonsensical phrase). Even Dw supporters, who so often tell us that Dw fills their expectations, often go on in other discussions to say they use other programs along side Dw. From which I can only guess that their expectations of Dw are low. So I also have to ask myself (and the team), what do people expect from Dw? I can argue for a visual approach, but in doing so the current Dw would be better with the CS6 version being updated, (live view, new SB's, updated code hints and bootstrap replacing FGLs). Which would mean the Dw team is on the right track, except for SBs, and replacing css designer with the old css styles panel. The IDE future, would mean abandoning the visual side, (but not completely) and dumping all those 'fringe' languages from the code editor, (which would probably make it faster) newsletter creation, the properties panel, css designer (could go back to css styles panel) moving git and pre/post-processors to extensions, moving bootstrap to an extension, (but include other frameworks as extensions) adding de-buggers, linting etc extensions or options. Live view not really required, (have to test in all browsers anyway). That's my thoughts for now. So what does a Dw team member think? BTW - The visual side, requires the editable live view finishing, (been promised since it was introduced) so it can really replace design view.
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
09:24 AM
Just wondering if anyone can answer a question. What does the blog post mean, in the O.S. compatability updates, when it says - "Chromium based Edge browser" The reason I ask is that I cannot see any compatability problems. After all it is a browser, so what has to be compatible with Dw?
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
06:28 AM
Isn't that basically what we all decided in this discussion - https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2638463 (are web dev forums part of the problem). But there is an alternative view regarding Dw, that may explain why, and that is simply because they are getting the advice from the wrong people! I'm not deriding acp's, or Dw staff here, but many acp's and Dw staff present themselves as so called experts, even though they have never worked in the field or have little practical experiance in the profession they proclame to be an expert in. Even if they create sites for family and friends, teach or write about a subject, that does not mean they know how to do something and earn a good living by doing so. The phrase that always made me laugh when someone from the Dw team wrote it, was - "we will do an analysis of the subject matter", (or similar). Which ment in lay terms - "we have no intentions of doing anything".
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
04:50 AM
Just in case anyone is thinking that by saying applications we are talking about what the old server behaviours could create, we are not. The SB's whilst usefull in their time, would even if updated only be a very small part of both client side, and server side. A simple application is discussed in this discussion - https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2631360 What is required in 2019 has very little to do with what SB's, coupled with a traditional website creation in the past.
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
01:19 AM
1 Upvote
prerank28948274​ Sorry you are getting involved in this, I don't want to shoot the messenger . What I, and possibly others wanted to know, was what is the thinking for Dw's future? Is it to remain on the same track, or is there any plans to make it into a product for professional web designers/developers? If it is to remain on the same track, (used mainly by beginners and casual users) then there is no point in us hoping for anything more. If on the other hand it is to make it into a professional product, then are the resources and backing from Adobe available, because if not, it is a no go for the future.
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
12:48 AM
2 Upvotes
A simple way is to apply a css filter on hover - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/filter
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
12:46 AM
https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u wrote I have asked for a discussion with the appropriate person, to see what are the indoor thinking. are we waiting our time ? does DW ready to be on shelves ? does Adobe have others plan and bullets under cover ? To answer your questions - yes, you are wasting your time. Dw is not being shelved, just ignored. Plans, what are they.
... View more
‎Jul 18, 2019
12:09 AM
https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u wrote I did a call some weeks ago on the alpha forum to see who was present there... I recieved 1 answer... I don't know if you remember my 'Is there anybody out there' post, to which only you replied. But I was later told that over 20 acp's had signed up to the alpha pre-release. The other problem with Dw is that they are catering for beginners and casual users, and not web designers/developers. Creating for the modern web requires one to know what is happening, and at least try to guess what is going to happen. Standing still for a year or more in the profession these days, means that catching up is very difficult, and Dw has stood still for years. Even simple things like srcset, and base 64 encoding have had feature requests filed since 2013, with Dw ignoring them. I don't know if the Dw team is to blame, or Adobe in general, but in the end the 'who is responsible' is no longer important. What is important is that they stop looking at wed design/development as a side-line to other professions for which adobe produces products.
... View more
‎Jul 17, 2019
12:15 PM
The problem is Jon, Dw is catering to an ever declining user base. If you read the discussion - https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2638463 which is just a starter discussion relating to the future of web design/development, and its problems. The simple truth is, that for anyone to move into the application design and development field, (browser based) flexbox, (and possibly grid in the future) are an essential grounding knowledge. Without the basic layout structure for modern applications, (which the current starter pages do not offer) anyone even thinking about making the transition has no choice but to assign Dw to the scrap heap. If html5, css and js api code hinting is included, then at least Dw may be able to offer 'application' starter pages. It is probably too late for Dw in its current form to make a serious bid into application development, but at least it may help designers and developers get started with the basics.
... View more
Copyright © 2025 Adobe. All rights reserved.
AdChoices