pziecina wrote tiff_meek wrote Oh please. I'm here to talk about the web development industry in relation to Adobe Muse vs web developers/coders per se. O/K, lets talk about WYSIWYG and visual web site creation. Lets not talk about Muse vs code. The problem with code editors is that even for developers they never match what one requires, and any help they give is more often than not simply a memory jerk, in that they will only suggest the code to use if you have some idea of what the code is in the first place, (code hints). The other problem with them is, is that they are often years behind in code hints anyway. Now to WYSIWYG and pure visual site creators. The problem with them is that they take a snap-shot of what the web can do at the time they are written, also that they try to hide from the user requirerments such as WCAG Level 2, (they simply ignore them). They also due to the users they try to support, generalise everything. In that they allow the user to do simple things but never allow the user to go beyond the basic requirerments. As for semantic mark-up forget it. Programs like Dreamweaver did in the past try to support a visual workflow to some extent, but due to the abuse of those features by those using them, and advances in things like mobile device browsers, social media, etc... the methods used became 'unfit for purpose'. So what is required? instead of the code vs no-code stance, maybe like everything else in this modern era there should be a middle ground. Instead of saying it should work like a dtp program, (none coder) or a code editor (developer) it would be better to first admit that the web is not the same as dtp, and that development can be overly complexed if just using a code editor. Somewhere between the two extreme views there could be a middle ground, and that middle ground requires a new understanding. Trying to understand something based on the past, or on specifications alone, will no longer work. It is like saying that a piston engine works the same as a jet engine, and can be understood using the same words, (which they can, if you boil it down to they both work on the principle of - suck, squeeze, bang, blow). So as you started this phase of the discussion, any suggestions? It's a tough one isn't it? I appreciate the predicament. It's incredibly difficult to meld the creative space and the technical space. Back in the days of yore it was easy. A paintbrush and wall - and a creative could go nuts. Technically we needed to provide a creative with paints of varying colours, and erect a wall. That was about it. Easy peasy. These days it's not so organic and the line between a technical and a creative is not so easy to define. The internet is a very cool mixture of many mediums that need to be tied together to form a product for the consumer. Behind the scenes this is where the code comes in. It's the fibre of the wood that makes the brush that holds the paint that fills the canvas. The problem we face is that the fibre (code) in the wood is affecting the capacity of the painter (web designer) to paint freely - to express, to innovate and to provide joy and experience to the viewer. This might all seem like waffle but it's fundamental to the expression of humanity, and that is the ultimate purpose of the internet. It's like having a human brain that can process, sort and organise information, but has no imagination. This does not devalue the side of the brain that processes, sorts and organises, but speaks to the necessity of the human mind to be expansive in order to reach its true potential in EVERY way. I have no idea how we get there, that is for the technical geniuses. I just know that get there we must. Cheers Tiff
... View more