No more Muse, what about DW?

[wefollow]

I really don't know what do to after using Muse.

I started using the Dreamweaver with StudioMx  but few months ago started using Muse.

Muse......March 26, 2018 we will release the final feature improvement release ...

Adobe doesn't even recommend Dreamweaver.

Should I come back to Dw?

Really need you advice.

thank you for reading,

James

[pziecina]

Question already asked, see

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2470602

[Preran]

I haven't heard of any such plan for Dreamweaver. I will check with the product management team to see if they have anything else to add.

Thanks,

Preran

[Preran · Accepted solution]

Coming back to the original question about Dreamweaver. It's a copy-paste from another discussion, but I do hope you understand why.

Like I promised, I checked with the senior management about the future of Dreamweaver, and their answer was that they see no reason to stop developing the product. Dreamweaver will continue to exist, period.

I understand that no amount of reassurance will suffice, but I do want to put other Dreamweaver users visiting this post at ease.

I am marking my answer as correct only because I want this question to be addressed upfront for visitors that will not care to read the rest of the discussion. If any of you feel strongly against that, let me know, and I will take care of unmarking it.

Thanks,

Preran

[Eyemo]

I'm not sure "Dreamweaver will continue to exist" is all that reassuring, given what, how and when Adobe has handled its execution of Muse. Technically, you could say Muse will continue to exist so long as you never need to reformat or clean install a new OS or re/de-authorize your CC account. But thanks for checking with senior management. That is something.

[Nancy OShea]

Eyemo  wrote

you could say Muse will continue to exist so long as you never need to reformat or clean install a new OS or re/de-authorize your CC account.

FYI:  Even though Adobe no longer develops Encore, SpeedGrade, Fuse and Fireworks, they are still available for download from your CC Desktop App .  Go to Preferences > Greative Cloud > and tick on Show Older Apps.  I am guessing  Muse, once its retired, will be in tthe same catagory.   

That said, I'm not sure why anybody would keep using Muse except for prototyping or exporting old projects to HTML. 

[Eyemo]

Re: "Show Older Apps" ... that's a good point. Thanks for the reminder.

As for why anybody would keep using Muse. Wow, where to start. Someone above mentioned GoLive and I agree that it was a far more engaging (until its very last version) static website builder than Dreamweaver (at least at the time it was EOL'd). Muse, though it lacked any way to access a code view, was -- OK *is* --  a helluva fun static-website authoring app. Dreamweaver is certainly powerful and could benefit from some more of that Muse / GoLive spirit.

BTW, speaking of static websites, say you want to create a complex multi-page how-to including all manner of media and interactivity, you can quickly design/build a website in Muse, export as HTML and throw it up on an Amazon S3 bucket or even send a .zip of it. Static, packaged websites will always have value, whether they're "live" online or not. Muse truly fulfilled its mission of providing powerful controls to create websites with no coding. It deserved better treatment, IMHO.

[pziecina]

I'm not going to argue about Muse being easier for the none coder, or those who do not want what is possible using html and css now. I do though agree with the part of the announcement that says Muse is not up to the requirerments of modern web sites, (even static sites) anymore.

In Dreamweaver one can produce anything a CC Animate user can do, plus we have css transforms, transitions and animations, which will do many Animate features all with much less code. Then we also have the advantage that if you design any document in inDesign, including wrapping text to follow a shape, one can reproduce that documents features using just html, css (with possibly a little javascript). I won't even get into the delivery of hi-dpi images, (any dpi 1x upto whatever) or specific cropped images targeting any particular screen size).

Many possibilities that many Muse users do not have, or thought were not possible for a web page are now available to the coder, html and css has moved on dramatically in the last 10 years.

[Jon Fritz]

It will be interesting to see what fills the void left by Muse in the coming years.

All the consternation in that forum seems to be caused by ignoring the fact that user do have some time to get to work on other alternatives. A fair number have already been suggested but people are trampling those posts in their fervor to lament the ruin that has befallen them.

Maybe Preran can add a locked announcement/sticky to the proper areas of the Muse forum with the document that has been started giving other alternatives, then keep that updated so people who are in the same boat, but looking to move forward can find it easily versus wading through the vitriol.

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jon+Fritz+II  wrote

It will be interesting to see what fills the void left by Muse in the coming years.

The one problem I have with the discontinuation of Muse is -

What do I tell posters in this forum now, when they are unwilling to code?

Try Muse, is no longer an option

[Preran]

Hi Paula,

Muse was quite like any other in the space. It is possible that there will be spinoffs in the future, but the way forward right now is to look at the options that are available and see the ones to which sites can be migrated with the least expense in time and effort. If the answers were simple, the discussion threads wouldn't have the number of posts they have currently.

Thanks,

Preran

[Jon Fritz]

DW+Professional Extensions?

Now is the time for ALsp to run specials and introduce people to Project VII extensions in DW.

Since anyone who has a full subscription already has DW available, they could easily have both Muse and DW installed while working to transition from one to the other over the course of the next year. Some of the extensions PVII has available make DW much more Muse-like from the designer's standpoint.

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jon+Fritz+II  wrote

DW+Professional Extensions?

I don't think there would be any problems for a Muse user to move to Dw when it comes to layouts. The main problem I envision for Muse users is when they have used plug-in/widgets, as most of the questions/answers I have read over the last few years, place much of the plug-in usage inside an iframe, often making the use a seperate web page.

The term 'spaghetti code' springs to mind.

[ALsp]

Now is the time for ALsp to run specials and introduce people to Project VII extensions in DW.

We seem to sometimes get accused of spamming. If I had assurances of not being banned, or of having my posts deleted, I think announcing our extensions, describing what they do, and possibly even offering special sales for Adobe forum users could be valuable to some customers and could also show that Adobe considers extensions to be valuable tools for some users.

Some of the extensions PVII has available make DW much more Muse-like from the designer's standpoint.

The Muse extension API is horrible. That said, most of our extensions produce results far superior to Bootstrap in terms of code-quality, efficiency, and--most of all--automation. Anyway, thanks for the thought, Jon. If someone from Adobe tells me they will allow the types of posts I mentioned, I think it would be helpful for both Muse and Dreamweaver users.

[Preran]

Hi Jon,

Thank you for the suggestions. Just so that I don't end up causing more conflict, I am waiting for all the discussions to stabilize before I start summarizing the discussions into separate posts that users don't have to wade through.

Also, I thank all the ACPs on this forum that have stepped in to provide their inputs on the Muse forum. You are awesome! I understand that some of your replies may not have been met with the response you were expecting, and I apologize for any hurt feelings.

Thanks,

Preran

[Nancy OShea]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jon+Fritz+II  wrote

It will be interesting to see what fills the void left by Muse in the coming years.

Right now, Webflow looks like a good fit for many.

https://indd.adobe.com/view/e9fcfe26-b2de-4bed-b9d1-79a3d3515c3f

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea  wrote

Right now, Webflow looks like a good fit for many.

I always find it interesting when I look at the layout system that programs like webflow use, (now used by bootstrap 4 also). Then think of the large number of dismissive posts regarding it being included in previous versions of Dw, (including in pre-release) over the last 5 years, and what Dw might have been.

Just in case nobody knows what I am talking about, its called css flexbox layouts.

Dw is now doing the same regarding css grid layouts.

[tiff_meek]

pziecina  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea   wrote

Right now, Webflow looks like a good fit for many.

I always find it interesting when I look at the layout system that programs like webflow use, (now used by bootstrap 4 also). Then think of the large number of dismissive posts regarding it being included in previous versions of Dw, (including in pre-release) over the last 5 years, and what Dw might have been.

Just in case nobody knows what I am talking about, its called css flexbox layouts.

Dw is now doing the same regarding css grid layouts.

Am investigating webflow/flexbox as an alternative to Muse after reading this. Thank you

[pziecina]

tiff_meek  wrote

pziecina   wrote

Just in case nobody knows what I am talking about, its called css flexbox layouts.

Dw is now doing the same regarding css grid layouts.

Am investigating webflow/flexbox as an alternative to Muse after reading this. Thank you

The problems of designers who do not want to code, are often mirrored by developers who don't want to learn or use anything new in code. This is very apparent when it comes to Dreamweaver, and how it has moved backwards as a web development tool over the last 7-8 years.

Whilst programs like Muse have become popular over that time, many programs for developers have either stagnated or lost there relevance for developers. At the moment we are concentrated in this and other discussions on designers who do not want to learn how to code, but developers who use programs like Dreamweaver if one looks at the w3c specs, (the body that controls the specifications for html, css and a number of other techs used by the web) are just as guilty of being stuck in the past, when it comes to what is now possible.

Many developers are trying to find easy ways to build web sites, in order to be competitive with visual and diy web site creation tools. They do not learn what is new, (or want to learn) they do not want the programs they use, (eg Dw) to offer anything new regarding the w3c specs, and worst of all they use 3rd party tools, (in my opinion) to make what they do look difficult, should someone look at how they work, and compare how they work with those using visual site creation tools.

I do think that if developer programs offered tools for many of the newer specs, (flexbox is 9 years old) to help with using them when required. Those same tools could be expanded upon once developers had experience in using them, and that those 'expanded new tools' would help designers to use new coding methods, without them having to understand the code like a developer, with only a basic working knowledge of code.

[B i r n o u]

without wanting to enter into a debate that will quickly scatter with the sandstone of the additions of each one ... I would say that ... " what do you mean or understand by developers ... ??? ... do you talk about the community of the developers suing Dreamweaver ... or is it in a wider circle well outside of Dreamweaver users?

because to my knowledge, or at least in the various communities of web-designer that I know and frequent ... after wiping the escapades of the beginning of models flex (almost proprietary, beacuse each editors went there of his solution) .. many of the persons that I know and share, use flexbox, as well as the grids, and the shapes and the html APIs, and a PWA approches,  and Node, and automator that came with Node...

certainly on the Dreamweaver side it is difficult to emerge, although dreaweaver ends up offering them through BS, which in my opinion is not the best that can be ...

but , I would be moderate about the fact that developers do not use flex

[pziecina]

Flex is just one example, most developers have only started to use flexbox in the last 2-3 years. We both know that Dw is so far behind and limited in who uses it and for what.

The dev forums I frequented ,(before retiring and cutting back on what I do) are only now taking css grid layouts seriously. Mainly because many developers 'follow the hype', the same applies to building browser based apps. It has been possible to do in the browser, what was previously only the province of device/os specific apps, (from app stores) for a few years.

Bootstrap is probably one of the worst examples of what can now be done, as it makes the easy complicated. I don't want us to get back into 'workflows', but for Dw was it really necessary to build pre/post-processors into the core?

Then we come to git, how many Dw users require it?

The same goes for other programs that have them as extensions, most do not require them for the work they do.

We can debate all week about the over complication of web development, and if it is required. Developers have tried to justify themselves to clients with the rise of programs like Muse. Web development does not have to be difficult, even Microsoft VS Pro offered Blend for visual app development, and visual tools for creating program UI's in development, so why do web developers fight against the use of visual helpers?

Visual tools for layouts and UI's should be normal, with code being required for functionality and other features, (the customization of the end look and feel).

[ALsp]

I do think that if developer programs offered tools for many of the newer specs, (flexbox is 9 years old) to help with using them when required. Those same tools could be expanded upon once developers had experience in using them, and that those 'expanded new tools' would help designers to use new coding methods, without them having to understand the code like a developer, with only a basic working knowledge of code.

I know you've said yo make a lot of extensions for yourself, but I have no way of knowing the complexity of what you make. We have 2 layout builders-- one that uses floats, the other that uses flexbox (and a grid builder will be added to the mix when the grid spec becomes viable).But these types of tools are extremely complex to build, having many thousands of lines of backend code to power the interface and its various automation tasks.

My point is that there are, an have been for quite some time, tools that developers and designers can use that will enable them to build pages the right way, while also enabling them to learn how the code works.

I'm sure you were meaning for Adobe to do this themselves, but Adobe is not capable. They simply have neither the talent nor the incentive to even attempt it.

The only designers who've been hurt by Adobe not building in proper layout and design features are the same ones who've been hurt for the past twenty years--the ones who either refuse to consider commercial extensions, or the ones who do not know they exist.

Just saying...

And it's nice to hear nice things about my work sometimes, even if (in this community) I have to say it myself

[pziecina]

Normal service will now be resumed .

ALsp  wrote

I know you've said yo make a lot of extensions for yourself, but I have no way of knowing the complexity of what you make.

Mainly using various databases and pdo based code, plus a few basic html, css and js ones. I don't build extensions on a commercial basis as I found even when I offered them free, users demanded support.

ALsp  wrote

I'm sure you were meaning for Adobe to do this themselves, but Adobe is not capable. They simply have neither the talent nor the incentive to even attempt it.

I gave up with Adobe having any idea or knowledge when it came to web developers or even web designers requirements years ago, and see CS6 as the last real attempt to build a viable program.

To me the Dw team should be capable of building a visual layout tool for flexbox and css grids, if they think they can build a program that they say is for, 'designers who wish to code'. They have however consistently proven me completely wrong, (at least they have a 100% success rate in that).

A visual layout tool just for flexbox and/or grids I think we both can agree, is not 'string theory', (I won't say rocket science, as  that was part of my degree studies back in 19something). It does however require a good understanding of how both flexbox and grid layouts work, which sadly is missing, (even now) from the Dw team, cab and pre-release, (and probably most 'sources' who advise the Dw team).

[ALsp]

A visual layout tool just for flexbox and/or grids I think we both can agree, is not 'string theory', (I won't say rocket science, as  that was part of my degree studies back in 19something). It does however require a good understanding of how both flexbox and grid layouts work, which sadly is missing, (even now) from the Dw team, cab and pre-release, (and probably most 'sources' who advise the Dw team).

Dreamweaver doesn't need one because we offer one. And we have the resolve and the experience to both make it good and support it in ways that Adobe simply cannot. And while we are highly regarded among our customers (imagine that) this Adobe community has abandoned the care and nurturing of talented extension developers to the detriment of Dreamweaver users everywhere.

At one time, someone would post a question on this forum about drop-down menus. An Adobe regular such as Murray Summers, or an Adobe employee such as Matt Brown, would typically respond and suggest going to such and such web site and following a tutorial to build the markup, write the CSS, and program the JavaScript... or go to Project Seven and buy a tool that works automatically and gives you more features than you can shake a stick at.

And then things began to change up. The regulars began to leave, move on, a few passed away, and Adobe came out with Spry. Now, mind you, this was a multi-billion dollar company throwing down the gauntlet and developing its own JS/CSS/Data framework, along with widget-type UIs inside Dreamweaver. Perfect, no?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

It was a disaster. Poorly conceived, poorly written. Destined to fail. And that was when Adobe allegedly had talented coders onboard. Not true. Obviously not true. Almost comically not true.

And you think this is what Adobe should do? Write an automated page-building tool based on Flexbox, Grid, or both?

Hmmph.

It is a job more closely related to rocket science (which is much simpler than most people think) than you might think. But I digress. Adobe neither possesses the talent to build rockets or build powerful extensions. Hell, if they did, they would  have automated Bootstrap. We could do that in a few weeks, and we would, if we didn't think Bootstrap was a joke, if we didn't know we could (and have) done better.

This is a Dreamweaver forum. It should be focusing on how to use Dreamweaver, not how to code. Coding is a fin skill, but a separate issue. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Dreamweaver has been slowly killed by the regulars on this forum, including some Adobe employees.

It's mystifying. Truly mystifying.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

A visual layout tool just for flexbox and/or grids I think we both can agree, is not 'string theory', (I won't say rocket science, as  that was part of my degree studies back in 19something). It does however require a good understanding of how both flexbox and grid layouts work, which sadly is missing, (even now) from the Dw team, cab and pre-release, (and probably most 'sources' who advise the Dw team).

Dreamweaver doesn't need one because we offer one. And we have the resolve and the experience to both make it good and support it in ways that Adobe simply cannot. And while we are highly regarded among our customers (imagine that) this Adobe community has abandoned the care and nurturing of talented extension developers to the detriment of Dreamweaver users everywhere.

At one time, someone would post a question on this forum about drop-down menus. An Adobe regular such as Murray Summers, or an Adobe employee such as Matt Brown, would typically respond and suggest going to such and such web site and following a tutorial to build the markup, write the CSS, and program the JavaScript... or go to Project Seven and buy a tool that works automatically and gives you more features than you can shake a stick at.

That's where we differ AL.

I think Dreamweaver should offer the basic tools, and extension developers expand on them. I don't think it should be necessary for anyone to pay out more money if they have already paid for Dreamweaver, just to get basic features that should be included.

As for it not being necessary to code, read many solutions in the forum and tell me how much coding is being demonstrated, it is mainly use this bootstrap layout or its components, click and its done.