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

[Rocky_Fiit]

The only reason for me when I can not go to Webflow is the price. I live in a poor country, and for me 16 dollars every month is a lot!

[mcguirebrannon]

I created a duplicate of my Homepage using Webflow and the code generated is a quarter of that generated by Muse - great!

However, my Muse page has 250KB of content. https://rugbywebdesign.co.uk/

Identical Webflow page has 786KB of content https://rugbywebdesign.co.uk/webflow/index.html

Please, could you explain why the Webflow page is far more bloated? (same assets).  By far the biggest culprit is images, 11kB in Muse vs 516KB in Webflow.  Puzzling.

Adding on here on what Nelson said above, we're not getting the same result. As Nelson linked us to Pingdom (an industry standard), their independent NYC servers show different page sizes than what yo specified above. Load times on both of these are coming up within a couple hundred milliseconds of each other. In both cases, the YouTube embed scripting is causing a bit of a slowdown, but nothing to write home about.

Keep in mind these tests can fluctuate, so sometimes it's good to run them a few times if you think there might be an aberration.

Muse version of your page:

Performance grade: 67/100; Load time 2.62s; Page size: 2.2 MB

https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/bhvJ2L/https://rugbywebdesign.co.uk

Webflow version of your page:

Performance grade: 84/100; Load time: 2.75s; Page size: 2.2 MB

https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/EIfug/https://rugbywebdesign.co.uk/webflow/index.html

In both cases, the page size is reasonable. Even industry giants like Apple often have much larger page sizes, but of course you can optimize assets before dropping them into your tool of choice (same if you're hand-coding).

Apple's iPhone X page:

Performance grade: 79/100; Load time: 3.17s; Page size: 18.6 MB

https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/cCCLK5/https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/

[Illostraight]

MB, I see there's a lot of information regarding boxes on webflow, would I be able to make a page such as this front page on my website? I can't seem to wrap my head around the turtorials with the boxes. I don't want a 'boxy' look. Forgive the old gallery look, I was just about to update my website when this happened.

[Nancy OShea]

Illostraight  wrote

I can't seem to wrap my head around the tutorials with the boxes. I don't want a 'boxy' look.

That's kind of funny because web page layouts are based on boxes -- more specifically, the CSS Box Model.   As you can see from the graphic below, your web page is just a bunch of  boxes (outlined in red). 

Assuming you want drag & drop ease  for new projects,, look at NetObjects Fusion.   This desktop software has been around since the mid-1990's so they have a proven track record.

Full Scale version:  $130 USD 

Upgrade :  $50

Website Design Software | NetObjects Fusion

NetObjects Fussion Essentials is a FREE (lite) version you can try out.

Free Website Design Software | NetObjects Fusion Essentials

For projects exported from Muse to native HTML, CSS & JavaScript files, you can use any HTML code editor you like.

• BlueGriffon - BlueGriffon - The next-gen Web and EPUB Editor based on the rendering engine of Firefox -
• Brackets - Brackets - A modern, open source code editor that understands web design.
• Dreamweaver - Adobe Dreamweaver CC | Website and web design software
• Pinegrow -https://pinegrow.com/
• etc.....

[Illostraight]

Hahaha! It is, isn't it!? Thank you, Nancy!

[W_J_T]

Pinegrow has various tools and helpers for visualization. Such as Element Outlines:

( This is actually an old screen shot, many more options are there now )

Element outlines displays dotted blue border around all elements on the page. That’s useful for observing the boundaries and layout of page elements.

Also with Pinegrow's CSS Visual Editor, you will also see live the Box Model (margins, padding, etc.,) adjustments and any other creative edits you make with it. Much like Nancy showed above, and I am sure others she mentioned do similar as well.

When working with such tools, you are "not tied to the tool" because you are working with your exported Muse source, or on new projects, etc., in native source (HTML/CSS/JS), so its also transferable to other tools which do the same.

[W_J_T]

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

Assuming you want drag & drop ease for new projects, look at NetObjects Fusion.   This desktop software has been around since the mid-1990's so they have a proven track record.

A word of caution however.

• That link page title says "NetObjects Fusion 2015"
• Their Blog has not been posted on since 2015
• Their Twitter, etc., 2015
• The software was last updated in 2015
• The copyright on their page says 2016
• and it seems like people are having issues on their forum with the software, but there are active posts

Is it still being developed or maintained do you know @Nancy ?

[Nancy OShea]

W_J_T  wrote

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

Assuming you want drag & drop ease for new projects, look at NetObjects Fusion.   This desktop software has been around since the mid-1990's so they have a proven track record.

A word of caution however.

• That link page title says "NetObjects Fusion 2015"
• Their Blog has not been posted on since 2015
• Their Twitter, etc., 2015
• The software was last updated in 2015
• The copyright on their page says 2016
• and it seems like people are having issues on their forum with the software, but there are active posts

Is it still being developed or maintained do you know @Nancy ?

I have no idea what the NOF status is only that the software is still available from Amazon Digital Services.    Amazon.com: NetObjects Fusion 2015 [Download]: Software

And NOF Essentials is free.

[W_J_T]

Thanks for the response @Nancy, I just didn't want people to buy into or adopt something that was no longer being maintained. It looked like it and gave that impression when looking at it again for the first time in many years.

[Illostraight]

I felt a SiteGrinder de ja vous when I went there. LOL

[Nancy OShea]

Whichever exist strategy you decide upon, don't let yourself become a slave to a single software or service that could potentially hurt you later.  I think it's fair to say that knowing how to manage code in a code editor is the best long-term solution for anyone who builds websites for profit.  

[GARRogers]

Nancy O'Shea:

Have you ever looked at Sparkle?

Could you comment on it?

Thanks.

[Nancy OShea]

  wrote

Nancy O'Shea:

Have you ever looked at Sparkle?

Could you comment on it?

Thanks.

I can't because I don't own a Mac. 

[Ussnorway]

I can't because I live in Australia...

[GARRogers]

Nancy OShea

Thank you for answering so soon.

It seems like this app has many of the features of the other WYSIWYG apps people have discussed, that's why I was curious and wondered if someone of expertise could offer some comments.

[Nancy OShea]

Your new page is carrying extra assets like jQuery core library, webflow.css, webflow.js, normalize.css, Google fonts, etc...

For what it's worth, your webflow site loads much faster for me.

[BenPleysier]

Muse:

Webflow:

I have noticed the same difference with other sites as well. Both are dreadful!

The biggest problem with Webflow vs Muse is its dependency on Webflow while the Muse generated code can be used anywhere, ie. server and editor.

[Ussnorway]

the code must come from somewhere and people that don't want to learn code have to pay a price for that

p.s, they both load the same speed for me in Australia on FF

[BenPleysier]

I'm just outside of Melbourne.

[Ussnorway]

Macksville nsw, uses the sydney hub... they could be digging up the cabble?

[BenPleysier]

I remember way back, when I was criticising people for using Muse, you jumped in with a very simple question: what do you find is wrong muse?

This set me back somewhat and I started playing around with Muse. Since then, I have come to admire the application especially when compared to products such as WIX and Webflow. I came to the realisation that it was an application targeting a special audience, namely that of non-coders. Back in the Dreamweaver forum, many of us suggested using Muse when a poster did not want to learn to code. Not sure where to send them now.

Having said that, I still feel that people should learn to code if they want to be independent of any proprietary software.

How will the demise of Muse affect you? 

[Ussnorway]

i agree people should learn code to be a web designer... imo Muse was mostly aimed at people that want just their own site

and I feel the the other options need to take into account what different people need i.e, there is no ONE replacement

in my case Pinegrow will prob be it but I'm still testing other options... and to be blunt, its the loss of BC that really hurts for me as other hosting plans in Australia have limited "self server hosting" options

[donnaannex]

I have tried to find an alternative to Muse. Suggestions are Muse Portfolio - no good for me - XDC - I don't know code. As an Adobe customer since very early days it feels like the same betrayal as when you phased out Freehand. Some people blithely say to learn code. Well it took me long enough to figure out making a website without code. I can no longer make custom built websites for my small clients who are on a tight budget. I don't have the resources to send out to a developer. I will no longer be able to update my own website. It looks like I will have to use Portfolio and even though there is a slight area of customisation that you can design, they all seem to work in the same way. I have looked at all the templates and examples I could find and they all look very generic (not the work) but the look and feel of the platforms. I feel very angry that I have wasted weeks of my time looking at tutorials, experimenting, gathering material for something that will be phased out in a year. I don't want to find another alternative somewhere else as I already pay for CC and I am on a very limited budget. I am very unhappy.

[Lonnie_Kunkel]

Take a look at Sparkleapp.com — it’s only for Mac, but they have a indefinite free trial and are offering a discount for Musers.

[GARRogers]

I loved Sparkle once I tried it. For one thing, It is visually beautiful, and inspirational on that level alone.

In all the hundreds of hours I've watched tutorials, I've learned a lot but for the most part the tutorials have been visually nothing to write home about.  I watched a Sparkle tutorial on Boxes -- and watched it two or three times, simply because it was beautiful!

Here's a link to the Sparkle tutorial on boxes:

Boxes — Sparkle Visual Web Design - YouTube

Here's the link to the Sparkle site itself

Sparkle Visual Web Design