[besson3c]

Adobe Introduces 'Muse' Subscription-Based Website Creation Tools - Mac Rumors

Do we really need another WYSIWYG editor for people without HTML chops, let alone one that is $20/month? There are many of these to choose from already.

What I also want to know is what people do when they outgrow sites like this, and what it costs to deal with formatting all of these loose static pages in comparison to what it would have cost if the user started on a more future-proof platform to begin with?

[Andy8]

Having to install Adobe AIR to just try this is off putting enough itself.

[Paco500]

I think the premise is a good one- not sure about the execution as I haven't tried it out. I think the intro video makes one excellent point- nobody hand codes postscript anymore, why should one have to hand code web pages?

As you have said, wysiwyg editors are a dime a dozen, but none are particularly good. This one may be.

As for what happens when they outgrow it and need to recode the site? So what? The site needs to be recoded by someone that knows what they are doing. There are a lot of static web pages in existence that serve their purpose quite well. Most of them look like crap. This may be better.

As I say, it's all about execution. This may well not live up to expectations and it may be too expensive. I don't know where the $20/month comes from, I assume the site. Sounds a bit stiff to me.

[The Godfather]

Perfect to get webmasters who upsell their skill out of a pinch.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Andy8 

Having to install Adobe AIR to just try this is off putting enough itself.

Ugh, yeah I wouldn't want to do that to my computer, to install Adobe AIR. There's something just icky about AIR.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I think the premise is a good one- not sure about the execution as I haven't tried it out. I think the intro video makes one excellent point- nobody hand codes postscript anymore, why should one have to hand code web pages?

For the same reason why Google Translate is not a substitute for actually learning a language.

The HTML standards body and others are pushing for the web to be more about proper semantic use of syntax. With proper semantic use browsers don't have to do creative things to accommodate bad code in developing a quirks mode. Other sites/tools/widgets can make sense of the structure of your page when done semantically correct, and Google has also made it known that they reward proper semantic use in their page rank scheme. Browsers render pages faster when they don't have to operate in quirks mode, and chances are a properly coded page will also consist of less text which will take less time to load.

With new handheld devices being developed it is important now more than ever that performance is taken seriously, and no developer wants more browsers to have to test their pages with, so compatibility is a good thing too which is only possible when pages conform to standards.

So, with all due respect, I think the Postscript thing is a terrible argument.

As for what happens when they outgrow it and need to recode the site? So what? The site needs to be recoded by someone that knows what they are doing. There are a lot of static web pages in existence that serve their purpose quite well. Most of them look like crap. This may be better.

If the page is littered with inline styles when these are recoded the coder will have to come up with all sorts of stupid CSS hacks to make the content fit a new design, and/or drop all of the ad-hoc styles and necromancy the editor spewed into the document.

I've noticed that when users get their hands on WYSIWYG editors (including ones built into CMSes) they want to treat their webpages as a Word document, so you get into code such as:

Code:
<p style="text-align:center;color:red;font-size:18px;">Headline</p>

Yuck!

This can be very expensive to have to deal with whenever a site is redesigned. In fairness, you'll get this with CMSes that provide WYSIWYG editors to edit content of static pages, but at least the site template will hopefully consist of proper code.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For the same reason why Google Translate is not a substitute for actually learning a language.

The HTML standards body and others are pushing for the web to be more about proper semantic use of syntax. With proper semantic use browsers don't have to do creative things to accommodate bad code in developing a quirks mode. Other sites/tools/widgets can make sense of the structure of your page when done semantically correct, and Google has also made it known that they reward proper semantic use in their page rank scheme. Browsers render pages faster when they don't have to operate in quirks mode, and chances are a properly coded page will also consist of less text which will take less time to load.

With new handheld devices being developed it is important now more than ever that performance is taken seriously, and no developer wants more browsers to have to test their pages with, so compatibility is a good thing too which is only possible when pages conform to standards.

So, with all due respect, I think the Postscript thing is a terrible argument.

Totally 100% agree. The hacks they do to get them to render on all browsers usually causes a lot more work for anyone that has to integrate them to any other type of backend technology. (PHP, Ruby, Python, etc). Personally, I wish HTML was more strict to keep this bad code from making my life a living hell each day.

If the page is littered with inline styles when these are recoded the coder will have to come up with all sorts of stupid CSS hacks to make the content fit a new design, and/or drop all of the ad-hoc styles and necromancy the editor spewed into the document.

I've noticed that when users get their hands on WYSIWYG editors (including ones built into CMSes) they want to treat their webpages as a Word document, so you get into code such as:

Code:
<p style="text-align:center;color:red;font-size:18px;">Headline</p>

Yuck!

This can be very expensive to have to deal with whenever a site is redesigned. In fairness, you'll get this with CMSes that provide WYSIWYG editors to edit content of static pages, but at least the site template will hopefully consist of proper code.

I had to deal with a pageful of that crap when setting up some employees to use HTML email in Exact Target. The code was so bad, I just wrote a new template from scratch with literally 1/8 of the code. Anyone who didn't know HTML could read if for any updates they needed to do. WYSIWYG has it's place for smaller 'personal' websites, IMO, and mothing more complex without some actual coding knowledge.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Lots of stuff that is technically true

So what?

I hear what you are saying, but it seems as though your argument is that if someone wants to put a a webpage, they should be required to learn HTML or pay someone knowledgeable to do it. That may be the ideal, but it's not realistic. If someone needs a cheap flyer for their business on the web and they want it to look nice, what's the harm? It may not work with every browser out there? If it works with the last few versions of IE, Firefox and webkit, which I imagine this stuff does (or if it doesn't- it should- but again I'm on the side of the platonic ideal of a wysiwyg editor- this one may be pants) than I'd say it's good enough.

And how exactly does some random person putting up a website created with a wysiwyg editor which produces silly, convoluted code mean that all of the sudden web developers the world over have to start testing their code with all sorts of new browsers. It seems to me this is a problem caused by non-compliant browsers, not a web page somewhere.

And as for the argument that if the site grows, some one somewhere will have a hard time moving the design to a new design, again, so what? It's harder compared to what? No site at all? Someone may end up having to work harder- but they should get paid more for doing it. I understand that this may cause confusion and consternation with the customer, but it's not really a big drama. I would guess most people going from a homemade static site to a professionally done dynamic site would be looking for a redesign anyway.

The web is different than desktop publishing because it is dynamic, but I still think there is something to the hand coding postscript comparison. People did used to do this until the mac took off and desktop publishing was born. You couldn't put out the New York Times on it, but you could do your family's Christmas letter on it. It's not exactly the same, but if people without coding skills can put together a well designed and individual website without knowing the underlying bits, it's not a bad thing. If it's good and takes off, some web designers may see their jobs devalued, but I doubt it. It would never be a replacement for actual programming.

I think you are overstating the impact.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

So what?

I hear what you are saying, but it seems as though your argument is that if someone wants to put a a webpage, they should be required to learn HTML or pay someone knowledgeable to do it. That may be the ideal, but it's not realistic. If someone needs a cheap flyer for their business on the web and they want it to look nice, what's the harm? It may not work with every browser out there? If it works with the last few versions of IE, Firefox and webkit, which I imagine this stuff does (or if it doesn't- it should- but again I'm on the side of the platonic ideal of a wysiwyg editor- this one may be pants) than I'd say it's good enough.

And how exactly does some random person putting up a website created with a wysiwyg editor which produces silly, convoluted code mean that all of the sudden web developers the world over have to start testing their code with all sorts of new browsers. It seems to me this is a problem caused by non-compliant browsers, not a web page somewhere.

And as for the argument that if the site grows, some one somewhere will have a hard time moving the design to a new design, again, so what? It's harder compared to what? No site at all? Someone may end up having to work harder- but they should get paid more for doing it. I understand that this may cause confusion and consternation with the customer, but it's not really a big drama. I would guess most people going from a homemade static site to a professionally done dynamic site would be looking for a redesign anyway.

The web is different than desktop publishing because it is dynamic, but I still think there is something to the hand coding postscript comparison. People did used to do this until the mac took off and desktop publishing was born. You couldn't put out the New York Times on it, but you could do your family's Christmas letter on it. It's not exactly the same, but if people without coding skills can put together a well designed and individual website without knowing the underlying bits, it's not a bad thing. If it's good and takes off, some web designers may see their jobs devalued, but I doubt it. It would never be a replacement for actual programming.

I think you are overstating the impact.

I'm saying that I would only support using tools like this only if there is no possibility of painting yourself into a corner.

I really hate the way that tools like this are marketed as these professional empowering tools without being honest about the limitations of the product and what growing the site to something more substantial would entail. For flyers and the stuff that iWeb did that was what it was and would never amount to anything more, and for users that don't care about their Google pageranks, fine... Anything more, I think products like this are a PITA...

I know that this is a straw man because there is probably no literature that says that you can replace designers and programmers with this app no matter how substantial your site is explicitly, but what I think relying on tools like this for these sorts of websites do is basically postpone an inevitable outcome, and in doing so increasing costs significantly when compared to the costs of doing it the "right" way the first time.

[voodoo]

One question: was there ever an era of human civilization when people hand coded PostScript?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

One question: was there ever an era of human civilization when people hand coded PostScript?

Not to my knowledge, good point

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not to my knowledge, good point

Your knowledge would be incorrect. It was not a widespread thing by any measure, but look it up.

I had to debug postscript files when I was a wee lad just starting out in IT.

To be fair, I don't know if anybody did postscript coding by hand start to finish for real production work, but there was hand tweaking.

[exca1ibur]

Our engineer has to occasionally edit postscript files as well, as we do print production. I don't know what he hates more though, Perl or Postscript. LOL

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Your knowledge would be incorrect. It was not a widespread thing by any measure, but look it up.

I had to debug postscript files when I was a wee lad just starting out in IT.

To be fair, I don't know if anybody did postscript coding by hand start to finish for real production work, but there was hand tweaking.

Fair enough, I stand corrected on that

Maybe my viewpoints on apps like iWeb are a little too harshly misdirected or something. I recognize there is a need for apps like this, but I just hope that these companies are good about being clear about when it is appropriate to use an app like this and not marketing these as:

Start your mega corporation with Adobe Muse!

Step 1: don't hire any designers and programmers, just get your intern or family member to read the Muse instruction manual sometime this weekend!
Step 2: don't worry about every growing out of Muse, Muse can do everything you'll ever want, have fun, no diapers required!
Step 3: Profit!
Step 4: there is no step 4

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do we really need another WYSIWYG editor for people without HTML chops, let alone one that is $20/month? There are many of these to choose from already.

Competition is always good. If Adobe sees a chance to innovate over what we have already to choose from, then yes, we need that.

What I also want to know is what people do when they outgrow sites like this, and what it costs to deal with formatting all of these loose static pages in comparison to what it would have cost if the user started on a more future-proof platform to begin with?

If the initial costs are prohibitively large, then there might not even be a chance to outgrow anything. So that's not the question.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

If the initial costs are prohibitively large, then there might not even be a chance to outgrow anything. So that's not the question.

That's a good point.