[Turner]

"Regardless of the tools you use, it's really only that kind of
commitment that makes it possible to maintain consistency on a site as
sprawling as ours."

Wow, cool, all you need is a 24 hour staff of hand-coders! I should have thought of that.

Homesite's dead.

I bet they get a lot of satisfaction out of hand-coding "everything" and just really feeling the love when they write special routines and hacks to get their digital images to look just right. You know, things other people might use Photoshop for.

Sure, Photoshop is supposed to make things look a certain way, but to get things -just- right you really better how to code....

And, I mean, handsetting all that metal type.... lots of satisfaction there. ;)

Look, the site looks fine, but it's nothing special; really. The larger task is keeping it up and running, not making it look the way it should.

As I've said, the fact that they (or anyone) has to put such an enormous amount of effort into making it look the way it should is just ridiculous.

[robertRoss]

Nice way to poop on craftsmanship and the way other people choose to work.

There was no implication that you have to code images or you should get down to the bitmap level to edit images. These are very different things and the comparison is embarassing to anyone who makes it.

The effort to make things "look the way the should" as well as function they way "they should" (I'd say designed) is the result of the medium that web sites are delivered by, multiple browsers on multiple operating systems with multiple resolutions, not to mention coding for accessibility. A browser is not like paper, where you know the stock, if it's coated, the size, what printers you'll be using (although you don't necessarily know any of this, and you may have to "work" to make your design "work" in collaboration with all those people who work hard in prepress, for example.

It can take a lot of work to craft a website that works on every browser and device, has a print style sheet that is very nice, works on mobile devices, and will function on new devices to come by introducing an appropriate style sheet.

If you don't want to do any of that then that's fine. But for those who do, it takes a lot of work and I wouldn't be surprised if they, like, oh I don't know, many people who work, get frustrated by the inconsistencies one has to deal with.

[webmacher]

Well, I highly doubt that they handcode each and every page on the site. I'm pretty sure he's talking about how they create their TEMPLATES. It's a template-driven site, so the time they spend to get their code correct pays off with pages that work in all browsers. It also really helps with the "keeping the site up and running" part.

Honestly, I don't quite understand why people would object to that approach. (Nobody said they DESIGNED it that way -- I'm sure they have graphic designers who mocked it up in whatever tools they preferred...)

[Turner]

"Nice way to poop on craftsmanship and the way other people choose to work."

I'm not pooping on craftsmanship or on the way other people choose to work. I'm envious of those people who can use Notepad to build nascar.com. I want to eventually remember how to CENTER A DIV by code with zero margins or whatever the heck you do. That's important stuff, and a necessary workaround.

I am pointing out how silly it is that a team of people are needed to get something to look the way it should this long after the internet became so ubiquitous. It's just stupid.

Obviously, there is value in hand-coding but it can be abused as well. (Hope you enjoyed that..)

Programmers remind me a lot of lawyers, or politicians, or accountants: their ability to make/keep things far more complicated than they need to be ensures their longevity. Not that they would want to do that.

This isn't to demean anyone's abilities. But, we are still living in "workaround land."

That browser providers don't get in gear and decide on how to portray the same code the same way is their choice, and I remember when we used to see "Use Browser XXX for best experience"... apparently, those days are still here.

I suppose as long as Dreamweaver is now taking the place of GoLive, I'll keep watching to see how they improve WYSIWYG, but they have a very long way to go. Programmers should not be needed for visual presentation.

[SpinThis!]

And how anybody can badmouth a site of that size is beyond me. I guess unless you create pages only you and your mom look at, use any tool you want.

I use DW (and Coda) and I've marked up html since 1992 and I'm still dumbfounded why nobody has filled in a void with a decent editor. Slicing up your images, making navigation bars, and writing CSS ends up being a lot more time consuming than it needs to be. Photoshop can write some CSS for you but you still end up putting the pieces together after you're done.

As a graphic artist, imho it's a lot easier (and you're going to be more valuable) knowing ahead of time what to slice up, how big, etc when you're designing the site to begin with. There were times when I was first learning this stuff?pulling my hair out dealing with browser inconsistencies?I was about ready to give up and do the site in Flash but thankfully I thought better of it.

[tallscot]

>I am pointing out how silly it is that a team of people are needed to get something to look the way it should this long after the internet became so ubiquitous. It's just stupid.

Exactly.

DTP definitely was more complicated in the beginning than it is now. Everything was, right?

[robertRoss]

+I'm not pooping on craftsmanship or on the way other people choose to
work. I'm envious of those people who can use Notepad to build
nascar.com. I want to eventually remember how to CENTER A DIV by code
with zero margins or whatever the heck you do. That's important stuff,
and a necessary workaround.+



I apologize. I took your statement about editing images in Photoshop with code as something other than what it was obviously.



I am pointing
out how silly it is that a team of people are needed to get something
to look the way it should this long after the internet became so
ubiquitous. It's just stupid.



It may be, but such is the state of a technology that continues to evolve and with browsers that render in different manners, not to mention other devices with web browsers of their own.



This isn't to demean anyone's abilities. But, we are still living in "workaround land."



Agreed. Which is why we need people who know how to make those workarounds work while, at the same time, future proofing code to reduce the need for workarounds.



+That browser providers don't get in gear and decide on how to portray
the same code the same way is their choice, and I remember when we used
to see "Use Browser XXX for best experience"... apparently, those days
are still here.+



Agreed. This is why we often need to partake of absurd levels of effort to get things to work properly.



+I suppose as long as Dreamweaver is now taking the place of GoLive,
I'll keep watching to see how they improve WYSIWYG, but they have a
very long way to go. Programmers should not be needed for visual
presentation.+



Perhaps not, but CSS is code, and it works for the visual presentation side of the web currently, as well as XSLT of course. So what should not be needed is, unfortunately, what is needed at the moment given the state of the code that the WYSIWYG applications create if you use them without touching the code. Dreamweaver has some common CSS layouts packaged with it but I don't even bother with those.

[jimbarg]

If there were a way to keep my sites intact and to have GoLive Actions like MenuMachine and the suite from Actions Café actually WORK with a their intended interfaces, then I'd bite down hard and migrate to Dreamweaver. But, right now, I'm sticking with GoLive CS2 and will probably do so until "it don't run no more", I LOVE GoLive, have used it since version 3, have designed every site I've ever done on it, and just can't make the switch without LOTS of pain (and lost money too!). Adobe may not owe us anything except to either roll GL's more notable features (point n' shoot, drag n' drop, and slick integration of Javascript Actions) into DW. OR possibly sell the app to a developer who can not only keep it alive, but give us the things we DO need, like support for dynamic content.
I am NOT a codie, nor do I want to be. The sites I've designed over the years have worked fine on all platforms. C'est la vie, I guess, I just hope Apple doesn't do something to OSX that would prevent GoLive CS2 from working.
GoLive may be dead at Adobe, but for me, it'll stay as my preferred design tool until Dreamweaver's interface incorporates GoLive's cool features (possibly working in a "GoLive mode", perhaps) or until someone like SoftPress gives me a way to use my GoLive Actions with Freeway.

[steve1962]

jimbarg said:

... I just hope Apple doesn't do something to OSX that would prevent GoLive CS2 from working.

Ummm... of course they will. They'll develop a new operating system.

[jimbarg]

Doh! Got me! :-)

[OBI656]

I am using Dreamweaver since version 2 and GoLive since Adobe come-out with first Adobe version. To me it does not matter when it comes to either one which one I use. To say that, in use of visual so call “cool design” sites the GoLive has been always choice. In case of pure commercial sites where functionality prevail over the visual importance Dreamweaver was a choice ....
In these days, 12/01/2008 when we like to get upgrade for latest Dreaweaver we are interacting with ADOBE sales after some times, and we going trough upgrade to our opinion about ADOBE as well ...
Someone already has mentioned, that ADOBE become to be a monopoly ... YEP ! ... we can feel it, they did ! We are trying for one week to buy this upgrade from Canada and still no upgrade. In this very moment we are on hold for 3 THREE (!!!) HOURS !!! Unbelievable.
Anyhow ... Tomorrow most likely FREEWAY PRO version 5 will be purchased for our studio and as far as Dreamweaver SC4 this will become to be an issue ...
Dreamweaver is not bad but seams too, that ADOBE is ... I wonder for how long they will stand high with this kind of attitude... In this moment we are on hold for 3:48:16 INCREDIBLE !!!

[falucskai]

Quote

Why do you people keep complaining about paying for stuff? No one twisted your arm to buy Go Live or any other Adobe products. And Adobe doesn't owe you anything for what you've spent. You exchanged your money for the products. Done deal. No strings attached. I own GoLive 9 and I'll miss Smart Objects, too. But it's time to move on. In this case, the market has spoken and has gotten more behind Dreamweaver than GL. Fair enough. Time to move on.

I know it was long time ago, but do you still have GoLive 9? I would like to download it... cannot find it anywhere to buy. I built all my websites with that, and hate DW... I wouldn't mind paying for it... maybe we could share it. I use it only to upgrade my sites ... rarely Thanks,