Folks, I really start to like Muse. Not for building commercial websits, which just have to be hand.coded, but for developing ideas, prototypes and a clickable «sketch» of the site.I'm starting to abuse Muse for our own site, as I love the totally CMS-free «canvas» kind of feeling the app has, as a designer we have started to think too much in terms of content and CM-Systems, so it feels kind of fresh to work on a Site in terms of just fooling around on a very big «page», where some weird interactive stuff may happen. I think, with some wotk and a strong link to Dreamweaver, Muse may be an excellent tool for developing smaller sites that aren't so complex as to be handcoded and must be done on a smaller budget (plus, mostly are more static than bigger sites mostly are).
As for what I'd like to see in Muse 2:
- Responsive Framework. It will be kind of hard to make this work in a WYSIWYG-Software which stills try to work with «pixels», but Adobe is well on its way in Dreamweaver and Indesign, so I hope this is do-able.
- Retina. This should actually be a big plus for Muse. When handcoding Sites, we have to produce two sets of images, regular and @2x. Muse could just automate this and generate the code needed for ipad, iphone and MBP with Retina.
- Typekit. The way Muse works with TK is just great and a breakthrough achievement. What lacks is a way to actually log in and use fonts you bought via Fontshop or you have in your (larger) set of fonts you can use via your TK-membership (or CC-membership now). It's a no-brainer ad would link these two offers perfectly, making a large step forward to what Creative Cloud could be.
- HTML/CSS-Editing. Actually, what I'd dream of is a merging of Dreamweaver and Muse. It just makes sense. Dreamweaver is a nightmare to work with visually, but still a very nice tool - along with Coda and so on - to work on HTML and CSS of a site, e.g. producing templates for Typo3 and so on. Muse is great fun for WYSIWYG, but there is no wy to edit the output (except after the fact and only for that one time). Plus, the output is still pretty, well, strange (why has almost every page it's own CSS - doesn't that go against the very idea of CSS?). So what if Adobe could turn Muse into the visual editor of Dreamweaver but we could still fine-tune the site and its details via Code (which sometimes would be far more efficient, such as when you change type or colours site-wide via css). Wouldn't that be great? I think so.