Years later and I still miss it!

Antoine,

If you can get a copy of GL9 somewhere, I'm pretty sure it should work in Lion. It was the only version of GoLive made as a Universal app. It should work in Lion. It works natively in SnowLeopard.

Count me in as one who can't seem to make the transition to DW. I actually hate it. Have watched tutorials; have diddled around trying to "learn as I go," have banged my head up against this wall over and over and over and keep going back to GoLive to make site updates.

I've started praying to the HTML gods to make Dreamweaver go away and bring GoLive back!!!

STURMKATZE wrote:

 

... it was much better when Macromedia owned it, at least you could do things w/ it...

Out of curiosity, what features were removed from DW when Adobe acquired it? I do not recall DW being better when Macromedia owned it. It has been the same clunky program for years, just like any other web design program.

It would be great to rattle up some support to lobby Adobe to bring out a USER FRIENDLY web building package. One that you don't have to waste your life trying to get your head around such as DW.

I scratch my head as to why Adobe would want to go backwards with DW instead of using that time to develop improvements to an already usable product such as GoLive? Bit like discontinuing computers and recreating the abacus.

ianb1951 wrote:

 

It would be great to rattle up some support to lobby Adobe to bring out a USER FRIENDLY web building package...

No lobbying is required. Adobe is already on the move.

http://muse.adobe.com

Of course, you could also look outside of Adobe for the same kind of user friendly web building package. Adobe does not own the market on web design. Nobody was ever obligated to move to DW (or Muse).

No lobbying is required. Adobe is already on the move.

http://muse.adobe.com

SENSATIONAL!!!!!!

Thanks for posting this link Marian.

Watch the video guys. If you are into InDesign and Photoshop you'll love Muse!

Can't wait to start using it.

As soon as I saw familiar InDesign features on video I was sold.

Regards Ian

Allow me to temper your excitement.    My mention of Muse was only to indicate that Adobe has not given up on WYSIWYG web design. Muse (as a beta, and possibly as a final product) falls pretty short. I don't really recommend it. An excellent pro/con analysis appears here: http://www.netmagazine.com/features/developers-respond-adobe-muse

Muse is still very different from GoLive. There are a few major issues:

1. Muse is an HTML generator. It is not intended to play nicely with others. You cannot import existing sites. You cannot edit HTML by jumping between design and source modes like GoLive. And like all other HTML generators (SoftPress Freeway, NetObjects Fusion, iWeb, etc), taking a Muse-generated site into another editor (GL or DW) is a mess.
   
   
2. Muse works on a subscription model. You must be an active subscriber to update your site. Over time, Muse could cost much more than GoLive.
   
   Because Muse is not a product that you can keep forever, your website can become orphaned if Adobe decides to discontinue Muse.

Ian, it's a subscription model, meaning you have to pay like $180. EVERY year and i think it's like in the cloud or something. No, not worth it. Bad enough they kill the products you buy, now you have to rent them?

"The audience still seeking GoLive's return are not likely HTML designers." There are no "HTML designers." Code is not design.

"They likely do not care about semantic markup." Not caring and not wanting to have to use semantic markup are two different things. Nobody on earth should have to ever know what semantic markup even is any more. How many people do you find fighting for the right to code their word processors to get "italic" to look right? See how the word "italic" is italic? I didn't code that just now, and that's the way it should be in every application, everywhere.

"They don't really think about how people are drawn to a site." That's a pretty poor generalization. If there's a truth here, it's that people are drawn to sites in many different ways. Maybe you're just considering search engines.

Turner, this is SO true! All of what you said and really, no matter WHAT code monkeys say, people are NOT drawn to sites by code... they want to see it and they want it to work. They want ease of use, NOT doo dads.

I believe Adobe just does NOT care what their customers think. I will continue to use GoLive CS2 until I cannot. Don't know where I will go after, but Corel is an option... I use both and have ALWAYS liked CorelDraw better than Effed-up, hard to use Illustrator. Guess iw ill look into X5... I have x4. And it doesn't cost $1800. which is just plain highway robbery. If Adobe's "geniuses" would adopt Aple's pricing mode, Adobe would sell WAY more software (well, that and stop killing good stuff).

Oh, this should be fun...

Marian Driscoll wrote:

 

turner111 wrote:

 

There are no "HTML designers." Code is not design.

The GoLive developers gave you a source view for a reason. Are you criticizing GoLive?

Sure. It ain't perfect, jsut better than ******** dreamweaver. Even w/ GL, Adobe didn't care much for what its customers thought. It's just better than other stuff. I STILL am having trouble w/ templat eoverflow and have NO answer.

 

 

turner111 wrote:

 

See how the word "italic" is italic?

You are not demonstrating an understanding of what semantic markup is. Are you trying to argue or support my previous point?

 

"italic" is now "emphasis"... how stupid.

 

turner111 wrote:

 

That's a pretty poor generalization.

That is a perfectly valid generalization from observing this forum for years and observing the clueless new web designers in the Muse forum.

 

Why are they clueless? Just because "pros" think it's a certain way, I've found that's not always the case. Everyone works in their own way. Breathe a bit, maybe even smile and be happy.

Hello Marian-

"These illustrate a difference between presentation and structure."

That's my point, though: When I use InDesign, I don't have to define what "italic" is. I just hit a little button (or, in my case, choose the right font variant) and let the program worry about how to present it. If I really want to, I can still get "under the hood" and modify what happens with italic content - but I don't have to. I haven't read a compelling argument to convince me that a designer should, by necessity, have to learn what <i> is. IMO web authoring software (and web standards, in general) is still, in many ways, archaic.

In a lot of ways, I feel that coders LOVE it this way, just as lawyers love a needlessly complex and outdated legal system. (But I'll take coders over lawyers any day of the week.)

I feel that, aside from pricing/subscription scheme, Muse is getting it right for many people. I'm not saying the code is clean, but, rather, that the method of content creation is a big step in the right direction.

I would really like to see any posts in this forum stay on-topic to the original subject and for any comments to be respectful of others' ideas and positions. Attacks on others—even 'subtle' derogatory comments—is not appropriate to this kind of public forum.

I'm with Marion on this one. I don't comment here much anymore but I still get the threads on this topic. I've thought a lot about the conundrum of WYSIWYG programs for web development and more and more see them as dead ends. While I sympathise with people who don't want to learn HTML/CSS, let alone Php or other languages, I think that disinclination will simply force those who hold it to drop out. 

I don't think you can compare web development to print in terms of the ways print programs work versus web programs. They are very different animals in terms of their ultimate output. With print, if you properly use your programs, you send a file to a printer, and folks and computers on that end turn what you send them into final product. With web, what you code IS final product. Your code, good, bad, ugly, drives not only what the pages look like on the front end, but how different browsers will interpret those pages on the back-end, as well as how those pages will be spidered by search engines, or will work on cell phones or will be read screen readers, etc. 

Even though a page might "look" ok on the front end in a major browser, it may well perform very badly in other environments.

I think GoLive was a terrific product and I still use it (CS2, Mac), only I use it purely as an HTML editor now. I write my own HTML and CSS in GoLive - I work in the Source View and test pages in browser windows as the Preview view and Layout view in GoLive don't work very well with CSS based layouts. I don't use the grid because its not a good practice to make everything "fixed", which is what GoLive's prefab CSS has to do.

I will be upgrading my mac soon and will have to abandon GoLive at that point. I expect to replace it with a good CSS editor.

I use GoLive to create HTML/CSS, then I take another step and port my designs to WordPress. Basically, you cut your designs up into templates (header, footer, sidebar, pages, etc.) and add a few lines of code to each template. There's other steps involved but it isn't actually that hard to turn an html/css design into a WordPress theme. I don't use WordPress templates I build my own. I have loved the freedom that gives me, as well as the ability to now build dynamic sites and use all kinds of plugins that extend functionality. AND you provide clients with a CMS.

I haven't learned how to really write php, but I've become really good at cutting and pasting it, and modifying it.

What I DID  have to learn pretty solidly was HTML and CSS. (Now HTML 5 and CSS 3.) HTML is pretty easy; CSS is basically easy but has some really tricky aspects. There was a definite learning curve and it took me a good six months to move from relying on Golive to produce code to writing it all myself. I love knowing what I'm doing instead of feeling out of my depth if I moved one step beyond what Golive could do. I've learned how to create navbars using CSS instead of using MenuMachine, etc.

First I tackled HTML/CSS, then I tackled WordPress. I found a couple of books and created a small site for a client and used it as my first wordpress effort. Learned a lot and haven't looked back. I've built 10-12 wordpress sites, from scratch, in the last several months. They're all up-to-date and functional and relatively lightweight as I'm able to build in functionality that people who don't know html/Css often have to use plugins to produce.

Now, to do this work means being on a constant learning curve. WordPress has it's own issues. HTML, CSS are continually evolving. Building in SEO and Social Media means there's more to keep up with. But that's also why WYSIWYG programs can never be ideal. They will always be slightly behind the curve and they will always bloat code because they have to make up for operator-ignorance.

Finally, the idea that, well, badly-coded WYSIWYG produced websites are "acceptable" for sites you build for your pals or organizations with small budgets strikes me as a bit unfair. Yes, they get a product, but if the product doesn't perform you've actually damaged as much as helped them. For low-budget or freebie folks, I'd recommend learning how to use prefab WordPress themes. They can be customized slightly; they perform well in all browsers, smart phones and pads (nooks, iPads, etc.) and offer some ability to be used in small phones too. Built-in CMS, much more possible functionality. You still have to learn some things but investing some time in that versus, say, trying to learn Dreamweaver, would have a better payoff.

But wanting to remain entirely ignorant about issues under the hood just ain't gonna cut it anymore - not if you expect to be considered a professional. That's like wanting to draw pictures of houses and be considered an architect. Its like thinking you're qualified to build a house because you know how to hammer pieces of wood together and who cares about bulding codes? It is a bummer and a drag but there it is.

rudnosukas, I politley disagree. Some of us do not like code (I didn't say I couldn't do it). We/I am visual and I cannot "think" in code. I satrted in PageMaker years ago. I like type a certain way, the way I want, not how some damned program tells me it should be. Knowing html and such is great, to tweak things, but I have yet to see a decent site built by a code monkey. Sure, it might work, but most of the ones I have ever seen are butt-ugly!

Word Press is not a website -- it's a blogging system and ya know, whilst it's cool (and I have a couple of them I do), it ain't a website. Apples and oranges. Anyway, it's a free country and I am not giving up GoLive CS2 until something else decent comes along, even if I have to hobble along under virtual XP or something. It ain't the end-all, be all, but it's damned good. If I could get some info on my template problem and also, WHY the screen registration is off, I'd be right happy.

My 2 cents, Marsh Wise, Non-Eyvil Web Idiot and Typesetting Geek.