Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

OH, I REALLY, REALLY MISS GOLIVE!

Aug 28, 2008 8:59 PM

I used to create a lot of beautiful websites using GoLive CS. I continue to use GoLive but I need to make the transition so I will be able to update the sites in the future. So I bought Adobe Dreamweaver CS3 about 3 month ago and let's just say I've gotten nowhere with it.

It's way more complicated than I first thought. As a creative left brainer, I just haven't been able to come to grips with CSS or the UI or anything for that matter.

1) For any of you "Creative' types like myself (non programmers who don't know html) What have you done to learn Dreamweaver? Have you found an invaluable learning resource to learn Dreamweaver? If so could you please share as I am feeling so defeated.

2) For those of you who have tried the Dreamweaver CS4 Beta, In your opinion Is Dreamweaver CS4 being designed to be easier to use for "creative" types? and will Dreamweaver CS4 include any of the great features from Golive?

Thanks
 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2008 2:48 AM   in reply to (lorne)
    I, too, have tried to start a couple of projects recently in DWCS3 and have quickly given up and done them in GL. I've considered a lobotomy.

    I get the same feeling I used to get when I had to work on someone's Windows machine - I knew how it was supposed to work - but we just weren't made for each other.

    I'm beginning to see that - for me at least - what I want to learn next goes to things beyond the regular html/css website development - things like Joomla interest me as does the power of PHP - although I am daunted by the learning curve.

    I'm not sure how much I want to depend upon a WYSIWYG editor - sure, it makes things easier, but, frankly for what I do (and can see myself doing in the mid-term future) GL is perfectly adequate. What I might want to add on will be other things -and I imagine I will be looking elsewhere for them. The big attraction DW has for me are all the add ons which are available - but then GL has Menu Machine and Natemail!
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2008 4:20 AM   in reply to (lorne)
    I don't miss it, I'm still using it ;) And at some time I'll keep an old Mac around to run it - like you I'll learn other techniques as I need them. No interest in Dreamweaver.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2008 5:20 AM   in reply to (lorne)
    Lorne,

    I probably fit your description. You would not believe the blood, sweat, and tears I've experienced trying to master DW using current web standards. Particularly CSS DIVs have been a challenge.

    I normally learn by investing in lots of books, particularly when it comes to DW and Flash. But recently I tried Lynda.com and found the videos pretty helpful.

    The first few videos on DW are free of charge, so you might want to try them out. Here's that LINK.

    Linda
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2008 6:34 AM   in reply to (lorne)
    >For those of you who have tried the Dreamweaver CS4 Beta, In your opinion Is Dreamweaver CS4 being designed to be easier to use for "creative" types? and will Dreamweaver CS4 include any of the great features from Golive?

    Why not try it yourself and see. Adobe sent out invitations the other day.

    Here is the link to the Beta
    http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/dreamweavercs4/?trackingid=DLGGS

    I'm still using GoLive CS2 it works very well for me.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2008 6:55 AM   in reply to (lorne)
    What's stopping you to keep on using it? As long as it opens and is workable, you can still use GoLive.

    As for DW - it isn't all that different except that it is always difficult to change to another application when you are used to one as you have to search for features called other things than you are used to to do some simple stuff.

    I still use GoLive CS2 (GL9 is no hit in my opinion) as I am faster with that than with DW. Some use both apps simultaneously. DW for new sites, GL for maintenance of the older ones. Or DW for creation and GL for sitemanagement as what DW ghas for sitemangement is really not that.

    As long as MenuMachine isn't available for DW yet I stick to GLCS2, but meantime investigate all available tutorials about moving over. There are actually plenty of them.

    You will find some tips and links here:
    http://biz-comm.com/gl2dw/

    and some really good (free) tutorials here
    http://www.communitymx.com/abstract.cfm?cid=1069E
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 7, 2011 2:33 AM   in reply to (lorne)

    Years later and I still miss it!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 12:22 PM   in reply to ThaiBear

    I do too!!!! I recently upgraded to Lion and now I can't use GoLive at all anymore! I am very sad, but more importantly, I work twice as slow now.

    I was hoping the Dreamweaver team would simply copy all of what GoLive had done and implement it but their ego probably got in the way and now we are forced to use badly designed software. Sad sad sad.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 18, 2011 4:47 PM   in reply to AntoineJothyN21

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 17, 2011 6:07 AM   in reply to The Real Thorzdad

    Hi, I would LOVE to know how you got GL9 working on SnowLeopard. I am running 10.6.8 and it wouldn't launch. It used to, that is until I made a faux pas and accepted the latest Snow Leopard software upgrade. As a matter of fact I couldn't use my entire CS2 Suite and had to bite the bullet and write a big cheque to upgrade to CS 5.5. Then my nightmare started when I tried using DreamWeaver - what a useless package! Probably ignorance on my behalf but talk about out of my comfort zone. Anyway enough complaining. Does anyone know how to get CS2 GoLive 8.0.1 working on OSX 10.6.8 ?

    Again excuse my ignorance but I have tried to load only GoLive off me CS2 DVDs but it wants to load the entire suite. Any clues on that?

    Regards, Ian

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 13, 2011 10:15 AM   in reply to (lorne)

    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!!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 27, 2011 8:53 AM   in reply to (lorne)

    I'm still using it, GL CS2, I mean. I have it running under a virtual XP environment on my core i5. Works just fine. I too have tried DW and it sucks. I have tried it most recently w/ DW CS5... it was much better when Macromedia owned it, at least you could do things w/ it. I am sorry, but I am NOT a code monkey and I do not like dreamweaver. Adobe is doing its usual game of killing off good stuff in order to try and scam more money out of people. I have less and less respect for this company and as I find something to replace their products, I will go to them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 27, 2011 9:22 AM   in reply to STURMKATZE

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 27, 2011 8:15 PM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    Marian Driscoll wrote:

     

    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.

    Nah, it's clunkier now. Sorry, but I want to work more efficiently, not less so. I want to not waste time having to do workarounds for stupid crap. Yes, i think me having to massage code to add a drop cap is pain in the ***. Still, NOTHING works as well as GL for site management. Sure it has some issues, but it's also head sabove Dreamweaver. And I'm sorry, you go on about "proper web design" WTF is that?? Hand coding? Sorry, not my cup of tea. I am a more "visual" type of person. I used to think I was alone, but from reading here and other places, I have learned that I am not alone.

     

    Getting ready to jump into my virtual bunker to await your next incoming rounds.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 5:04 AM   in reply to STURMKATZE

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 5:18 AM   in reply to ianb1951

    ianb1951 wrote:

     

    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.

     

    If someone wants to start a campaign, I'm on board!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 7:10 AM   in reply to ianb1951

    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).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 8:00 AM   in reply to (lorne)

    Personal insults are not tolerated on these forums, irrespective of your post count. You are welcome to disagree with each other, but only as part of a polite and constructive conversation. Any more abusive replies and we will lock the thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 2:46 PM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 3:16 PM   in reply to (lorne)

    Ugh. Muse is an Air app? Why?

    I also find it interesting that the Muse download is from a Macromedia server.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 3:29 PM   in reply to ianb1951

    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.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 3:32 PM   in reply to The Real Thorzdad

    Muse runs on AIR so that they can build a single program to run on both Mac and Windows.

     

    The "Macromedia" server is still in use with a lot of stuff at labs.adobe.com. Macromedia started the "Labs" concept.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 5:43 PM   in reply to ianb1951

    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?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 6:23 PM   in reply to STURMKATZE

    Damn . . . it was looking so good. I had only looked at the video when sharing my excitement. A bit too impetuous of me I guess. But the thought of a web building package that works like InDesign excited the socks off me. There is no way however that I would want to be sucked into something that Adobe can ditch and leave me high and dry yet again.

     

    For the time being I have purchased an iMac on eBay and installed OS10.5 software purely to run GoLive. It's networked to my main computer and all is working nicely  . . . . at this stage anyway.

     

    Anyway, thanks for the warning and advice guys.

     

    Ian

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 30, 2011 4:10 AM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    Details of the subscription model have not yet been announced to the public, so don't assume anything about relative costs or the future support for content.

     

    Muse has been developed to fit a very specific niche, allowing graphic and print designers to create content without any exposed code. It's not a replacement for DW nor does it really compete against it; and there will always be a need for code-level development tools.

     

    Neither is Muse the first foray into "code-free web pages" - we've been able to export HTML from InDesign for a while now. It's not a DW-competitor by any stretch, but the code it generates is actually rather good - with automatic ordering of XHTML based on the document tag tree, HTML5 media, etc.

     

     

    Marian Driscoll wrote:

     

    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.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 2, 2012 6:15 PM   in reply to Dave Merchant

    Dave Merchant wrote:

     

    Details of the subscription model have not yet been announced to the public, so don't assume anything about relative costs or the future support for content.

     

    Seriously? Those details have been announced. That is why there has been such blowback for a few months on the Muse forums. The details were made available when the first public beta was released.

     

     

    Dave Merchant wrote:

     

    ...we've been able to export HTML from InDesign for a while now...

    Seriously? The HTML from InDesign is crude/raw. InDesign used to have a feature to package for GoLive where the real web design would occur. If InDesign was adept at exporting HTML all by itself, Adobe would not be marketing Muse to InDesign users.

     

     

    Dave Merchant wrote:

     

    ...but the code it generates is actually rather good - with automatic ordering of XHTML based on the document tag tree, HTML5 media, etc.

    Seriously? There's no apparent ordering and the Muse designer has no control over the DOM. Muse does not even offer OL/UL lists. The best that a Muse user can do is assign HTML headers to paragraph styles.

     

    From where are you getting all this (mis)information?

     

    EDIT: I see you are referring to InDesign exporting 'rather good' code (not Muse). That still depends on the InDesign user providing good markup/tagging. The audience pining for GoLive's visual design interface probably does not utilize this feature of InDesign as it requires the same sensibilities that a HTML designer would use. The audience still seeking GoLive's return are not likely HTML designers. They likely do not care about semantic markup. They're mostly concerned just about the visuals. They don't really think about how people are drawn to a site.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 7:31 AM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    "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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 3:58 PM   in reply to turner111

    WYSIWYG has spoilt us forever, but I love it!!!

    When I first took delivery of my Mac Plus in the late 80s with Aldus Pagemaker on board my printing business was revolutionised. It was THE best decision I had made and my business grew. Other printers were still mucking around with PCs and other computerised typesetting but I had an edge.

    When I purchased and used GoLive for the first time I felt empowered and my creative juices flowed.

    Ease of use. Apple did it and it revolutionised the way we prepared artwork. Ease of use. GoLive had it (and still does), but I scratch my head because for some STRANGE reason Adobe makes a decision to take a step backwards and discontinue something that worked. They took away, Ease of use!

    Personally, I for one am not interested in learning code. I would rather use my CREATIVE talent to build a nice website. It's not that I'm lazy, I'm not, but I value what time I have left. There are many more ways to use your time than to muck around with code.

    When I make a phone call I want to dial a number and speak to someone. I don't want to be a Telecom repairman and understand how a phone works. I don't care I just want to make a call.

    If I want to switch on a light, I like to be able to flick a switch. I don't want to learn to be an electrician.

    When I design a website and I want to put something there, I want to get the mouse, click and drag. That way I can make more money to buy more Adobe software.

    Understand Adobe? It's simple. Ease of use.

    C'mon guys, get your creative juices flowing and recreate something of value. Ease of use. Don't forget to keep it simple. You know, like that other great software you developed - InDesign. You took a great piece of software and improved it (Aldus Pagemaker). Ease of use.

    Adobe, hear this . . . You have a great piece of software (GoLive).

    GoForth and make it better!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 5:14 PM   in reply to turner111

    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).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 4:34 AM   in reply to turner111

    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?

     

     

    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?

     

     

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 12, 2012 5:47 PM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 11:14 AM   in reply to STURMKATZE

    This may be "fun" for you but your solely argumentative nature on topics you don't seem to understand is likely an annoyance to everyone else. Most of the posts you made when you joined this forum have been removed by moderators. Has the message to lighten up not been received?

    STURMKATZE wrote:

     

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

    No. <i> is not the same as <em>. One tag does not necessarily replace the other. We might still use <i>.

     

    These illustrate a difference between presentation and structure.

     

    Semantic markup addresses structure. A web designer (hobbyist or pro) needs to be aware of both structure and design if they expect anyone to find their design. It is true that not everyone comes to a web site via search engine but most certainly do.  One would have to be very silly to ignore the primary route of access to their site. Surely you don't nail shut the front door to your home and expect guests to only come through a side window.

     

    The majority of Muse users are clueless about semantic markup because they are not yet experienced in web design and Adobe has not done a good job of exposing semantic markup controls to these new web designers.

     

    GoLive provides plenty of control for semantic markup. A GoLive user does not even need to go into source view to semantically markup their page.  Primary controls are right there in your main toolbar.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 12:07 PM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 1:00 PM   in reply to turner111

    We seem to be discussing two different things. I introduced the term "semantic markup" in response to Dave's mention of "automatic ordering of XHTML". I don't think we were debating the merits of WYSIWYG design vs. coding.

    turner111 wrote:

     

    ...Nobody on earth should have to ever know what semantic markup even is any more...

    Semantic markup grows more important as we post more content online. We need this structure to better sort through a growing pile of junk on the internet.

     

    I think the confusion here is that you think this is about "code". Markup does not necessarily mean that we have to "code". We have tools that allow us to markup structure without "coding".

     

    We will always need to describe the content we create.

     

    Take the Muse showcase of the site for Horace and Lydia. When you google for "Horace and Lydia Pizza", the first results are for their blog, not the site built in Muse.  Why does the blog rank so much better? Look at the HTML. It has semantic markup. In comparison to the better ranked blog, there is not a single heading tag in the site made with Muse. The typical Muse designer is not aware of semantic markup (either by hand coding or by using WYSIWYG markup tools) and will suffer from failing to define semantic structure.

     

    http://www.sturmkatze.com/ shows a total disregard for semantic markup so I am not off the mark in having said...

    Marian Driscoll wrote:

     

    ...The audience still seeking GoLive's return are not likely HTML designers. They likely do not care about semantic markup. They're mostly concerned just about the visuals. They don't really think about how people are drawn to a site.

    You are welcome to post links to sites you have made with GoLive and semantic markup to illustrate that my generalization might be in error. Otherwise, I don't see why people are arguing (or politely debating) here. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 1:04 PM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 1:29 PM   in reply to tis_herself

    The original subject is dead—so on-topic replies will be a challenge. Lorne (and any other name wrapped in parentheses) is no longer a forum participant so they are not likely monitoring replies to their question.

     

    In regard to anyone else that cares about the original post, nobody is obligated to move to DW. There are plenty of other options for those that want to get rid of GoLive. (I still wonder why so many are trying to ditch GoLive) Those that choose to move to DW should recognize that 'creative left brain' design is done in Fireworks. Fireworks had a much greater role in DW web design than Photoshop had in GoLive web design.

     

    If you feel someone has been attacking others, click the report abuse link.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 1:36 PM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 7:33 PM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    We're not, we're discussing. YOU are arguing. Please stop.

    Marian Driscoll wrote:

     

    Otherwise, I don't see why people are arguing (or politely debating) here. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 7:42 PM   in reply to rudnosukas

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 7:47 PM   in reply to STURMKATZE

    Oh, here, I should post somethign I have done w/ GL. www.romanobritain.org This one is a big site I am in proecess of moving to template from an old frames site. When it get's big, it gets harder to maintain. This on has about 15+ templates right now. Lots of componants. The guy who originally did it in frames is, I think, dead. Anyway, it's going along. I have about 100 more pages here to update. Ack! I am SURE there is much to point out as wrong here. So what, it works for me. People are happy w/ it. My big site, I moved to a CMS years ago and am not happy w/ that either. Just easier now to run it. Not better.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)