so if you can then do websites in muse,what is dreamwevaer then needed for?is it an applicaiton of adobe soon to be extinct?
Dreamweaver and Muse are two different products for two different markets of end users.
They have little in common other than they're both developed by Adobe and they both produce websites.
Muse is more akin to iWeb or InDesign than Dreamweaver.
Muse is a point and click product for visually oriented designers. It has its uses but the websites it can create are limited.
Dreamweaver - a tool for professionals - is not going anywhere. Adobe is still testing the waters with Muse.
Muse will never replace Dreamweaver.
Muse = consumer level software mainly for amateurs & hobbyists who have little or no coding experience. The code Muse produces is bloated and often difficult to edit in anything but Muse. So if you ever drop your subscription to Muse (Creative Cloud), you may have a hard time updating your site.
Dreamweaver = professional level software for developers of commercial/enterprise level web sites. The code DW produces is web standards compliant and can be edited in almost any HTML/plain text editor.
Very different products aimed at very different users.
Hi guys i want to get into proper webdesigning i have been doing it for a little while in flash with action script, but the problem i have is when clients want things like shopping carts updating info and photos and various plugins. So i want to start using dreamweaver with HTML and css now my question is this! Is adobe muse useful for real world practical websites? what i mean by that is like can you show a simpleton (clients designated person, usually secretary or such person), how to easily update info pictures etc with Muse sites? And is it easy to put online forms forums buying online shopping carts ordering etc the kind of stuff that people generally want there websites to be capable ofon a muse site.
As sites like flash are really annoying with that. Ive looked through some of the muse sites and they dont seem good for that kind of stuff. Sorry for the long post but im trying to figure if muse is even worthwhile for me to start using short term while i learn HTML and css thanks.
Hi. Happy New Year to all from frigid Cambridge, Massachusetts
I recently "graduated" from iWeb to Dreamweaver so I thought I would weigh in on this subject.
With iWeb I was up and running in about two days. With Dreamweaver it was about two months (of frustration) and I still have a long way to go. Compared to Dreamweaver iWeb is like playing tennis with the net down. It sounds like Muse is similar to iWeb.
I would definitely not invest any money in Dreamweaver - use the trial version - until you get a sense of the cost (in time and money) and benefit.
Dreamweaver is for someone who rides code at LL Bean, not for someone like me who just wants to make a personal website. I should have hired someone else to author my website.
Muse is built for professional web designers who want to create websites without needing to write code. The code Muse produces is web standards compliant and works across all common browsers and devices - not just modern browsers. We spend a lot of time improving the code Muse produces while still supporting older browsers. If you want to dig deeper into our code check out our engineering blog: Adobe Muse CC Engineering Team
Dreamweaver is built for professional web developers who want to hand-code the websites they create. If you're comfortable writing HTML/CSS/JS then it's the tool for you.
If you happen to fall somewhere in the middle, where you want to design websites without code in Muse but need to add some functionality Muse doesn't yet support, then we have extensibility for writing code that can be used in Muse. Read about it here: MuCow Documentation
Product Manager - Adobe Muse
Thanks for the clification. I myself was a print specialist for over 20 years and am getting back into the industry, trying to decide where to pick up with web design from print. Seems to me that a good segway might be to start with Muse since
I'm familiar with InDesign and then "graduate" to Dreamweaver: does this make sense.
MAYBE Muse creates web standards code, but its certainly not clean code.
I just finished writing some PHP code for a small 2 page site a client did in Muse. They also wanted me to turn it into a responsive site. The Muse code was so messy with endless nested Divs and randomly generated id's and class names, it was basically impossible to sort out the CSS enough to convert it to a responsive design. I decided it was easier to rewrite it from scratch. Long story short, my hand-coded site totaled 360 lines of HTML/CSS/JS/PHP. The original Muse site, to accomplish the same thing was 1350 lines by my most conservative count (there were about a half dozen other .js files that I didn't take the time to figure out what they were supposed to do). That's at minimum a 400% bloat!
Muse probably has a niche helping people make personal sites or MAYBE small time designers create small websites. Don't tell me its a professional solution though. Next time I see something written in Muse I'll have to double my rate or just turn down the project.
The code Muse generates is not intended to be edited by a developer later on. Any edits to the code are not represented in the original Muse file, so the designer looses the ability to update the site. Instead, Muse is committed to providing designer-developer workflows that allow developers to extend the capability of Muse without squashing the designer's ability to continue doing free-form design.
As for the code size I agree that Muse could be much better, but I challenge "lines of code" as the best metric for evaluating quality code. We prioritize preserving design fidelity across browsers and devices. Even an expert developer is going to struggle to make a modern design look good in IE8 (it's a horror), yet Muse does this instantly. Similarly, doing parallax scrolling effects on mobile devices is extremely difficult, yet Muse does it instantly. We prioritize use of CSS features rather than using images. We prioritize performance of the site in browsers. We will continue to find ways of reducing the size of our code with every release, but it will always be in the context of maintaining the many other benefits of the code we produce.
Rather than spending time fighting with Muse code, have you considered putting your programming talents toward selling add-ons that your Muse clients can use?
Professional designers trust Muse every day. Check out this gallery for evidence of what can be done with Muse: http://muse.adobe.com/site-of-the-day. No need to "graduate" - just pick the tool that best matches the way you want to build websites.
The code not being intended to be edited by a developer later is exactly what excludes Muse from a professional grade product in my opinion, because it limits the potential of the website to only the things Muse or a plugin is capable of doing.
I checked out the Muse site-of-the-day page earlier. The major glaring thing I noticed was that none of the sites were responsive. Having to create separate desktop/tablet/mobile sites is a poor alternative.
I think there may be a place for software like this for amateur designers or when a quick "throwaway" site needs to slapped together, but for anyone calling their self a professional designer/developer, passing off the product it produces as a professional solution is doing a disservice to their clients in my opinion. Just because people are doing it doesn't make it the best solution. As professionals we have a responsibility to strive to produce websites that are portable, maintainable, expandable, optimized, and robust. As you mentioned Muse may have the robust category nailed, but it fails in the other areas.
Anyway thanks for your responses, I realize there are many schools of thought, this is just mine.
Before you consider the potential of Muse limited by the ability of our plug-ins, check out this widget creator: http://www.qooqee.com/. You may be surprised by just how powerful the widgets built by a skilled developer can be. We see incredible collaboration between developers and designers using this system - the possibilities are limitless. The Muse team is dedicated to creating a tool that enables professional-grade web design without needing to write code.
One of my favorite examples of developer-designer collaboration using Muse is here:
This remarkable piece is not a "throwaway" site. It's a deep and moving story created by some top-notch professionals.
I too appreciate the discussion! Thoughtful critique from skilled developers always helps us improve Muse.
You can't honestly say that bloated, non SEO, unmaintainable code and fixed width, "print style" layouts qualifies as professional grade, can you? Many of the "site of the day websites" I looked at didn't even render properly on my tablet with offset headers, cut off edges, and horizontal scrolling! It would be downright embarrasing if I delivered something like that to a client. And supposedly this is the best Muse has to offer.
I really think you should call it what it is, so designers can at least realize that if they want to move into developing truly professional, larger, or dynamic websites, they do in fact need to "graduate" from Muse and learn to code.
ahazen I think there are probably better products to start learning with, since you can't see the code in Muse it won't really help you learn what you need to. I'm assuming you already have decent design skills, I'd suggest picking up a book or take some online courses on HTML/CSS. I myself started with WYSIWYG designers and they didn't help me learn much because they produced bad code and also shielded me from learning the fundamentals. Learning fundamental HTML/CSS is essential otherwise you'll be stuck in WYSIWYG land building bad sites that don't perform well and developers will hate.
Muse sites are what they are really. They all look pretty much the same with the same limited functionality. Probably all right if you have a specific product to promote, a small company site with limited information. The big drawback at the moment is it offers no 'responsive' solution and there is no guarantee that it will (I'm sure the Muse developers are working frantically to make this a viable option) until then (even if I were a graphic/visual designer) would I spend time learning a product which is already way behind the curve in terms of what is required for a website today. It really comes down to the website that is needed at the end of the day. A simple clean site with basic functionality which works at desktop level then you could possible get away with using Muse as an option but in reality you are short changing not only the client but yourself.
I guess there is room for all sorts of solutions but this definitely should not be viewed as 'professional grade' as one of the posters referred to. This will be a very short term venture and will be kicked into touch much like other Adobe programs/solutions once their shelf life comes to an end.
I have read through everyones opinions.
Quick and easy to get going with. Build a site in no time. Lots of cool features. However, heavy on the coding etc.
To use dreamweaver... don't learn dreamweaver... learn HTML, CSS and Jquery... then dreamweaver starts to make sense.
I have been in the print trade for over 20 years and have been using trainsimple recently to learn new skills as print has changed so much.
I have produced an ibook with interactive quizzes for One Direction (Never published in the end because of licensing issues world wide).
I have produces an ibook for a presentation for McDonalds via the same company... which they loved.
They both had all the drag and drop games. crosswords, word searches etc... and all because I started using adobe edge animate. (I was informed by someone very high up in the pushing industry that what I have done is not possible in ebooks and they were amazed in what I achieved).
I also use adobe BC. I have created sites using muse and Dreamweaver and made them work with a lot of functions with adobe BC.
One programme can't do it all (if it does then there is a lot of work involved)
Combine them and use the right programme for the right job. Thats what I do.
We are all up against the "free" do it your self websites... (Which are heavy in code but are still good)
You hard core HTML CSS coders... play around with Muse and things like adobe edge.
And you inspirational designers... Start learning some Coding.
There is some amazing stuff coming in the next few years... So don't get left behind and learn new programmes. Just look at the progresion of muse and dreamweaver over the last couple of years.
Hi all...Just starting out...Have played with DR and happy that it meets most of my needs. What is dissappointing is the lack of what we could call "standard" tools such as a slideshow builder. I am sure there are plug ins and I need to spend some time digging around this area. Fact is I only need to do it once or twice for now and Muse seems to have the ability to build something fairly nice and slick which I guess I could then copy the files into my site.
Is this a practical solution? Or do you guys suggest something else....and for the record....I am not JS conversant :-( but it is on my radar.
If you build your site with MU, be prepared to use it for the life of your site. Once an MU site is exported to HTML, it can not be imported back into MU for further editing. More importantly, the code MU generates is not going to render very well in DW's Design View. These are 2 different products aimed at very different user levels.
My advice is keep using DW and learn how to use jQuery plugins. This will open up a world of possibilities to you. See link below for details.
Truth be told, there are undoubtedly many web "developers" who are keen for Muse to fail. It is in their interest. Read any forum threads and you will soon get a taste for how panicked they are. Defensive and aggressive attacks on what is actually a very decent product. All rather pointless. Horses for courses, as you say, but the Muse footprint will grow, trust me. It bridges the gap and will make a dent in the pockets of dev's. Many are poor imitations of good coders. Many rely on "where there is mystery, there is margin", overselling SEO and overcharging for poor websites - plus 90% of them lack any design flare whatsoever. Code is one thing - a site that is attractive and sells product is something quite different. Devs are typically commercially useless and rarely creative - facts they will never come to terms with.
Hat off to Adobe.
Most of the web designers I know began their careers in print and/or graphic design so they are very creative people. That said, I don't know any serious web designers who use MU except for quick design comps. The real coding is performed with other, more practical programing tools.
MU might be all you need for a basic hobby or static site. But it's not capable of producing a good responsive or dynamically driven site -- i.e. a blog, e-comm, CMS, etc... Personally, I would rather have a root canal than work with MU generated code. But if you like using it, be my guest. Just be prepared to use MU for the life of your site.
Truthfully? I've been around this for 30+ years [as I'm sure you have] and I've met very few from print/graphic design. Certainly from UK - which does have some print history! What I have seen is a saturation of web designers, most "graduating" after a three week course in DW or other app, often located on the third floor of some serviced office building. I think the term "web designer" is often a little misleading. Website Technicians would be a more appropriate term - and they often do an OK job. That said, they have for many years over-engineered their position in the real world and many companies have grown tired of being held to ransom. Distrust of web technicians is almost on par with politicians [that may be a little unfair - shall we say approaching...] SEO - joke. Roping in domain hosting, joke, add ons, minor edit charges, price lists that are often complex and designed to obfuscate commercial detail. All of this to gain control of clients and make life less flexible for the people paying them! Sure you can buy CMS, but you have to host with us, joke. These tricks are common in all industries but technology is evolving and people are going to have to adjust.
All we hear from those TRYING to discredit MUSE is: Code, Code, Code. B O R I N G.. The real world doesn't care about code or bloated code [the latter being a weak case when speaking of Muse], what it does care about is driving business and responding quickly to market conditions with beautiful content that sells their product/service. Does it scale, is it robust - for most SME's, it will never be a problem. If things get complicated, e-commerce etc, they can go to Web Techies.
To my mind, Adobe in empowering ALL creative people to overcome the barriers, delays and financial risks associated with paying web technicians. Natural evolution. We often have to re-invest and change what we do to protect our future. Now might be a good time?
Nancy, I note that you've followed each positive Muse entry with a "Muse will never replace Dreamweaver" post. Interesting. Do you know the future of Muse? Are you a lead member of the commercial team running the development of Adobe products? Have you travelled back in time to share something you have witnessed? A very confident statement.....I would have thought Muse could easily absorb DW. The market dictates that this would be an entirely sensible decision for Adobe. Think of that revenue growth. Maybe add a module for the code side of things or alter the development to reflect more DW elements. Who knows? I don't. I'm not going to write anything off, just because it doesn't fit with my plan. Adobe is full very bright people.
Adobe is pushing a future where the playing fields are level and the real talent can shine. What a great mission. I'm in. GO ADOBE!!!! & anyone else who dreams of making things better for everyone.
Dreamweaver appeals to a different user base than Muse. That's all. Different tools for different ways in which people work. Adobe has taken valiant steps recently to appeal to a much broader range of user grades which is really good for Adobe's sales. However, I honestly don't believe MU is ever going to replace DW.
I would like to see the Design View/Live View surface improved in DW. I've been asking for it for years. To that extent, MU has a pretty good design surface. So does Edge Reflow but I'm not sure where that is going. Edge Code was discontinued and the work was enveloped into Adobe's open source project, Brackets.
So what's the future for MU? Nobody can say for sure. Beta testers must sign an NDA so they can't say anything even if they wanted to. But look, you've found a tool you like. That's wonderful. Keep using it. And if it goes by the wayside, then you'll find something new.
Adding to what Nancy has said, have a look at what Adobe says "When to Use Dreamweaver, Muse, Reflow, Animate, and Brackets"
In other words, if you are a graphics designer and do not have a clue on coding, then use Muse, but only on simple sites. The likes of the Adobe site would never be developed using Muse.
I don't dislike Muse because it threatens my job as a coder (it doesn't at all), I dislike Muse because it makes life more difficult for me, and hence more expensive for the client when the client wants their site to grow beyond what Muse can offer. You can't just hire a techie to bolt on e-commerce, or custom database functionality to Muse, you have to throw the Muse site away completely and hire the techie to start from scratch. For that very reason Muse doesn't scale well, so its a waste of resources to build a site with Muse to begin with (unless as I said in previous posts you're building a throwaway site that will never need to grow).
As far as web designers holding people for "ransom", the only clients they can do that to are people who are naive and don't understand what they're buying. Its unfortunate that some people take unfair advantage of that, but don't confuse that with educated clients willing to pay well for a specialized skill that's in-demand.
There is absolutely a saturation of so called "web designers" graduating from a three week course, I'll agree with you there. THEY may be threatened by Muse, but skilled developers shouldn't be threatened by them, or Muse, or Wix, or any of the other dozens of half-baked web builders that came before it. I can't speak for anyone else, but my bread and butter income isn't in building basic 5 page static websites for Mom and Pop's bakery. I'm happy to let "Junior" in highschool do that with Muse, or a $50 Wordpress theme, or whatever. But if they come to me and they want me to add a feature they can't get on their own with Muse (even one as basic as a responsive layout), then they've wasted their time because I can't work with Muse code. THAT is why I'm against Muse as a professional solution. If you can't understand why those things are important, then you likely fall into the "naive" category. Code isn't going anywhere for a very long time, and knowing how to write GOOD code saves time and money down the line.
I just ran into this energizing discussion
Most of the answers and advices here are right, albeit a bit polarized into Camp DW or Camp MU.
There're however some aspects untouched or misleading.
It's true that a Muse website can't grow into a more sizable website, built with a CMS and all. (Adobe Business Catalyst offers some integration, but for most Muse users it's not very common to take that road.) And the website's HTML/CSS/JS indeed can't be simply opened in or added to by other web tools. There's no seamless way to build onto what's already there.
But that warning is valid for probably all web projects, whether or not they've been produced with Muse. Most popular or home-grown frameworks being used for larger websites are also a lock-in. Apart from the 'raw' database, most scripts, queries, templates, often need to be rebuilt just as well when a client decides (maybe for other reasons than growth) to move to a different platform.
Since a typical Muse website won't be very large, rebuilding it completely in a CMS compliant framework shouldn't take too long either. I'm sure professionals like Nancy and Max8jake will gladly construct it from scratch, with just a relatively small share of time spent on recreating what was already available.
Most developers are not happy with someone else's code, and claim theirs smells like daisies. So when a couple of different professional web developers or agencies have been working on a website subsequently, the code gets messy anyway. At some point the client will be advised to do a complete overhaul.
Another important aspect is the fact that designing and building a website with Muse can be a one-man performance. Designing and building a larger website, with a CMS, some back-ends and front-ends, implementing all wishes and features, often requires (very rightfully) a team of specialists. Which is of course making the undertaking less dependent from a single individual (a good thing), but also creating extra workflow challenges like briefing, communication, co-working, etc. (an additional difficulty).
BTW: Muse is catching up with Responsive Web Design, making it possible again for a larger number of web designers to create a proper solution for their client's needs.
When I see Muse and Clients used in the same sentence, I shudder a little. Here's why:
I had a prospective client show me the web site her former "web designer" created. It was a poorly conceived Muse site. The client was unable to edit it and wanted much, much more so she came to me for improvements. Given the long inventory of features the client requested from the start, MU was definitely not the right tool for this project.
Mind you, I am not putting blame on Muse. I lay blame entirely on a clueless, so-called "web designer" who made some very foolish choices. But here's the thing. All that "ease of use" that MU provides is a double-edged sword. It empowered this inexperienced, non-coder into thinking they had all the right tools (and talent) to build and SELL professional websites. YIKES! It takes a lot more than tools to build good websites.
I can forgive the mistakes people make when building sites for personal/hobby use. Afterall, that's the target MU user and it's their cross to bear if the website stinks. But it's unforgivable when people sell dreck to unsuspecting clients. Suffice it to say, the site I looked at had to be tossed out & rebuilt from ground up. The client was none too happy to hear their first website investment had been all for naught.
Now you understand why I have an aversion to web designer's who use MU for client projects. I'm sure some very talented designers can do amazing things with MU. But for me, it signals a red flag that something important is missing from their minimum skill-set otherwise they wouldn't be using MU.
Just my 2 cents.
Nancy, you're portraying the same kind of professional pretentions and attitude, I experienced when Desktop Publishing put an axe to the business of typesetters and lithographers. If some Muse users put out bad websites, just be happy for that ! You need this undertow of rubbish to let clients experience the difference. Besides, not every client needs a dynamic website, with a CMS, full-blown SEO, and lots of scripted bells and whistles. I wonder how many of those 18 million WordPress websites could just as well have been built as a static website, with Muse...
And although Muse is in its 4th year, it's still in an early phase of implementing or integrating more complicated technologies. At least it succeeds in keeping the interface completely visual, while holding onto some very crucial principles of HTML. And I think it takes less time to see more wishes and requests granted by new versions of Muse, than to wait for more designers to develop a coding skill set.
My 3 cents. ;-)