32 Replies Latest reply on Aug 4, 2006 8:46 AM by TCarp

    DW vs GoLive approach to site development

    TCarp Level 1
      Right from the start, this is not the classic which is better question. I already have license to both (both were included in an item at a charity auction).

      For the year or so that I've been doing web stuff I've used FrontPage (good place to learn the basics of html and css). A couple days ago I installed DW and GL on my laptop and chose to convert over to DW just to get off FP (which served me well). I now have one of my sites being maintained under DW and I can at least update pages and get them published to the remote site.

      I looked at a brief tutorial video on GL just to get a quick sense of it but haven't had a chance to get into it enough to see what it's all about yet. For than matter I haven't explored DW very much.

      First impression is that DW and GL have different approaches, not just different working environment, to web work. GL seems to be a bit more like a page layout tool while DW (and PF) are, well, different. Not better or worse, just different.

      My question isn't which is better but is there a different approach being taken in DW vs. GL? Is GL a higher level application meaning that it does more for the user than DW which might be closer to the web technology? Are DW and GL focused on different types of users or just (were) competing products?

      Boy I hope I asked the question right.

      Thanks

      Tom
        • 1. Re: DW vs GoLife approach to site development
          Level 7
          > My question isn't which is better but is there a different approach being
          > taken in DW vs. GL?

          DW is designed for code folks that like to have WYSIWYG available as needed.
          GL is designed for print designer folks that like to see the CODE once in a
          while.

          Either one will work, though, as long as you understand HTML + CSS, etc. to
          begin with. At that point, the tool is less important and you should simply
          use whichever one 'feels' right for you.

          -Darrel


          • 2. Re: DW vs GoLife approach to site development
            TCarp Level 1
            Darrel

            Perfect answer for the question I was asking! From the brief tutorial I saw on GL it looked more like a layout app like Publisher.

            Ignoring the expense, I can see that it would be very nice to be able to use both. Just like there are times when Word is adequate but there are also times when having a layout app would be a much better approach. For example, I've messed around with newsletters in Word and I would much prefer to use a layout program instead.

            I wonder if you end up with both available, like in my case, what approach one might use to take full advantage of both. I tend to prefer to stay near the html and css so DW would be the default tool of choice but I can see certain situations when GL would be much easier.

            Thanks again for the post

            Very helpful

            Tom



            • 3. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
              Level 1
              I use all three, Front Page, Dreamweaver and Go Live depending on what the needs are. Personally, I despise Front Page, not because of the development time, but because of it’s dependency on server side objects that often break. But I have a couple of clients who host their sites on Front Page servers, so FP is the only way to go.

              Of the three, Front Page is (to me) the most user friendly and intuitive design tool, probably because I am so familiar with the typical MS Office applications and how they interface.

              After that, Go Live is a terrific layout tool and combined with Adobe Bridge to Photoshop, Image Ready and Illustrator, has some very powerful tools for converting photos and graphics into “Smart Objects” for the web.

              Last is Dreamweaver. The least intuitive and the least friendly graphic layout tool… But the most powerful editing tool and the one I use for final tweaking and publishing.

              I’d say I spend 10 to 15% of my time with FP& GL and 85 to 90% in DW either creating or fixing what the others have wrought…

              FP and GL both make pretty layouts and are simpler to use, but both also generate a lot of superfluous code that can really be trimmed down with good CSS, SSIs and plain old logical HTML.
              • 4. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                Level 7
                > FP and GL both make pretty layouts and are simpler to use, but both also
                > generate a lot of superfluous code that can really be trimmed down with
                > good
                > CSS, SSIs and plain old logical HTML.

                If you (not you personally, but in generaly) know html and css, it really
                wouldn't matter what editor you use. Quite a few people I'm sure, can just
                as easily use a simple text editor ;-)

                --
                Nadia
                Adobe� Community Expert : Dreamweaver
                -------------------------------------------------
                http://www.DreamweaverResources.com - CSS Templates|Tutorials
                http://www.csstemplates.com.au
                -------------------------------------------------
                http://www.perrelink.com.au - Web Dev
                -------------------------------------------------
                http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/css.html
                CSS Tutorials for Dreamweaver
                -------------------------------------------------


                • 5. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                  TCarp Level 1
                  Hi Michael

                  Thanks for responding particularly because of your first hand experience with all three. Like you, I kinda liked the FP interface but have found that DW is very similar so the transition was quite easy.

                  I'm assuming this is not a problem, but wanted to ask of there was any problem with "defining" a site to both DW and GL simply because it can come down to individual page differences on a site as to which tool would work best. For much of the site I work with DW will be fine but there are times (individual pages) where it would be much easier to work in a layout app. I'm not certain how to ask the question technically accurately, but as an example, if I have a site that DW is aware of can I also "define" the site in GL and then use whichever app would work best?

                  Thanks

                  Tom
                  • 6. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                    TCarp Level 1
                    I know this is going to step ouside the DW area a little, but the question spans all the Macromedia/Adobe apps.

                    Michael's post got me thinking about web development workflows and the tools that enable them. Since I had a recent influx of apps (Creative Suite 2 Pro and Studio 8) in awash in new toys and with a brain reeling because I'm not familiar with most of them.

                    Has anyone seen, or can they relate their personal experience so I can build, a application functionality matrix? This is not for comparing which is better or worse, although a comment field would be used for that. One side of the matrix would be the app (probably rows) and the other functionality. At the intersect points would be the strength of the apps capability in the area. The span of apps would be Macromedia/Adobe and MS full office suite including Access, Publisher, and FrontPage.

                    For exampls, DW, GoLive, FrontPage would all be listed and would have functionality in the web page development and publishing area. The comment on GL might be that it uses an approach similar to page layout tools like Publisher.

                    Powerpoint would be listed with some page layout and presentation capabilities. Photoshop, Publisher, Flash, Fireworks, Illustrator, InDesign, Bridge, etc. etc. would all be there.

                    The reason I'm interested is my learning style is to see the waterfront before looking at the nails on the dock; not the reverse. It would be very helpful to have a "apple is to orange as Illustrator is to ?"-type reference.

                    The other object is some sort of cross-functional workflows. For example, in Michael's post he mentioned Bridge to an specific end point in web page functionality. This would be helpful, perhaps even more than the matrix, in understanding what the output intent is and then showing the optimal workflow, from an apps perspective, to get there. This also helps create the work environment (computer) I will want to end up in eventually and which apps to concentrate on learning first.

                    I may edit this later if I get some time to put the matrix online for people to look at and comment on. I'm hoping though that this has already been done somewhere and I just haven't been able to find it.

                    Thanks

                    Tom
                    • 7. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                      Level 7
                      > Access, Publisher, and FrontPage.

                      All 3 suck for professional work. Matrix done! ;o)

                      > Powerpoint would be listed with some page layout and presentation
                      > capabilities.

                      Eww. No. PPT sucks too. And is really only useful for bland meeting
                      presentations.

                      > The reason I'm interested is my learning style is to see the waterfront
                      > before
                      > looking at the nails on the dock; not the reverse. It would be very
                      > helpful to
                      > have a "apple is to orange as Illustrator is to ?"-type reference.

                      Vector Illustration:
                      ---------------------
                      - Illustrator
                      - Freehand (might be dead)
                      - Corel Draw
                      Open source alternatives:
                      - Inkscape

                      Raster illustration/photo editing
                      ---------------------
                      - Photoshop
                      - Fireworks
                      - Corel something-or-other
                      Open source alternatives:
                      - The GIMP

                      HTML/Web editors:
                      ---------------------
                      - DW
                      - GoLive
                      - Many others (BBedit, plenty of text editors, etc.)
                      - Front page (semi-crappy)
                      Open source alternatives:
                      - NVU
                      - a whole bunch of text editors


                      Databases
                      ----------------------
                      - MySQL (open source)
                      - PostgreSQL (open source)
                      - MSSQL
                      - Access (crappy)

                      Page layout (print design):
                      ----------------------
                      - QuarkXPress
                      - InDesign
                      - Publisher (crappy)


                      > The other object is some sort of cross-functional workflows. For example,
                      > in
                      > Michael's post he mentioned Bridge to an specific end point in web page
                      > functionality. This would be helpful, perhaps even more than the matrix,
                      > in
                      > understanding what the output intent is and then showing the optimal
                      > workflow,
                      > from an apps perspective, to get there. This also helps create the work
                      > environment (computer) I will want to end up in eventually and which apps
                      > to
                      > concentrate on learning first.

                      There is no 'optimal' workflow. It's highly personal and ends up being
                      whatever works for you. This is my workflow:

                      - 'sketch' visuals in Raster app.
                      - build base HTML in DW
                      - start adding CSS in DW
                      - start creating images as-needed in Fireworks
                      - put everything together in DW
                      - move to VS.net to do any sort of back-end development using ASP.net

                      -Darrel


                      • 8. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                        Level 1
                        Well, there are certainly a whole lot of opinions about what’s good and what sucks. Many of the die hard text editor coders will tell you that these programs suck. I would have to say that none of these programs suck. All of them have a lot to offer individuals of different levels of talent and experience.

                        My very first web site was created in FrontPage, only because it came with software I already had available. I used it, liked it, created all kinds of forms, features and functionality on my site and pretty soon abandoned it altogether because the server side modules kept breaking down and wrecking my site. (older versions were very unstable on the server side).

                        I bought a copy of DW4, figured out how to use it (mostly in the design mode) and redefined my entire site without the server side extensions.

                        Then I started to experiment with getting down into the html code and tweaking things even further and found that there was really a lot of power to being able to do things directly instead of relying on the program to create all my code.

                        Later, I discovered SSI (Server Side Includes), CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) and a whole wealth of real power that doesn’t exist fully in any of the WYSIWYG programs.

                        As I stated above, I still use Front Page but only because of client requirements (and the server extensions are now pretty stable and work pretty well).

                        I use GoLive in conjunction with Photoshop and Illustrator for special graphics requirements. But if I actually create code with GoLive, I always view it, validate it and run target browser checks in DW8, then fix, tweak or modify the code as I need it for the particular site.

                        Basically, with my graphic design background I started with the visual layout tools but found through trial and error and lots of hard work that you can only achieve suitable results down in the code.

                        In my experience, of all the programs mentioned, DW is the only application that gives me the true flexibility and powerful tools at the code level to accomplish what I need.
                        • 9. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                          TCarp Level 1
                          Darrel

                          Perfect! Just what I wanted. And I do understand that workflow vs. app use will be personal. There I was just looking for more of a tutorlal about what the common workflows are and then I'll insert which tool I'll use based on current knowledge. I also appreciate your comment about PowerPoint. I use it as a vector tool sometimes (probably because my Canvas license up to date) since, up until now, I haven't had a good drawing tool. It's kinda too bad that there isn't much I've seen on the presentation tool side out there (but I haven't looked much). I used to love the fade-in, fade-out slide shows I've seen in the past. Working that in PP is a real pain.

                          Looks like from your flow you are using Fireworks vs. Photoshop. Is there a preference there or just what you ended up with. I picked up a lot of software at a local charity auction so have both Macromedia and Adobe products (Creative Suite and Studio 8). I've also had Photoshop Elements on my Mac so have some basic photo editing experience with it there.

                          Tom
                          • 10. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                            Level 1
                            >Michael's post he mentioned Bridge to an specific end point in web page
                            >functionality. This would be helpful, perhaps even more than the matrix,
                            >in understanding what the output intent is and then showing the optimal
                            >workflow, from an apps perspective, to get there.

                            Adobe bridge is an interface application that lets you work fairly seamlessly between Adobe Creative Suite applications. I use Adobe CS2 Premium which includes Photoshop, Illustrator, Image Ready, InDesign, GoLive, Designer, Adobe Bridge and the full Acrobat program.

                            Bridge allows you to move images or projects between CS2 applications easily and will help create raster, vector and text graphics, optimized for the intended application. This includes extremely high resolution products for print or lower res products for optimum web display.

                            Since I work in web, print, and other media areas, CS2 is an indispensable tool for me. In terms of web design, I only use it for creating graphics and short code blocks, not pages.

                            Be aware also that CS2 applications are real memory hogs. If you can’t get at least 2GB of ram, running bridge and multiple apps can be more of a hindrance than an advantage.
                            • 11. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                              TCarp Level 1
                              Hey again

                              Like with you I ended up with CS2. Also ended up with Studio 8. Got both at a local charity auction. Also like you I started out with FP and it served my needs quite well.

                              Thanks for the tip on using GoLive and doing a check back in DW. Sounds like I can use whichever I want on a pages in a local site. I'll probably, like you, only use GL a portion of the time since I got my start learning about html and css, a bit closer to the browser language.

                              Also thanks for the advice on RAM. My laptop only has half a gig so that may be it on Bridge. It may be time to add memory though. Never want that to be a constraint.

                              Between your posts and those Darrel made I think I have enough to be dangerous, at least as far as the web tool itself goes. Now I suspect its next a matter of picking vector and raster tools. I also have a need to run the path for non-web publishing which I'll do on a more appropriate area of the user forums.

                              I really do appreciate your posts. It's all at the right level and without much of "which is better".

                              Tom
                              • 12. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                Level 1
                                Ok… Fireworks vs. Photoshop… again, I use both. However, I have to say that Photoshop is THE MOST powerful image editing tool out there. After all, it’s one of the new tech words that is both a verb and a noun as in, “Photoshop is a great program” or “Let me photoshop that image for you”

                                Photoshop will give you the true power to create or modify any raster image as well as some limited vector capabilities. Fireworks has a few more vector capabilities than Photoshop but the learning curve is a bit steeper.

                                Most specifically, there are several DW scripts and extensions that use Fireworks for image processing and that becomes very convenient sometimes.

                                If I’m going to edit size, quality, contrast, color balance, etc. Photoshop is my first choice. If you have it available, learn it and use it. It will come in handy for many more things than web design.

                                But for the above mentioned reasons, make sure you have Fireworks loaded and ready. It’s also a good tool.
                                • 13. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                  Level 1
                                  Alright, one more post on this subject... Vector Graphics. And this is just my opinion... Nothing beats Adobe Illustrator. Since you have that with CS2, learn it and use it. and get comfortable with the export function. Changes any vector graphic to a raster image. Or the trace function that turns any raster image to a vector graphic. Very powerfull and useful.
                                  • 14. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                    Level 7
                                    > Looks like from your flow you are using Fireworks vs. Photoshop. Is there
                                    > a
                                    > preference there or just what you ended up with.

                                    I have Photoshop, Fireworks, and The GIMP.

                                    I honestly haven't touched Photoshop much in years. On occasion, when I need
                                    to do print work, its handy, but for web stuff, I haven't had much of a need
                                    for it anymore.

                                    Most of my time in spent in Fireworks, and, on occasion, I use The GIMP on
                                    my other machine (simply because I don't want to pay for another FW
                                    license).

                                    But, again, that's all personal preference.

                                    > at a local charity auction so have both Macromedia and Adobe products
                                    > (Creative
                                    > Suite and Studio 8).

                                    Then you should have illustrator, which should be used for vector
                                    illustration rather than Powerpoint.

                                    -Darrel


                                    • 15. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                      TCarp Level 1
                                      Once again thanks Darrel and Michael

                                      You both hitting the mark.

                                      Sounds like it is going to be personal preference between PS and FW and understanding some of both might be a good idea (like DW and GL).

                                      And Darrel, I'm quite ready to abandon PowerPoint.

                                      So I think what I've learned is:

                                      Illustrator for web destined vector and for presentations like PowerPoint
                                      PhotoShop or Fireworks for raster
                                      DW or GoLive for web but always check GL in DW before publishing
                                      InDesign for print destined page layout

                                      I've worked a little with Photoshop elements and am learning DW (as my replacement for FrontPage). If InDesign is to Publisher what DW is to FP then the transition will be similar to the one I'm going through now with DW. And if Illustrator is to PP (for the vector stuff) like DW is to FP, again the transition will be pretty straight forward.

                                      Thanks both of you. This is exactly what I wanted when I moved the thread to a more general workflow discussion.

                                      A couple last things. I didn't hear any mention of Flash (which came in Studio 8). Also, if I use Illustrator instead of PP, does it have slide show capabilities?

                                      Thanks (again)

                                      Tom
                                      • 16. DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                        Boerboel649 Level 1
                                        About Flash... there really isn't any other porgram out there to compare it to. If you're looking to create web destined animations, banners with some cool animation affects, animated ads, web games, or interactive things, then that's basically what Flash is for (probably just skimmed the surface... Flash's capabilities are amazing... just takes a long time to learn the advanced stuff... especially advanced Actionscript!).

                                        Here's an example of a Flash App... http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/colors/
                                        If you're looking at something on the web and wondering if it's Flash or not, right click on it...

                                        P.S. Yes, it does have slideshow capabilities... Here's a little tutorial to help introduce you to creating slideshows in Flash... http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=flash&seqNum=349&rl=1
                                        • 17. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                          Level 7
                                          > Illustrator for web destined vector and for presentations like PowerPoint

                                          No.

                                          Illustrator is purely a vector illustration program like Macromedia Freehand
                                          or Corel Draw.

                                          Powerpoint is a slide-based presentation program.

                                          Powerpoint does not occupy the same space as vector illustration programs,
                                          and vector illustration programs really don't occupy the same space as
                                          Powerpoint.

                                          Illustrator isn't necessary web-centric either. It's simply vector
                                          illustration. Whether or not you convert them to raster GIFs or cut and
                                          paste them into Flash as vectors is up to you.

                                          > PhotoShop or Fireworks for raster

                                          Right.

                                          > DW or GoLive for web but always check GL in DW before publishing

                                          Not sure what you mean by 'check GL in DW'

                                          > InDesign for print destined page layout

                                          Yes, typically used for magazine, newspapers, etc.

                                          > A couple last things. I didn't hear any mention of Flash (which came in
                                          > Studio 8).

                                          Flash is flash. Kind of it's own thing.

                                          Flash is a vector illustration tool, but only for flash files. You can also
                                          import raster images, add text, animations, etc. It's also a quite capable
                                          programming platform with actionscript.

                                          > Also, if I use Illustrator instead of PP, does it have slide show
                                          > capabilities?

                                          No. Powerpoint is for presentation. Illustrator is for illustration. The
                                          only thing akin to Powerpoint on the market right now would Apple's Keynote.
                                          You can do presentations in something like Flash too.

                                          Powerpoint shouldn't be in your toolbox at all for web work. You only use
                                          Powerpoint to make Powerpoint presentations, which are usually only used for
                                          presentations in front of a crowd and the like. And you can certainly skip
                                          Powerpoint and just make your presentation out of web pages or the like.

                                          -Darrel


                                          • 18. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                            Level 1
                                            Flash is cool BUT...

                                            1. Your viewer has to have the Flash viewer installed to see it and some refuse to load interactive programs so your Flash content may not be seen by everyone.

                                            2. Links and pages created in Flash can not be read by the web crawlers so they won't show up on Google, Yahoo or the like.

                                            3. If you're not careful, file size can overwhelm slow connections.

                                            I'm not saying Flash is bad, just be careful with it. I actually use it on several front pages of sites I've done, but only for some animation or display and there should always be the capability to navigate on without waiting for the Flash movie to finish.
                                            • 19. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                              TCarp Level 1
                                              Thanks Darrel

                                              Sorry to have implied that I intended to use PP for web stuff. Was actually just being thorough. I've used individual PP pages saved as jpgs or gifs as inserts on web pages, but never tried to use a PP page as a web page.

                                              The thought of doing presentations using web pages sounds interesting. I'll have to think about that. It would solve a couple of the problems I'm having with PP (presentation navigation and layering). Thanks for the thought.

                                              Tom
                                              • 20. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                Level 7
                                                > The thought of doing presentations using web pages sounds interesting.
                                                > I'll
                                                > have to think about that. It would solve a couple of the problems I'm
                                                > having
                                                > with PP (presentation navigation and layering). Thanks for the thought.

                                                The only reason PPT is used so widely is that every suit-and-tie wearing
                                                middle manager has taken a trainig course on PPT at one point or another.

                                                In reality, it's probably the worst program to use.

                                                Better options:

                                                - Appple's Keynote: Same premise, but better graphics
                                                - HTML: you can easily make slide presentations in plain HTML. The
                                                advantage is that it's more accessible, easier to maintain, easier to
                                                distribute online, more standards compliant, etc.
                                                - Flash: much more difficult to build, but you can do a lot more with it.
                                                Not as accessible as HTML.

                                                -Darrel


                                                • 21. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                  TCarp Level 1
                                                  Thanks again Darrel

                                                  Good observation on PPT and I'll add Keynote to my apps list.

                                                  You're right about how wide spread the use of PPT is. I'm working with a group on their effectiveness and one of the issues that's come up is how much time they end up listing to long PPT pitches.

                                                  Sounds like html is the way to go and I like the idea of being able to send it around without worrying about whether the other end has ppt.

                                                  Tom
                                                  • 22. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                    TCarp Level 1
                                                    Another thought about PPT Darrel...

                                                    PPT (and Visio) have a feature I haven't been able to find in any of the products we've talked about so far and that's the ability to use connectors: lines who's ends can be connected to objects and when the objects are moved the lines stay connected. This is the kind of functionality useful for flow charts, org charts, etc.

                                                    I'm assuming the GoLive or inDesign don't have the capability. Not a huge deal for moving to using html for presentations, but one of the things I will have to find a way to work around when I do.

                                                    Tom
                                                    • 23. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                      Level 7
                                                      > PPT (and Visio) have a feature I haven't been able to find in any of the
                                                      > products we've talked about so far and that's the ability to use
                                                      > connectors:
                                                      > lines who's ends can be connected to objects and when the objects are
                                                      > moved the
                                                      > lines stay connected. This is the kind of functionality useful for flow
                                                      > charts, org charts, etc.

                                                      Macromedia Freehand has that capability (linked lines that move with the
                                                      object) though freehand isn't specifically designed for flow charting.

                                                      On the Mac, OmniGraffle (a great outliner) has that ability:
                                                      http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnigraffle/
                                                      It looks a lot nicer the visio and a lot easier to use, IMHO.

                                                      I've also used this free product for some outlining projects:
                                                      http://cmap.ihmc.us/
                                                      Quite nice for a free product.

                                                      -Darrel


                                                      • 24. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                        TCarp Level 1
                                                        Thanks (again) Darrel

                                                        Sound like there isn't much (other than PPT and Visio) out there for process flows, data modeling, etc. I don't do much of it but when it's needed....

                                                        I must just stick with ppt for the flows and then get them moved over to another program as a pdf or gif.

                                                        BTW: Noticed that you responded to the post I made in another forum (on ppt output jpgs getting grainy). Really appreciate you bouncing around looking to help. I've found your input to be very helpful.

                                                        PPT does save .gifs so I'll give that a try.

                                                        Tom
                                                        • 25. DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                          TCarp Level 1
                                                          P.S. Thanks for the lead on OmniGraph. I used to love visio but found it hard to work with. Since I have a Mac desktop along with the PC laptops it might be a good one to add to my growing suite of software.

                                                          And I like the freeby! It's just about perfect for what I want to do. This could be by-by to ppt.

                                                          Do you know if it saves gifs?

                                                          Tom
                                                          • 26. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                            Level 7
                                                            On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:11:15 +0000 (UTC), "TCarp"
                                                            <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:

                                                            >Thanks (again) Darrel
                                                            >
                                                            > Sound like there isn't much (other than PPT and Visio) out there for process
                                                            >flows, data modeling, etc. I don't do much of it but when it's needed....
                                                            >

                                                            http://www.smartdraw.com/

                                                            A whole lot less expensive than Visio!

                                                            Win
                                                            --
                                                            Win Day, Wild Rose Websites
                                                            http://www.wildrosewebsites.com
                                                            winday@NOSPAMwildrosewebsites.com
                                                            Skype winifredday
                                                            • 27. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                              TCarp Level 1
                                                              I'm back to the thread that has been so helpful. I've had a chance to play with DW and Firefox a bit now and have a good understanding of their approach. I'd like to go back to the Fireworks, Illustrator, Photoshop discussion for just a minute. I like both PS and FW although I have been doing more with FW lately as I experiment with creating vector gifs for the sites. I'm assuming that PS will have a much more robust image processing capability than FW. If that's true, then when would you use PS and when FW?

                                                              As far as Illustrator, did the note earlier suggest that if I wanted to do some charts or graphs or diagrams or whatever (all vector) Illustrator would be the right choice?

                                                              If you recall my generosity at a local charity landed me all three so, again, it's not a which is better; its more when do you use which.

                                                              Thanks (again)

                                                              Tom
                                                              • 28. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                                TCarp Level 1
                                                                I'm back to the thread that has been so helpful. I've had a chance to play with DW and Firefox a bit now and have a good understanding of their approach. I'd like to go back to the Fireworks, Illustrator, Photoshop discussion for just a minute. I like both PS and FW although I have been doing more with FW lately as I experiment with creating vector gifs for the sites. I'm assuming that PS will have a much more robust image processing capability than FW. If that's true, then when would you use PS and when FW?

                                                                As far as Illustrator, did the note earlier suggest that if I wanted to do some charts or graphs or diagrams or whatever (all vector) Illustrator would be the right choice?

                                                                If you recall my generosity at a local charity landed me all three so, again, it's not a which is better; its more when do you use which.

                                                                Thanks (again)

                                                                Tom
                                                                • 29. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                                  Level 7
                                                                  In terms of your PS and FW question the answer is that for web work your
                                                                  could use either. PS was designed for the print industry where you are
                                                                  interested in getting the sharpest images, and the file size does not
                                                                  matter. FW was designed solely for web where there is a definite trade off
                                                                  between quality and file size. The emphasis is on file size.

                                                                  Many designers use both and the workflow goes like this.

                                                                  1) They create the graphic is PS and once they are happier with it they then
                                                                  open it up in FW
                                                                  2) They use FW to slice up the image so that they can apply different
                                                                  compression to different sections of it.

                                                                  --
                                                                  Paul Whitham
                                                                  Certified Dreamweaver MX2004 Professional
                                                                  Adobe Community Expert - Dreamweaver

                                                                  Valleybiz Internet Design
                                                                  www.valleybiz.net

                                                                  "TCarp" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                                                  news:ea9cc1$c71$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                                  > I'm back to the thread that has been so helpful. I've had a chance to
                                                                  > play
                                                                  > with DW and Firefox a bit now and have a good understanding of their
                                                                  > approach.
                                                                  > I'd like to go back to the Fireworks, Illustrator, Photoshop discussion
                                                                  > for
                                                                  > just a minute. I like both PS and FW although I have been doing more with
                                                                  > FW
                                                                  > lately as I experiment with creating vector gifs for the sites. I'm
                                                                  > assuming
                                                                  > that PS will have a much more robust image processing capability than FW.
                                                                  > If
                                                                  > that's true, then when would you use PS and when FW?
                                                                  >
                                                                  > As far as Illustrator, did the note earlier suggest that if I wanted to do
                                                                  > some charts or graphs or diagrams or whatever (all vector) Illustrator
                                                                  > would be
                                                                  > the right choice?
                                                                  >
                                                                  > If you recall my generosity at a local charity landed me all three so,
                                                                  > again,
                                                                  > it's not a which is better; its more when do you use which.
                                                                  >
                                                                  > Thanks (again)
                                                                  >
                                                                  > Tom
                                                                  >


                                                                  • 30. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                                    TCarp Level 1
                                                                    Excellent response! What I've tended to do is to play around with my original digital photographs in PS but when I want to play with them for the web sites I do the final work in FW. Sounds like that follows normal flow. I really like both and have been warming up nicely to FW as I learn it and use it in conjunction with Dreamweaver.

                                                                    The good news is that the interfaces are similar so the learning curve on FW has been pretty quick, at least for the basics. Before having FW I struggled to get vector graphics set up for my sites (new user there too), but the site I'm working on now is turning out to be great because of the new found FW capabilities.

                                                                    Thanks for the workflow.

                                                                    Tom
                                                                    • 31. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                                      Level 1
                                                                      As in the question of PS vs FW above, there is a similar answer to Illustrator vs FW. Illustrator was designed for the print industry and is hugely more robust than FW for creating and manipulating vector graphics, but it has very limited capability with bitmap graphics. They can be placed in an illustrator file but editing is limited while FW has a full bitmap editing capability.

                                                                      You said above that you are fortunate enough to have copies of all of these programs. That is reallt the best of all worlds, but you ‘ll just have to become familiar with the features of each and how thay can help you in youor work.

                                                                      I too use the full Adobe CS package as well as the full Macromedia (Adobe) Studio 8 package, plus CorelDRAW for some images. I use every application a little bit and some of them a lot. Since I am also heavily involved in print media, I rely on Photoshop and Illustrator quite a bit. For web media, I get into FW a little and I use it when I want to manipulate the vector as well as the bitmap graphics in an image.

                                                                      What it boils down to is what kinds of features you want, what you are used to and what you get comfortable with.
                                                                      • 32. Re: DW vs GoLive approach to site development
                                                                        TCarp Level 1
                                                                        Hey Michael,

                                                                        Good to hear from you again.

                                                                        You're exactly right. To some extent it's personal preference. For example, I've worked just a little with GoLive with the idea that it would let me do some fast layouts but I've found I've gotten used to a little more control at the time of layout so DW seems to be my focus.

                                                                        I'm starting to bounce back and forth between PS and FW just the way you said. I tend to be working on digital photos in PS but moving over to FW for integrating them into vector work. I haven't done much with Illustrator yet (just not much of a drawer yet). I have started messing around with InDesign for print page layout and will of course be learning acrobat.

                                                                        As I think you mentioned, I added some memory to my laptop to let the apps run a little better. Still only 1.25G and eventually I would like to mess around with Bridge (there's a pretty good high level tutorial that comes with the apps). Very orineted to a graphic artist with a lot more sophistication than I'll ever have, but very impressive. Just not quite ready to go to the full 2G max yet.

                                                                        So for now its DW, FW, and PS with a little InDesign thrown in for giggles and Acrobat to come.

                                                                        This thread has given me exactly what I needed. A good framework.

                                                                        Tom