Adobe Muse - HTML websites without writing code(muse.adobe.com)
muse.adobe.com
Adobe Muse - HTML websites without writing code
http://muse.adobe.com/
9 comments
What I would really appreciate, is a graphical designer similar to the WPF designer, just for CSS. Muse is far from that, as far as I can tell, there isn't even a way to provide percentage values for boxes.
Why would the app running on AIR pose a problem?
Because most if not all AIR apps have non-standard interfaces that feel clunky, slow, and out of place on Mac OS X.
Kinda like Java all over again, isn't it.
It's interesting that the pricing model is purely rental. I can see a lot of small businesses/hobbyists using this. $20 to get your website done will grab a lot of attention.
For professionals it could be a good mock-up tool. Being able to quickly show a client a website and alter it in real-time is going to save a lot of time, even if it means having to recode the entire site from the ground up.
Client's for the most part don't really care what's going on under the hood, just that their site looks super sexy.
Which of course will lead to this tool being abused by every half wit who can draw a straightish line with a ruler. <p class="paragraph"> all round...
For professionals it could be a good mock-up tool. Being able to quickly show a client a website and alter it in real-time is going to save a lot of time, even if it means having to recode the entire site from the ground up.
Client's for the most part don't really care what's going on under the hood, just that their site looks super sexy.
Which of course will lead to this tool being abused by every half wit who can draw a straightish line with a ruler. <p class="paragraph"> all round...
From the FAQ:
"Muse is an Adobe AIR application."
I'm not convinced that AIR is good enough for large desktop apps. It's been a while since I've checked out AIR's progress, though -- maybe my prejudice about AIR is behind the times.
I'm not convinced that AIR is good enough for large desktop apps. It's been a while since I've checked out AIR's progress, though -- maybe my prejudice about AIR is behind the times.
Nope, AIR still sucks on windows and is unsuable on everything else.
Funtip: Turn off javascript, render navigation and other elements on "Muse" based pages non-functional.
The lack of any meaningful fallback is disappointing. Accessibility to content should at all stages be a priority.
The lack of any meaningful fallback is disappointing. Accessibility to content should at all stages be a priority.
You're right. Far too many sites depend on Javascript and Flash to function. In my opinion, sites that can't function without those are broken.
So what is the non-intellectual-purity argument for why Javascript dependency is bad? I've heard people talk for years about why it's so important to support noscript, but tbh I feel like this is the year 2011-- the internet is not (only) a set of hyperlinked documents any more, and javascript is an essential part of the experience on many/most non-trivial websites. (note: not trying to troll; I'm honestly curious)
There is no reasonable argument for going out of ones was to cater for non-js users. It's on by default in every browser. If a user turned it off for whatever reason they they'll know to turn it on again if they need to.
You can't easily index javascript sites.
With javascript it's not a document, it's an application.
If you are writing an app, then sure, use javascript, and don't worry about it (even if you could do it server side, I rarely see the point).
But if you are writing a document then you should at least have a fallback, and reserve javascript for less important "flair".
With javascript it's not a document, it's an application.
If you are writing an app, then sure, use javascript, and don't worry about it (even if you could do it server side, I rarely see the point).
But if you are writing a document then you should at least have a fallback, and reserve javascript for less important "flair".
As long as you're meeting your business goals and not frustrating blind people, you're doing it right, JavaScript or no JavaScript.
Wait so instead of building the tool people actually want, Adobe is spending the profit from their ludicrously over-priced products on this!!?? And at the same time trying to perpetuate the pointless Air ecosystem...
Bye Adobe http://scrumpy-jack.com/post/543705069/bye-bye-adobe
Bye Adobe http://scrumpy-jack.com/post/543705069/bye-bye-adobe
Great! I was really missing Frontpage.
The markup generated from this tool isn't so good (no surprise). e.g <p class="paragraph">
Adobe should spend their time and money investing in a resource for designers to learn and perfect HTML/CSS/JS techniques rather than building useless tools like Muse.
Adobe should spend their time and money investing in a resource for designers to learn and perfect HTML/CSS/JS techniques rather than building useless tools like Muse.
That's akin to someone saying back in 1988 that, instead of building a graphical tool like Illustrator, Adobe should have invested in educating designers how to write PostScript by hand.
("Processing cycles on the printer's raster processor are incredibly precious! Can you imagine, this printing job would easily run 70% faster if only the PostScript document were hand-written instead of produced by some junky layout tool...")
99% of designers will never write code, no matter how exciting educational prose and tutorials we may come up with. It's a shame to drive away those designers from the web just because of old-fashioned HTML snobbery.
("Processing cycles on the printer's raster processor are incredibly precious! Can you imagine, this printing job would easily run 70% faster if only the PostScript document were hand-written instead of produced by some junky layout tool...")
99% of designers will never write code, no matter how exciting educational prose and tutorials we may come up with. It's a shame to drive away those designers from the web just because of old-fashioned HTML snobbery.
Writing clean HTML is about a lot more than performance. It's about compatibility, maintainability, future-proofing, accessibility, and so on.
History has shown us repeatedly that these sorts of wysiwyg programs write really bad markup, which is a symptom of their pretending that HTML is capable of things that it is not.
History has shown us repeatedly that these sorts of wysiwyg programs write really bad markup, which is a symptom of their pretending that HTML is capable of things that it is not.
... their pretending that HTML is capable of things that it is not.
That was unavoidable because HTML wasn't capable of doing the kind of layout that designers wanted. This was back in the late '90s, when the demand for WYSIWYG web design tools boomed but the HTML standard was splintered by incompatible vendor-specific extensions.
We can do much better now; hopefully Adobe Muse does.
That was unavoidable because HTML wasn't capable of doing the kind of layout that designers wanted. This was back in the late '90s, when the demand for WYSIWYG web design tools boomed but the HTML standard was splintered by incompatible vendor-specific extensions.
We can do much better now; hopefully Adobe Muse does.
And yet we are discussing this on a site that uses tables for layout and <font> for styling. I also enjoy beautiful markup, but outside the web development community nobody cares. What is important is that it looks good. After all, people are still impressed by flashy animations.
Sometimes I wonder if aligning our values with those of ordinary people wouldn't yield better results than thinking up uses for the <aside> tag.
Sometimes I wonder if aligning our values with those of ordinary people wouldn't yield better results than thinking up uses for the <aside> tag.
first thought: oh another Microsoft Frontpage.
Personally, I prefer a text editor, but I recognize that is not the solution for everyone.
"Muse is a tool for the graphic designer. And I mean that in the most sincere sense."
I downloaded the demo. For me, it's defined by the absence of a source code view. That said, the Muse site itself is built with the app, which is impressive, but must have required incredible patience. The code it outputs is less than impressive: the body code begins with six nested divs.
At $15/month, it may find an audience among keen hobbyists, though. Professional graphic designers I know who've expressed an interest in web design have all drifted towards Dreamweaver or taught themselves to hand code sites from scratch, and I'm not sure that Muse is enticing enough a toolset to break this trend at present. If they're trying to appeal to graphic designers (typically Mac users), the fact that it's an Air app is likely to be a big hurdle for adoption.