4 ms·

The markup generated from this tool isn't so good (no surprise). e.g Adobe should spend their time and money investing in a resource for

The markup generated from this tool isn't so good (no surprise). e.g 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.

pavlov 15y ago
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.
- extension 15y ago
  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.
  - pavlov 15y ago
    ... 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.
Tutorialzine 15y ago
And yet we are discussing this on a site that uses tables for layout and 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.

pavlov 15y ago

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.

extension 15y ago
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.
- pavlov 15y ago
  ... 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.

Tutorialzine 15y ago

And yet we are discussing this on a site that uses tables for layout and 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.

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

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