4 ms·

If it was more than about ten years ago, you were correct. In the late 90s and early 2000s, a majority (>50%) of professional Web developers used Dreamweaver, a

by SiVal 13y ago

If it was more than about ten years ago, you were correct. In the late 90s and early 2000s, a majority (>50%) of professional Web developers used Dreamweaver, according to market surveys done at the time. It worked quite well when the formatting was in the HTML instead of CSS. It was essentially a GUI word processor with an HTML file format. When CSS took over the presentation role, drawing the interface like a MS-Word doc no longer really worked.

Sharlin 13y ago
One thing I really really really find horrible in word processors is the nonseparation of content and presentation. Yes, they have paragraph styles you can apply, and hope everything you marked with that style actually changes when you change the style, but in practice it never seems to work well and the UX leaves much to be desired.
oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
Do you have a link to one of those surveys? I just find that incredibly difficult to believe given that a) CSS had really started to take off by then (early 2000s) b) even using presentational HTML, it's much harder to work in a WYSIWYG environment when it comes to fine-grained control (which is what professionals are likely to require) than in a text editor.
- SiVal 13y ago
  Sorry, I don't have any such link, but I was in the dev tools business then, and I remember, for what it's worth. Regarding CSS, it rose very gradually, but its rise created a slowly growing problem for Dreamweaver, resulting in the transition from then, when most pros used it for at least part of their workflow, to now, when most don't. Dreamweaver had the best WYSIWYG mode of any HTML editor at the time, and it had a pure code editor, and its big claim to fame was that you could edit in either, jump back and forth between modes, and they would (mostly) remain in sync. You'd do the rough layout visually, then tweak the details in the resulting code, then tweak a bit more visually, then add another touch of code, etc. As non-HTML components on the front end gradually became more important, people used the WYSIWYG mode less and less, gradually shifting toward straight coding, significantly reducing the value of DW's dual-mode advantage over pure code editors.

by SiVal 13y ago

Sharlin 13y ago

One thing I really really really find horrible in word processors is the nonseparation of content and presentation. Yes, they have paragraph styles you can apply, and hope everything you marked with that style actually changes when you change the style, but in practice it never seems to work well and the UX leaves much to be desired.

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago

Do you have a link to one of those surveys? I just find that incredibly difficult to believe given that a) CSS had really started to take off by then (early 2000s) b) even using presentational HTML, it's much harder to work in a WYSIWYG environment when it comes to fine-grained control (which is what professionals are likely to require) than in a text editor.

SiVal 13y ago
Sorry, I don't have any such link, but I was in the dev tools business then, and I remember, for what it's worth. Regarding CSS, it rose very gradually, but its rise created a slowly growing problem for Dreamweaver, resulting in the transition from then, when most pros used it for at least part of their workflow, to now, when most don't. Dreamweaver had the best WYSIWYG mode of any HTML editor at the time, and it had a pure code editor, and its big claim to fame was that you could edit in either, jump back and forth between modes, and they would (mostly) remain in sync. You'd do the rough layout visually, then tweak the details in the resulting code, then tweak a bit more visually, then add another touch of code, etc. As non-HTML components on the front end gradually became more important, people used the WYSIWYG mode less and less, gradually shifting toward straight coding, significantly reducing the value of DW's dual-mode advantage over pure code editors.