Die Dreamweaver, Die!

Posted on September 03, 2001

in Software

by Daniel Fascia (danfascia)

Rated 3.87 (Ratings: 29) (Add your rating)

Want more?

More articles in Software
More articles by danfascia

Daniel Fascia

Member info | Full bio

User since: July 29, 2001

Last login: April 25, 2008

Articles written: 3

Introduction

I have been a fond user of Macromedia Dreamweaver for a long time now, since version 1.2 was available. It was the first accurate WYSIWYG editor and more importantly for an emerging designer at the time, it was the industry tool of choice. As I've grown in experience however, the said tool is fast becoming my worst enemy for a number of reasons.

1. Layout

Now, no-one can argue that Dreamweaver in Layout Mode is fantastic for designing the overall table template for your site. Drawing tables and cells is far easier than calculating which ones to merge, where a colspan and rowspan should go, etc...

I recently started to notice when cross browser testing with Opera that EVEN the bloody table code it produces in Layout Mode is flawed, failing to add crucial WIDTH tags to cells which totally ruins the column structure in Opera. So annoying is this problem that even when I try to add all of the widths manually in a trusty HTML editor, the lovely Dreamweaver REMOVES them for me when I reload the page.

If you ask Macromedia about this "feature" of Dreamweaver, they simply blurb on about it removing superfluous, unnecessary tags. So why don't these pages work correctly in the most compliant browser, Opera?

2. Style Sheets

Next complaint is even bigger than the first one. The Dreamweaver support for style sheets was at one time fairly revolutionary... that is, until they forgot to update it in the last 2 versions. So bad is the support that you can't even add a :hover pseudo to the Anchor tag without employing an external stylesheet editor.

So you'd think that Macromedia would at least accept these shortcomings and make integration with an external stylesheet editor simple. Well NO, the sheets never reload automatically after updating - you have to painstakingly relink them, then preview the page again to proof your changes. This gets very annoying when all you are trying to do is change an element's position or a similarly menial task.

3. Content Design

Now the final insult. Macromedia would have you believe that Dreamweaver is the last word in multistage development, design the template > define it > pass it to the content editors > publish

Sounds wonderful but it doesnt work. Frequently simple templates that I have produced for people who wish to content edit fail to work correctly. For example: add a table into an editable area and watch the uneditable regions start dancing about the page like a man possessed.

Dreamweaver always tries too hard. If I have defined a template then I want Dreamweaver to assume that it is correct and to leave MY code alone. Just allow editing of editable regions - BUT no, it plays about with my tables, removing WIDTH tags here and there...

In Internet Works magazine I read about the process of web production at BBC.co.uk - They cite the beloved DW as a crucial part of their workflow, using the template features just as I want to. I'm not sure how much I believe them! Why doesn't it work in any project I ever publish?

Plea to Macromedia

Now you would think that an accomplished company like MM could get it right after 4 incarnations of the web's most popular design package. In the next incarnation, all I want is a package that can design layouts that are standards compliant. Don't bother with Flash Text and Flash Buttons, we don't want it!

In the meantime I will keep using it for drawing tables visually... but nothing else!

Rant over - Dan...

No longer actively making websites since being a full time doctor has taken over most of my spare time and sapped what imagination I had left by the end of medical school completely.

Legacy site designs:
· EC Executive Search automotive recruitment
· Edinburgh University: Microbiology CAL
· Edinburgh University: Lawn Tennis Club
· Follow Fascia : on elective
· Alpybus : low cost chamonix geneva transfer company

www.fascianewmedia.co.uk

33 comments on this article. Log in to add your comment | Rate this article:

New to Dreamweaver

Submitted by StOne on September 3, 2001 - 23:57.

I got Dreamweaver not long ago and was far more impressed by it than any other editor I've tried. But I still haven't really "used" it. I always fall back on Notepad, which I took up after trying a number of editors including Arachnophilia, FirstPage 2000, the HTML editor lurking behind MS Word 2000 and even Netscape Composer.

Actually I wish I did feel more comfortable with Dreamweaver, but I'm not sure I ever will.

Dreamweaved for more then 3 years.

Submitted by eych on September 4, 2001 - 01:04.

I used Dreamweaver from version 1.0. Actually i learned HTML from it. And i still use it to mantain my personal projects, most of which are still plain html (with ssi but nothing else). And i can say with confidence, that it is really great, though it becomes slower from one version to another.

The main purpose of a good WYSIWIG editor (like Dreamweaver) to help a developer to html-code sites. it speeds the process in hundred times compared to plain hand html coding. But it doesn't replace hand coding. This is the main point.

When you control what Dreamweaver does (and this is really easy in the latest version) then you produce the most clean code in the least time. And that is why I really love it.

CSS in Dreamweaver?

Submitted by gbird on September 4, 2001 - 04:33.

I have used Dreamweaver since v1.0 too, and when I first started using it, it was verging on miraculous. Ok, so it coded more sloppily than I would like, but it still did magical mystical things. As it grew up, I think it has gone two ways - in one way, features like the Find and Replace are incredible - I couldn't do without them - but in another way it has blatantly been left to rot. The CSS support is (as above) atrocious. I want to start using XHTML and full CSS1 via PHP, but I cannot do it in Dreamweaver. It doesn't seem to have any concept of CSS boxes, borders, positioning (except absolute, which is a no-no), etc. I am using DW4. I use the free copy of BBEdit Lite much more.

Table Tags

Submitted by gnarly on September 4, 2001 - 06:35.

I cant say that I have ever had problems with DW4 removing table width tags at all. Then again I have never used the table layout mode, I prefer to build them up manually. Still, if people are having problems with this then surely the option should be available to turn the 'features' off?

never a means to and end

Submitted by izbor on September 4, 2001 - 07:59.

DW is great for what it is... a good quick editor. DW is in no way a means to an end, i totally agree with most of the comments and rants said, but if you have ever tried to include any javascript then you know DW is in no way the right choice if you are into clean hard code. and as for Macromedia eliminating unneeded code, hmmmm, last time i wrote a javascript popup script it was probably about 5 to six lines MAX... but with the included MM_popUP youll get the "very needed" 16 lines of code to cover all thier bases. yeah right. anyway cool report, i would recommend to anyone who reads this and questions what then they should use to edit html, to go with something like 1st page or ACEhtml, and if you strickly hard code then go with something like Araneae. all free and all great at clean code editing.

erratum

Submitted by danfascia on September 4, 2001 - 20:17.

I meant to say DW cant make pseudos for non Anchor elements, not anchors which are the only ones it can. in addition to comments above, there is no doubt that DW is the best of its stable but it is still not YET a dependable work tool for delivering bulletproof code I sincerely hope it becomes one

I'll keep my job

Submitted by noahlazar on September 4, 2001 - 21:08.

As an HTML guru, it has always been a worry that programs such as Dreamweaver, FrontPage and even GoLive would run my talent out of business. Those programs allow almost anyone to create an entire web site without any HTML knowledge. It is good to know, however, that becuase of these limitations, most companies will still need people who can hand-code clean, efficient, and standards-compliant code without the need for WYSIWYG editors.

Notepad for all time

Submitted by darkism on September 4, 2001 - 21:26.

One day a friend of mine simply told me to "use Notepad." And so I did....from then on, all pages were made completely in Notepad. I could not be happier with this decision - as I see the popularity of these WYSIWYG editors in the market today I cannot help but be sickened by those who feel that they can simply throw together some clich�d template-filled "site" and claim to be "designers." As far as I'm concerned, WYSIWYG editors do nothing but create bulky, buggy, uniplatform code. In other words, don't trust a machine to do a human's job.

Use both!

Submitted by paulnattress on September 5, 2001 - 01:58.

My first web pages and later, my first web sites were all hand coded using notepad - still the best way to learn I think.
Nowadays I use Dreamweaver (DW) but recently I've been hand coding, them opening up the document in DW. The reason is that I can then take advantage of DW templates to change the entire site when it's half done - this has saved me hours of work many times.

At the moment I'm delving deep into CSS and that's where DW falls over completely. Still, that's why they ship it with Homesite and TopStyle...!

DW only for layouting

Submitted by hrafn on September 5, 2001 - 04:57.

Hejsan! I am using DW only for general web layouting work which later gets modified manually in Homesite. Since I am fond of XHTML and CSS, I can only hope MM will change something in DW 5, which, taking into account MM's update cycle, should pop up the next months...

Submitted by izbor on September 5, 2001 - 07:21.

Notepad.... hmmmm... yes it is the best way to learn but i dont recommend nor do i know of anyone who still uses it to crearte and intire site, if i had to hand code over 600 lines per page in a 1000 page site in notepad i would hate it, i know alot of people claim to use notepad for thier whole site, but they most likely have a 5 to six page non dynamic or interactive site or are just lieing... the benifits of using a html or code editor are that unlike conventional and blah notepad html editors color code scripts and help your eyes read code more clearly helping to speed up your page to page codeing. try 1st page 2000 or araneae for your hand coded pages, i think they work fine, but i definelty wouldnt use notepad, jeez my eyes would go crazy looking at thta block drab unclean font for thousands of lines.... -izbor

Use Interdev

Submitted by noahlazar on September 5, 2001 - 07:39.

Back when I was working for a university, it was necessary to maintain entire sites using a telnet window! Width of 72 characters, height of 25 rows, no scroll bars, and no color coding. I finally got smart and moved to BBEdit (and just FTPed the files back and forth). I did use notepad at home for a long while too. But now, I am using Visual Interdev all the way. Not only does it color coordinate HTML and ASP, but it hooks directly into any IIS server and Source Safe for large-scale and team efforts. I haven't tried UltraDev, but I have not heard any good reviews of it yet. Homesite is a good tool too, but I just got used to InterDev first.

A Good Editor for CSS

Submitted by davem on September 5, 2001 - 08:33.

If you do wish to use an editor to produce CSS, then check out TopStyle from http://www.bradbury.com It has many great features such as Dreamweaver integration, CSS2 support and browser compatability information. I have been using it in tandem with Dreamweaver for over a year now and never resort back to Dreamweaver's internal CSS handling.

davem...

Submitted by izbor on September 5, 2001 - 09:40.

i think you mean http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/index.asp

Handcoding thousand-page sites

Submitted by MartinB on September 5, 2001 - 13:05.

Are there advantages to maintaining a thousand-page site using an HTML editor? How would that be better than using a CMS, dynamically stuffing content into templates (and thus separating content and presentation layers)? Once you've got editable/non-editable regions set up, isn't that what DW does anyway?

Content Management

Submitted by noahlazar on September 5, 2001 - 13:48.

For large sites (anything over 100 pages), a content management system would usually be ideal. But implementing it still requires you to create the templates using HTML and have some knowledge of how the back-end system works. Also, that extra software costs more money, has specific system requirements that may not be compatible with your hosting company, and takes time to implement. If you have a smaller site or one where tons of content is not going to be changed too often, then it's much simpler to go into the individual pages, swap a paragraph of text in Notepad, and be done with it.

Content Mangement & smaller sites

Submitted by MartinB on September 5, 2001 - 14:26.

Of course, the larger your site, the more compelling the case for a CMS. However, even with a small site, it makes sense to modularise the HTML, building the pages with SSIs or similar. Yes, you have to understand the code to break it apart into modular templates, but that doesn't mean you have to spend vast sums of cash on Vignette to do it. I do day-to-day maintenance on my own site with Telnet, as mostly I'm editing short files which are brought in using XSSI. This site (ie evolt) has a hand-rolled CMS using ColdFusion - costs money, but not a lot. It could equally be done in PHP, ASP, Perl or pretty much any server-side technology.

Dreamweaver extension to help build CMS

Submitted by q on September 7, 2001 - 12:25.

there's actually an extension for 'weaver 4 by a company called Public Domain Limited that kicks butt. When I was working on my own personal CMS, I was rather intimidated by and not looking forward to actually building the code a mini-WYSIWYG in perl/javascript (I wanted it to be WYSIWYG so I can have non-technical friends use it). This extension does that for you, saving much time in the process and enabling you to focus on building code for managing the site.

quoted from their extension notes:

"The PD On-line HTML/Text Editor Inserts a complete mini HTML/Text editor into your current document that acts very similar to MS Wordpad that ships with Windows.

The On-line editor converts the data into html, this html that can then be saved directly into a database or content management system.

The editor supports text & images. Choose between a WYSIWYG view or raw HTML view.
Cut and paste data directly from another html page or from any program that outputs html.

Originally written for use with our own content management system (CSM) to allow users with no HTML experience a perfect solution for entering page content into the system using nothing more than their browser.

Microsoft IE 5x and above Compatible only."

I use perl to handle the submitted document and do whatever.

-Q.

More fuel for the hand-markup fire

Submitted by persist1 on September 9, 2001 - 17:31.

Darkism... try Textpad... and read two articles from back in March: Back To Basics, and To Hell With Bad Editors.

BBedit :)

Submitted by teimory on September 13, 2001 - 08:54.

I have to say i get the same problem I work for one of the big internet serach engines and what we can do with bbedit is much more, and a much better result. I have to say Golive is the same too

Macromedia products and Section 508 of the ADA

Submitted by purpleman51 on September 17, 2001 - 09:58.

I think another very important issue here is the poor support of Macromedia products with respect to the Section 508 Amendment to the American with Diabilities Act. With the close integration of Fireworks and Flash with Dreamweaver, Macromedia is essentially encouraging the use of images on web sites, especially for navigation purposes. Section 508 usbaility guidelines must be followed by any company or group wishing to interact with the government, and stringently followed if you wish to do business with the government. If you have never had you site "read" by a browser reader (software that reads your web iste out loud), you should try it using on a site heavy with images and uses Flash for navigation. It is eseentially useless to users who require reading of web sites. Lest you think that people with disabilities are a small segment of our population, think about this projection. Experts predict that two thirds of people currently 18-24 years old will have some sort of disability by age 70. Remember too that disabilities do not have to be permanent. Accidents leave many of us temporarily disabled. Therefore, I believe we should all be sending the message to Macromedia that they need to make their software produce web pages that conform to the Section 508 guidelines. Thanks for listening!

Re: Macromedia products and Section 508 of the ADA

Submitted by mwarden on September 17, 2001 - 11:21.

Are you suggesting that simply because the product is integrated with other graphical products, it is in violation of this legislation? That seems like the "ban guns because some people use them to kill" thought process. Just curious. I'm no lawyer.

Macromedia Dreamweaver

Submitted by justinbiegel on September 18, 2001 - 15:01.

You'd everything in life would some day perfect, yet it will never be like that. The main focus in the Dreamweaver package is to provide both begineers and professionals the ability to develop web productions. Now, perfectionism doesn't come easy in life, and if you want everything you do to come out with that crisp, complete, and problemless manner you have to take that extra step. The extra step can include going over the code, letter by letter and fixing it with a big 1,500 page desk reference on your side(my preferred option), or running validation and cross-browser programs to fix the flaws. Yet, you can't bang down the best web development tool just because it's not perfect, because nobodies perfect. Yet, another point I am trying to throw out into this discussion is that as much as Macromedia want's you to think, Dreamweaver nor Dreamweaver UltraDev is mean't to be developing high-level projects that include hundrends of web sites, and advanced databasing and programming. If you are at that complex level of work, you should start learning how to engineer and program web sites on your own so that you know the way the site is working to the point that you won't have any misfigures, and if you do fixing them won't be a problem.

Notepad

Submitted by Nicke on September 19, 2001 - 05:54.

Yet another reason to just leave the editors alone and write the code yourself :) Having started with simple editors like Notepad or Pico (Linux/Unix) I just cant seem to get alone with any HTML editors out there. Sure, it takes me a little longer (but not all that much to be honest) to make a page but it gets done right from the beginning. I have full control over all the coding.

HomeSite

Submitted by mattamillion on October 4, 2001 - 11:04.

Thus far I haven't seen any mention of HomeSite, Macromedia's (formerly Allaire's) HTML source editor. Not only does HomeSite have support for color-coding HTML tags, a spell checker, HTML syntax validator, but it also color-codes JavaScript, VB Script (ASP). As an added bonus, it also supports ColdFusion color coding and tags, since both programs were developed by Allaire. As far as content management: my solution to that (short of using a specific software package) is simply to set variables at the top of every "content" page on a site that determine headers, placement, etc., of the "standard" elements -- which are included in a header include file and a footer include file with some conditional code to evaluate the variables.

RE: HomeSite

Submitted by haidary on November 3, 2001 - 21:14.

I use to use HomeSite but have strayed from it for a while. I know that it use to be an excellent html editor and that it probably still is. I have heard you guys talk about all the good features it has. My question is has MM made any negative changes to the software since acquiring it from Allaire?

Changes to Homesite?

Submitted by persist1 on November 4, 2001 - 01:21.

I've used Homesite 4 for some things, but as I mentioned above I'm a much bigger fan of Textpad (which has most of the features that I use in Homesite).

You may - or may not - know that I'm on the staff of Digital Web Magazine. One of the other staff members has been a Homesite user from the beginning, and has contributed his research to later versions (I forget the exact role or credit). In short, we'll be running an exhausive review of the new version not in our next issue, but the one following. It should launch sometime around the beginning of December.

Macromedia needs to improve their editor

Submitted by nathany on November 9, 2001 - 23:38.

I've tried out every version of DreamWeaver since it first came out. And while they have added a lot of nice features, the editor itself is just so cludgy to use (and hasn't changed since version 1.0!). A WYSIWYG editor needs to be more efficient than hand-coding. For many people, DreamWeaver could be - for me and anyone who hand-codes all the time - it's not. I still think it's one of the better WYSIWYG tools, but they really need to work on it. Until then I'll stick with HomeSite/ColdFusion Studio (or BBEdit on my iBook).

Here's hoping that the aquisition of Allaire will get some input from the wizards behind HomeSite into the next rev. of DreamWeaver. Though there are more issues to resolve with a WYSIWYG editor - like handling of bulleted lists and such. Maybe v5 will address the issues and become an awesome tool, or maybe it will just get more bloated with more bullet points on it's feature list with no usability improvements what-so-ever. We shall see.

- n8

tables is the only thing wysiwyg is good for

Submitted by garconbifteck on November 20, 2001 - 15:08.

Tables is the only thing wysiwyg is good for i make everything in notepad, nice and simple, its just like those damn fangled vending machines, perhaps its me but the thing always gets bloody stuck WHAT IS WRONG WITH A SHOP COUNTER!!!? ok the staff but usually vending machines are right next to shops with lazy fat staff leaning back on their chair etc. inside (reminds myself somewhat of me actually except not in a shop)

lol

Submitted by jesteruk on January 16, 2002 - 14:50.

Personally i can't stand "webpage builders" i don't like visually designing a page as you design a graphic, a webpage isn't a graphic, it's about displaying imformation to the user. i always coded my HTML, perl, PHP and CSS by hand, from the <html> tag to </html> tag. I suck at using design programs, easier to just code it.

haha!

Submitted by jenncoker on January 17, 2002 - 17:58.

That was great. Thanks for the laugh!

I have to say that any WYSIWYG, even the better ones (I still prefer DW over the alternatives) is only good for sketching out the details of a layout and creating your own "template".

I gotta disagree on the hand-coding past that point taking too long thing, though. If you get a solid layout nailed down in your WYSIWYG stage, and componentize well, you can clean that code up and wham-bam through any site development, imho.

Trust me, back before the CSS-is-cool-with-the-client days, I spent more time tracking down DW's extraneous tags and other similar BS (because I was told "we have no time and WYSIWYG is the only way we're doing it". Pft.)... You end up *under pressure* spending WAY more time than hand coding the pages could ever have taken... Even if you did it with one hand! IMO, a solid visual layout from a WYSIWYG is about as far that WYSIWYG can go (I might even venture to say that that is as far as *any* WYSIWYG will *ever* go;) to save you time.

Anyway, your CSS comments were perfect and I'm hoping MM hears you/us and consequently spends a little less time on UltraDev and all the Allaire fun stuff and a little bit more time fine-tuning the features they sold us on in DW.

- jenn coker

Right...

Submitted by arnaud on March 17, 2002 - 09:05.

Well, all you said is right, but you've forgotten some things... The HTML *produced* by Dream is an horror...

"Macromedia Nightmare Weaver"...

Submitted by jenncoker on March 17, 2002 - 15:48.

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it? Just doesn'make me want to shell out $199.00USD ;) Heh. Well, again... lay it out, clean it up, and get out of the WYSIWYG.

Start of page header

Article Categories

Highest rated articles

Submit

Recent comments