• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Adobe introduces MUSE: create websites without needing to know HTML

Status
Not open for further replies.

OchreHand

Member
Awesome news. I've been wanting to redesign my illustration site.. I think I will try it out.

I'm a bit apprehensive on pay subscribing to software, though.
 

RDreamer

Member
This would be amazing if they could clean up the code and get it working well enough. I'm a graphic designer that's strong with Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop, but can't code a website very well, since my college dicked me out of web design classes. I can code a website that works, but I'm sure the code I'm using is only slightly less bad than what this thing could spit out. That and when I do coding it's slow as hell.
 
Buckethead said:
Go to hell, Adobe.
why exactly?

nVidiot_Whore said:
I suppose familiarity with ADOBE products is nice.

But if you've had a need for WYSIWIG HTML, it's a crowded market, and using a brand new tool might not be the best bet.

it's not to replace that i think. It's more to make simple sites that have little change other than uploading a new version. But it's great for designers and illustrators who are hesitant to learn how to make a site. And they can now make it exactly like they want, without some template (or with a template that they can customise like they want with tools that they know.)

I hope it turns out well. I-web will only do a little. This might do more in terms of presentation.

I don't think true programmers need to be worried..
 

Dragon

Banned
Tieno said:
Reading one of the comments

I know it's a beta, but have people actually looked at the code and images Muze outputs? It's absolutely horrible! 50.000 div's for a really small web page, tons of JavaScript for pages that don't even need ány JavaScript, and images that can be a factor 10 smaller if you optimize them manually.

You mean Dreamwaver part deux or Frontpage or any other thing that's supposed to make building web pages easier. html tags really aren't that complicated and if one is really motivated one can learn almost everything they need through google and stackoverflow.
 

Phoenix

Member
TheBranca18 said:
You mean Dreamwaver part deux or Frontpage or any other thing that's supposed to make building web pages easier. html tags really aren't that complicated and if one is really motivated one can learn almost everything they need through google and stackoverflow.

But I don't want to learn anything. I want to rehash my design skills and I don't care that it performs like shit ;)
 

Dragon

Banned
Phoenix said:
But I don't want to learn anything. I want to rehash my design skills and I don't care that it performs like shit ;)

Adobe already has a thing on their website where you can upload a psd and have it transform into HTML. Why not just use that? It's a bit pricey but I'm sure better than this POS software.
 
TheBranca18 said:
Adobe already has a thing on their website where you can upload a psd and have it transform into HTML. Why not just use that? It's a bit pricey but I'm sure better than this POS software.
So far it's just a beta that's obviously not for you.
 

Satchel

Banned
So it's going to be a simpler version of working in Design mode of Dreamweaver then?

But with worse code formatting on the back end?
 

Entropia

No One Remembers
Jtwo said:
I was actually just thinking about this a few days ago. I have what my personal website would look like perfectly planned out to a T, but I have no fucking clue how to build it.

I am pretty much in the same boat. The problem with WYSIWYG editors, as others have pointed out is that they can put in a lot of junk code.

I'll try this out if I can at some point and see how well it performs.
 

ThatObviousUser

ὁ αἴσχιστος παῖς εἶ
RDreamer said:
This would be amazing if they could clean up the code and get it working well enough. I'm a graphic designer that's strong with Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop, but can't code a website very well, since my college dicked me out of web design classes. I can code a website that works, but I'm sure the code I'm using is only slightly less bad than what this thing could spit out. That and when I do coding it's slow as hell.

CSS is basically like using properties in any Adobe program. It's pretty dead simple really.
 

ThatObviousUser

ὁ αἴσχιστος παῖς εἶ
Always-honest said:
Why? And for who?

Using view source on the demo site for this is like stabbing my eyes with a rusty, salt-encrusted piece of glass. Over and over again. Blood spurting out the edges of my sockets around the broken shard.

If this were for anything but HTML it would have my full endorsement. But as said, there's already so many WYSIWYG editors, and better ones, and HTML/CSS positioning is so easy a 9 year old could do it.

On the other hand Edge has my full support because that's an area that isn't nearly as crowded and there's a definite need for a tool like that. And even though the code it outputs isn't great, it's miles above what Muse vomits.
 

RDreamer

Member
Andrex said:
CSS is basically like using properties in any Adobe program. It's pretty dead simple really.

Yeah, I know CSS, and coded my own website in css. It is mostly pretty simple, but I still can't shake the feeling that I'm doing things inefficiently or something. I mean the stuff comes out, and looks fine on multiple browsers and devices, so maybe I'm just paranoid. My website loads up on everything fine, though I know I could have done it better. Recently I was employed by a place that uses dotnetnuke for their web stuff, and that was kind of a bitch figuring out how to do the CSS on it. I'm very certain I could have done things much more efficiently on that site, but the obtuseness of it all just threw me for a loop, so I have individual pages all CSS coded instead of a master CSS working for everything (since the master CSS on that thing isn't even a master of everything...)

I can't really code by memory, though. I don't have all the weird punctuation stuff down, yet, so I mostly find stuff through google to make sure I'm doing it right or copy my own code from previous projects or pages and then edit things from there. I kind of have to figure things out again every time I do something. I'll probably have it down soon just by doing that, though.

Still, it feels very inefficient to design something in Illustrator and/or Photoshop, and then have to basically remake it a 2nd time using web coding. If they really could get a nice editor down it'd really do wonders.
 

Joel Was Right

Gold Member
Always-honest said:
I'm really interested in making my own site without having to learn the coding.
I'm sure it's not perfect yet, but it will improve through the years.

It's subscription based though...... not so sure i like that...

But i love Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. So i'd feel really at home.

www.shinowarsame.com

Didn't create any of it. It's a customisable template. There are tons more. PM me if you want to know more
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
WYSIWYG editors suck. Yeah, this has already been brought up in the thread, but dat junk code! *shudders*

OK, I guess I can see why this would be nice for designers who have no clue about HTML, CSS and JavaScript/jQuery, but for us who do seeing the code generated by these programs is painful. Also, as has already been mentioned, it would surely be a bitch to try to manually change/fix something in the code when for some reason you don't want to be locked down to that program anymore.
 

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Buckethead said:
Because programs like these, while they can be a valuable learning tool, encourage crappy work and dilute the profession of web design.

....ah. It's going to be another one of those threads.
 

ThatObviousUser

ὁ αἴσχιστος παῖς εἶ
Korey said:
WYSIWYG has been around since Geocities.

Yes, and Geocities is a renowned laughingstock. Like Dreamweaver was (is?) Programs like these usually do get a fair amount of flack, always have.
 

Metal-Geo

Member
Devolution said:
Dude just learn HTML. It's easier than ever.
Agreed.

EDIT: Okay, whoa, holy fucking diddly buh dun dun doodly. Just took a look at the code of that sample site. I've never seen Frontpage of Dreamweaver spit out such nightmares. 1500 lines for a site like that?! Excluding the jQuery package and stylesheets? Sweet jesus.
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
You are PRECISELY who this software is not aimed at though. Also, you could build and prototype a functioning website and then have a dev strip out and streasmline the extra garbage.
That does not sound good for one's sanity.

Devolution said:
Dude just learn HTML. It's easier than ever.
This is true.
 

ThatObviousUser

ὁ αἴσχιστος παῖς εἶ
Always-honest said:
haha, wow. It must be horrible for programming people :p

I will try it out though.

HTML/CSS isn't even programming. JavaScript is programming, the rest is just markup and styling.
 

Korey

Member
Here's a template. go crazy:

<table width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="400">
<b><u>Navigation bar</u></b><br>
<table>
<tr><td>Link 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 3</td>
</tr>​
</table>​
</td>

<td>
<center>
Main content​
</center>
</td>


<td>
<img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="400" height="1">
</td>
</tr>​
</table>
 

xxracerxx

Don't worry, I'll vouch for them.
Korey said:
Here's a template. go crazy:

<table width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="400">
<b><u>Navigation bar</u></b><br>
<table>
<tr><td>Link 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 3</td>
</tr>​
</table>​
</td>

<td>
<center>
Main content​
</center>
</td>


<td>
<img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="400" height="1">
</td>
</tr>​
</table>
Unless you are making an e-mail flyer, no. Just, no.
 

Witchfinder General

punched Wheelchair Mike
Finally! As an Illustrator who is stupid in matters relating to computers this will hopefully cure my ills. Now I need to upgrade from Leopard to Lion.
 
Korey said:
Here's a template. go crazy:

<table width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="400">
<b><u>Navigation bar</u></b><br>
<table>
<tr><td>Link 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 3</td>
</tr>​
</table>​
</td>

<td>
<center>
Main content​
</center>
</td>


<td>
<img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="400" height="1">
</td>
</tr>​
</table>
yeah, looks like fun.
my e-mail footer is more advanced than that ;P
Witchfinder General said:
Finally! As an Illustrator who is stupid in matters relating to computers this will hopefully cure my ills. Now I need to upgrade from Leopard to Lion.

Not really. why?
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Korey said:
Here's a template. go crazy:

God no, not tables... ;_;

EDIT: ...and deprecated tags, etc, etc. Get rid of it all.

EDIT 2: Oh, you're joking? Thank god. Now I feel a little bad for not realizing that the second I saw that monstrosity.
 
Metal-Geo said:
So knowing HTML is only for people who don't have a job or a life? :p
No, it's for people who have HTML in their job.
I don't have time to learn it.
I have time to learn parts of it... over many years..
 

ThatObviousUser

ὁ αἴσχιστος παῖς εἶ
Korey said:
Here's a template. go crazy:

<table width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="400">
<b><u>Navigation bar</u></b><br>
<table>
<tr><td>Link 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 3</td>
</tr>​
</table>​
</td>

<td>
<center>
Main content​
</center>
</td>


<td>
<img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="400" height="1">
</td>
</tr>​
</table>

This is a cruel joke. I think there might even be some UN sanctions on this sort of thing...
 

scurker

Member
Korey said:
Here's a template. go crazy:

<table width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="400">
<b><u>Navigation bar</u></b><br>
<table>
<tr><td>Link 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 3</td>
</tr>​
</table>​
</td>

<td>
<center>
Main content​
</center>
</td>


<td>
<img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="400" height="1">
</td>
</tr>​
</table>

That's such a horrible template. Where's the font tags?
 
Was in the beta. Shit product just as much as using Photoshop to export your image as a webpage. Completely bloated.

Can't wait till this inspires another group of people to proclaim themselves "web-designers!" and try and charge people for a website using this thing.
 

ThatObviousUser

ὁ αἴσχιστος παῖς εἶ
BruceLeeRoy said:
Was in the beta. Shit product just as much as using Photoshop to export your image as a webpage. Completely bloated.

Can't wait till this inspires another group of people to proclaim themselves "web-designers!" and try and charge people for a website using this thing.

I mean, it's OK for like, portfolio sites, or restaurant sites even. (OK meaning, it still commits a bunch of real web development sins and would actually probably take an SEO hit thanks to the non-semantics and bloat.) But anything even slightly dynamic (not talking JS/animations here) makes this absolutely useless.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Korey said:
Here's a template. go crazy:

<table width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="400">
<b><u>Navigation bar</u></b><br>
<table>
<tr><td>Link 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Link 3</td>
</tr>​
</table>​
</td>

<td>
<center>
Main content​
</center>
</td>


<td>
<img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="400" height="1">
</td>
</tr>​
</table>
does all your work get viewed in Outlook 12?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom