Re:What would you like to see in the next version of Dreamweaver?

I'd like to see full support for CSS based layouts.

At the moment DW is terrible at tableless design. With MX we saw a big improvement for web standards and CSS support, but it still has a long way to go before the visual editor matches what you're actually coding when not using tables. This has a knock on effect for Contribute. I was considering using it as the CMS for a site I'm building using standards based design (XHTML for structure, CSS for style), but DW's (and thus Contribute's) visual editor rendering engine simply cannot handle it, and so I'm having to look elsewhere. I can still use DW's code editor (and very nice it is too) for working on CSS based layouts, but the visual editor is useless once you get beyond the most basic text rendering and positioning tasks.

With the current trend in web design to move away from the rapidly-becoming-obsolete table based layouts, I see full support for CSS based layouts as the number one priority. If MM can get their visual editor rendering right, they'll be onto an absolute winner.

i second that - though design-time css partly works around the problem.

joe



"Charles Roper" <webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com> wrote

I'd like to see full support for CSS based layouts.

At the moment DW is terrible at tableless design. With MX we saw a big
improvement for web standards and CSS support, but it still has a long way

to go before the visual editor matches what you're actually coding when not
using tables. This has a knock on effect for Contribute. I was considering
using it as the CMS for a site I'm building using standards based design
(XHTML for structure, CSS for style), but DW's (and thus Contribute's)
visual editor rendering engine simply cannot handle it, and so I'm having to
look elsewhere. I can still use DW's code editor (and very nice it is too)
for working on CSS based layouts, but the visual editor is useless once you
get beyond the most basic text rendering and positioning tasks.

With the current trend in web design to move away from the
rapidly-becoming-obsolete table based layouts, I see full support for CSS

based layouts as the number one priority. If MM can get their visual editor
rendering right, they'll be onto an absolute winner.

I would be happy to see Macromedia get rid of a couple of "features":

1. Templates
2. Layout View



--
irvin
----------------------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com



"Charles Roper" <webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com> wrote

I'd like to see full support for CSS based layouts.

At the moment DW is terrible at tableless design. With MX we saw a big
improvement for web standards and CSS support, but it still has a long way

to go before the visual editor matches what you're actually coding when not
using tables. This has a knock on effect for Contribute. I was considering
using it as the CMS for a site I'm building using standards based design
(XHTML for structure, CSS for style), but DW's (and thus Contribute's)
visual editor rendering engine simply cannot handle it, and so I'm having to
look elsewhere. I can still use DW's code editor (and very nice it is too)
for working on CSS based layouts, but the visual editor is useless once you
get beyond the most basic text rendering and positioning tasks.

With the current trend in web design to move away from the
rapidly-becoming-obsolete table based layouts, I see full support for CSS

based layouts as the number one priority. If MM can get their visual editor
rendering right, they'll be onto an absolute winner.

2. Layout View

Then why use DW? If you don't need Layout view, use a much better text
editor like BBEdit or Homesite.

-Darrel

darrel wrote:

2. Layout View


Then why use DW? If you don't need Layout view, use a much better text
editor like BBEdit or Homesite.

-Darrel

*Layout* view is a disaster. Makes people think it's easy to make a
page, but is producing code that sometimes is as horryfying as saving a
Word file as html.

But *Design* view (a.k.a. "Standard view") is OK.

You might confuse the two....

--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
http://www.vendel.info
Contact me directly by clicking here:
http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial:
http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration:
http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/

"ctrl + alt + delete" <thenetwerx (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote

Why?

1. Layout View.
Nothing good ever comes out of it, except bad coding habits and
ultra-bloated code.

2. Templates.
Totally useless. Proprietary feature that has NOTHING that "includes" can't
offer, except extra work for the developer.


--
irvin
----------------------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com

In article, darrel wrote:

2. Layout View

Then why use DW? If you don't need Layout view, use a much better text
editor like BBEdit or Homesite.

-Darrel

You're confusing 'Layout View' with 'Design View'

I agree - Layout View is horrible.

j.e.b.

"irvin" <noone (AT) noone (DOT) com> wrote

2. Templates.
Totally useless. Proprietary feature that has NOTHING that "includes"
can't
offer, except extra work for the developer.

Except that not all sites have the luxury of SSI. That aside, templates can
still be a valuable tool. I rarely create a page that's not based on some
kind of template.

Gary

"irvin" <noone (AT) noone (DOT) com> wrote

It quite hard to find a hosting plan/company that doesn't offer support
for
ssi.

True for *hosting* companies. However, there are still a lot of personal
sites sitting in the free space that comes with ISP accounts.

Gary

"Gary White" <reply (AT) newsgroup (DOT) please> wrote

"irvin" <noone (AT) noone (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:bf9eu3$2bt$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...

It quite hard to find a hosting plan/company that doesn't offer support
for
ssi.


True for *hosting* companies. However, there are still a lot of personal
sites sitting in the free space that comes with ISP accounts.

And how many of those personal sites are designed with legitimate copies of
Dreamweaver?
Hard to believe that a significant number of people are going to buy
Dreamweaver MX to create a site that will sit on free space.

Eventually, Macromedia will understand that "features" catering to
non-professionals (like templates, library items and layout view) don't
really add any value to the product. Those "features" only succeed in making
MX more enticing to pirates and casual users. Neither will pay for the
product.


--
irvin
----------------------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com