So its not targeted towards making "pages" more towards just making HTML5 banners. I guess just trying to replace flash banners with HTML5 ones
The templates are all for banners and the tools for making say a "div" are not there.
Google Web Designer (2013)
41–50 of 153 posts
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#42I just checked out the included templates. At least the first 20-30 are all ad templates, one of which is a full-screen mobile interstitial! That's the same element that just got an SEO finger wag from the Google Webmaster Central Blog[0]. _Just_ as the list of templates started getting interesting with some Youtube slider-thing integration, it came to an end. So yeah, this seems to be aimed at folks who need to buil…
This tool was announced in 2013 by a different part of the company: https://doubleclick-advertisers.googleblog.com/2013/09/googl...
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#43I thought, "ok let's try this..." hovered over the green button and then WOAH! "Download Web Designer Beta" wtf.. DOWNLOAD? Are we back in the 90s?
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#44Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?
Last 10 years I am in the business of making WYSIWYG editors of various kinds. Yet I am an author of BlockNote.net HTML WYSIWYG editor (it is pretty old but works up until W7).
HTML/CSS WYSIWYG editing from mathematician point of view:
Second main task of a browser is: by having given HTML/CSS to produce set of pixels on window's surface.
On other side WYSIWYG editor is aimed to solve opposite task: from desired set of pixels (those ones you want to get) to restore/produce acceptable HTML/CSS combination.
The problem is that the task can be accomplished only with pure HTML. As soon as you add CSS to the equation acceptable WYSIWYG becomes barely possible: the same set of pixels (rendering on the screen) can be achieved in many different ways. Layout can use floats, absolute positioning, flexes and grids recently, etc.
Direct task (rendering) is perfectly formalize-able and solvable (HTML5 and CSS specs) - we have at least three independent implementations of these formalizations.
But opposite task (HTML/CSS structure synthesis from given image) has no determined solution.
And so different WYSIWYG systems use different approximations.
Like Microsoft Word, it produces HTML/CSS documents that are pretty close to what you just saw in it, but that HTML/CSS is barely readable and reusable as HTML/CSS. Others produce readable HTML but rendering is far from what you want to see.
Therefore "ideal" WYSIWYG editing of HTML/CSS is not achieavable in principle. You need to give up something - either WYSIWYG quality per se or feature set. Like you can have WYSIWYG editing but for editable text alike islands: content area of your blog site for example.
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#45Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?
They do exist in different forms. If you're on the level that's just above making a Facebook page then you might go with Squarespace or Wix which have WYSIWYG editors. Surprisingly, Dreamweaver is still a product that is updated(?) and used by many. When it comes to the high-end, there are Mac apps such as Hype and Sparkle which are used especially for developers who want to create animated websites. It's also the ca…
Dreamweaver's still around (and just got a big update as part of the Adobe CC 2017 wave of apps), but Adobe seems to be positioning Muse more as the code-free WYSIWYG HTML editor now-- modern Dreamweaver's very code-focused.
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#46Does anyone know if it installs that Google Updater Service also on Win?
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#47Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?
The biggest reason is that WYSIWYG doesn't really work on the web. What you see on your screen isn't what someone else will see because their monitor is a different size or they are on a mobile device.
WYSIWYG requires a fixed layout size, which was common back when dreamweaver/frontpage were around.
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#48Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?
In the past creating rich experiences was in things like Flash. With it's premature flogging, the side effect was there was little to actually and reliably replace the rich experiences it was able to create 2007-08. That's one reason seeing tooling like this, and Adobe Edge is something to look forward to.
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#49Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?
I think Pingendo [http://pingendo.com] qualifies.
Re: Google Web Designer (2013)
#50Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?
The biggest reason is that WYSIWYG doesn't really work on the web. What you see on your screen isn't what someone else will see because their monitor is a different size or they are on a mobile device. WYSIWYG requires a fixed layout size, which was common back when dreamweaver/frontpage were around.
this is incorrect. almost every modern WYSIWYG editor includes support for media queries.