Has anyone seen the video? They're trying desperately to map print paradigms to the web. It's a major fallacy which many developers (and product managers) fall into.
I am not surprised. What do you think WYSIWYG is supposed to mean?
Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
21–30 of 151 posts
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#22People on HN love ripping on Adobe. I agree that the code is gross, but can we get some constructive criticism? What's a better way to programmatically write good HTML? I'm willing to bet everybody on this thread writes their HTML by hand. How many of you have a framework for programmatically writing HTML? How many have a framework for writing HTML as broadly as Muse can?
WYSIWYG for HTML is just never a good thing. You spend more time learning the idiosyncrasies of a crippled GUI when you could just get busy in a text file.
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#23Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#24People on HN love ripping on Adobe. I agree that the code is gross, but can we get some constructive criticism? What's a better way to programmatically write good HTML? I'm willing to bet everybody on this thread writes their HTML by hand. How many of you have a framework for programmatically writing HTML? How many have a framework for writing HTML as broadly as Muse can?
But first tell me why designers need html page generator? Is learning HTML and css that much hard in google era?
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#25People on HN love ripping on Adobe. I agree that the code is gross, but can we get some constructive criticism? What's a better way to programmatically write good HTML? I'm willing to bet everybody on this thread writes their HTML by hand. How many of you have a framework for programmatically writing HTML? How many have a framework for writing HTML as broadly as Muse can?
I have some scripts i use to generate my html. i don't have a framework for generating HTML in as broad a scope as muse because that is a bad idea. Beyond a certain level of complexity, you actually need to stop and think about things.
The right way to do a GUI HTML editor is to provide some templates and some customizations.
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#26People on HN love ripping on Adobe. I agree that the code is gross, but can we get some constructive criticism? What's a better way to programmatically write good HTML? I'm willing to bet everybody on this thread writes their HTML by hand. How many of you have a framework for programmatically writing HTML? How many have a framework for writing HTML as broadly as Muse can?
WYSIWYG for HTML is just never a good thing. You spend more time learning the idiosyncrasies of a crippled GUI when you could just get busy in a text file.
I agree! I also think compilers are ridiculous. You spend much more time tuning their output and learning their arcane options and switches and pragmas than you would need just writing ASM by hand.
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#27That was worse than I prepared myself for! Almost the entire page is duplicated within a ` ` block...
I was shocked too. I couldn't believe the commented section was that long.
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#28Please, tell me this is Adobe trying to mock IE. It has to be, right? I mean, they've always sort of not valued source code, but this is beyond torturing it. This is so inspirationally horrible someone spent hours remaking it, like it should've been: http://studentweb.infotech.monash.edu/~wlay/FIT1012/muse-dem... .
Indeed. The inefficiency here is astounding, especially considering the relatively straightforward page layout involved. Original: 1496 lines, 77.9kB Your version: 104 lines, 4.75kB I'd thought we'd progressed beyond the state of a decade ago where Dreamweaver or what-have-you would build you a cumbersome and baroque html splooge to match whatever you had done in the designer, but I guess we haven't advanced that far…
How about we've progressed to the state where HTML is the bytecode you don't want to see anyway, and designers can use modern tools to manipulate it? If the generated markup works, cross-browser and cross-platform (I don't know to what extent it does, but let's assume so), then what's the problem?
For many purposes, optimizing the HTML nerd out of the process is a much bigger win than a 20k download (don't forget gzip) is a loss.
I know this is going to get me downvotes, but I think the dogmatic "HTML shall be written by hand!!1" attitude all over this thread is just people clinging to the past.
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
WYSIWYG for HTML is just never a good thing. You spend more time learning the idiosyncrasies of a crippled GUI when you could just get busy in a text file.
I agree! I also think compilers are ridiculous. You spend much more time tuning their output and learning their arcane options and switches and pragmas than you would need just writing ASM by hand.
Your argument is against haml, not a gui.
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#30Please, tell me this is Adobe trying to mock IE. It has to be, right? I mean, they've always sort of not valued source code, but this is beyond torturing it. This is so inspirationally horrible someone spent hours remaking it, like it should've been: http://studentweb.infotech.monash.edu/~wlay/FIT1012/muse-dem... .
To add insult to injury, the layout is broken in chromium on Ubuntu. Whereas the remake you posted is running as expected.
