ZnU's Bane: Dreamwever for professional development
Edwin
"Dreamweaver� 8 is the industry-leading web development tool, enabling users
to efficiently design, develop and maintain standards-based websites and
applications. With Dreamweaver 8, web developers go from start to finish,
creating and maintaining basic websites to advanced applications that
support best practices and the latest technologies. Get more done with
Dreamweaver 8. New features and optimized workflows reduce the time required
to complete common tasks. Integrate XML data with a powerful drag and drop
workflow. Zoom in to get control over design and stay focused on the code
with Code Collapse. Add Flash� Video in five clicks of a mouse."
http://www.drake.edu/it/hardware/adobeproducts/dw8_datasheet.pdf
"There's a reason that Macromedia Dreamweaver appears on most Web
developers' r�sum�s: It offers both tremendous productivity and
extensibility in a professional development environment. Dreamweaver 4 Bible
covers this remarkable product from soup to nuts, guiding you through the
basics of the program all the way to implementing sophisticated techniques."
http://www.amazon.com/Dreamweaver-Bible-Joseph-W-Lowery/dp/0764535692
"Adds new functionality to Adobe Dreamweaver!
If you're using popular Concurrent Versions System, the dominant open-source
network-transparent version control system, now you can use it inside Adobe
Dreamweaver! CVS offers outstanding benefits for version and source code
control. It's a useful tool for any professional developer - freelance,
small to medium business or larger distributed teams."
http://www.dmxzone.com/go?5864
"Master certifications:
ACE Master Certification Recognizes your skills with entire product suites.
To become certified as an Adobe Certified Expert (ACE) Master, you must pass
the current exam for each of the products in the suite. All exams must be
the same version, for example, all CS3 or all CS4 to meet the requirements.
"
"CS Web Master"
"Adobe Acrobat Professional
Adobe Dreamweaver�
Adobe Flash�
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe Photoshop"
http://www.adobe.com/support/certification/ace_certify.html
"Dreamweaver: Your Professional Touch"
"Author: Lee Asher"
"Dreamweaver is sometimes seen as FrontPage's main competitor but, really,
there's not even a comparison to be made. Dreamweaver might be expensive,
sure, but there are serious web designers out there using it and getting
work done - I can guarantee you that no real designer has ever used a copy
of FrontPage to design a website. Consequently, Dreamweaver is way out in
the lead in terms of market share, with about 80% of the users."
"I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are people who
could be properly called professional web developers or web designers." --
ZnU
Snit
Well found. Yes, Dreamweaver is made for, marketed to, priced for, and
*used* by many professional web developers / designers as a part of their
toolkit.
Both Sandman and ZnU have shown they do not know this. I do web design /
development as a small part of my business and am certainly not a full time
web pro by *any* stretch, but I at least knew this. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
7
> "The industry's choice for professional web development"
That would be Linux.
Most servers run Linux.
And then its all coded in PHP and Java.
Under Linux you got many GPL'd web developer packages
along with scripting, perl, cgi, and do things with compiled C
from web pages. And of course gcc for compiling C is GPL'd and comes free
with Linux. Apache also runs in Linux very well.
For creating web appliances and the rest it is the best bet
as you can run all that in virtualbox and test out the
server, web page rendering, database operations and hack attacks
before releasing it live.
http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com
Edwin
"7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:0XBfn.42032$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
"So what am I trying to say? I'm definitely NOT dissing these amazing
programmes. Both Bluefish and NVU are more than functional for their
purposes. And within the OSS, they certain rank as some of the top softwares
being developed."
"I am however saying that Dreamweaver is unmatched even in the Windows based
world. It is beyond doubt, the standard for web-publishing. Something like
what Photoshop is for photo-manipulation. And I guess it is important to
keep sight of the high standards, even as we try and work with (and
sometimes work around) various limitations that encumber us."
http://alternativenayk.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/bluefish-nvu-dreamweaver-web-publishing-review/
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> "The industry's choice for professional web development"
>
> "Dreamweaver� 8 is the industry-leading web development tool, enabling users
> to efficiently design, develop and maintain standards-based websites and
> applications. With Dreamweaver 8, web developers go from start to finish,
> creating and maintaining basic websites to advanced applications that
> support best practices and the latest technologies. Get more done with
> Dreamweaver 8. New features and optimized workflows reduce the time required
> to complete common tasks. Integrate XML data with a powerful drag and drop
> workflow. Zoom in to get control over design and stay focused on the code
> with Code Collapse. Add Flash� Video in five clicks of a mouse."
>
> http://www.drake.edu/it/hardware/adobeproducts/dw8_datasheet.pdf
Wow. Adobe marketing speak taken as gospel by Edwin!
>
> "There's a reason that Macromedia Dreamweaver appears on most Web
> developers' r�sum�s: It offers both tremendous productivity and
> extensibility in a professional development environment. Dreamweaver 4 Bible
> covers this remarkable product from soup to nuts, guiding you through the
> basics of the program all the way to implementing sophisticated techniques."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Dreamweaver-Bible-Joseph-W-Lowery/dp/0764535692
Again: marketing speak.
>
> "Adds new functionality to Adobe Dreamweaver!
>
> If you're using popular Concurrent Versions System, the dominant open-source
> network-transparent version control system, now you can use it inside Adobe
> Dreamweaver! CVS offers outstanding benefits for version and source code
> control. It's a useful tool for any professional developer - freelance,
> small to medium business or larger distributed teams."
>
> http://www.dmxzone.com/go?5864
Look up "puff piece".
LOL
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
-hh
> >http://www.drake.edu/it/hardware/adobeproducts/dw8_datasheet.pdf
>
> Wow. Adobe marketing speak taken as gospel by Edwin!
It certainly looks that way.
In any event, I think that its a futile effort. There is no doubt
that there isn't _some_ percentage of the so-called "Professional" web
development market that is using this - - - or any other - - - tool.
Thus, if we look to ask the right question(s), we very well may find:
<http://www.nitobi.com/survey/>
Here, it reveals that as of two years ago, for the question of Which
Development Tool?', Dreamweaver was 21% of the total.
Of course, it might also be fruitful to delve in further to see if
there's any correlation between this, and the fact that 23% of the
n=570 respondents had less than two (2) years of professional
experience.
Similarly, that 74% had used Ajax (62% of which expressed satisfaction
with existing Ajax tools), even though this technology was only 3
years old at the time. What's unknown is how much the market has
changed within the past two years and thus, the percentages behind the
question of "who is using what?".
And of course, there may very well be an overdose of irony if the
situation here is that a poster who has previously lambasted others
for "failed validation" personal webpages is now actively advocating a
"Pro" product that Wiki reports has having performed poorly on the
Acid2 valication test.
-hh
Edwin
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-2234C...@news.shawcable.com...
> In article <R1Bfn.2241$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "The industry's choice for professional web development"
>>
>> "Dreamweaver� 8 is the industry-leading web development tool, enabling
>> users
>> to efficiently design, develop and maintain standards-based websites and
>> applications. With Dreamweaver 8, web developers go from start to finish,
>> creating and maintaining basic websites to advanced applications that
>> support best practices and the latest technologies. Get more done with
>> Dreamweaver 8. New features and optimized workflows reduce the time
>> required
>> to complete common tasks. Integrate XML data with a powerful drag and
>> drop
>> workflow. Zoom in to get control over design and stay focused on the code
>> with Code Collapse. Add Flash� Video in five clicks of a mouse."
>>
>> http://www.drake.edu/it/hardware/adobeproducts/dw8_datasheet.pdf
>
> Wow. Adobe marketing speak taken as gospel by Edwin!
Wow. Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of his
willful stupidity.
>>
>> "There's a reason that Macromedia Dreamweaver appears on most Web
>> developers' r�sum�s: It offers both tremendous productivity and
>> extensibility in a professional development environment. Dreamweaver 4
>> Bible
>> covers this remarkable product from soup to nuts, guiding you through the
>> basics of the program all the way to implementing sophisticated
>> techniques."
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Dreamweaver-Bible-Joseph-W-Lowery/dp/0764535692
>
> Again: marketing speak.
Wow. Alan Baker dismisses a manual for professional developers as
"marketing speak" in yet another stunning display of his willful stupidity.
>>
>> "Adds new functionality to Adobe Dreamweaver!
>>
>> If you're using popular Concurrent Versions System, the dominant
>> open-source
>> network-transparent version control system, now you can use it inside
>> Adobe
>> Dreamweaver! CVS offers outstanding benefits for version and source code
>> control. It's a useful tool for any professional developer - freelance,
>> small to medium business or larger distributed teams."
>>
>> http://www.dmxzone.com/go?5864
>
> Look up "puff piece".
Would that give an explanation for your willful stupidity?
>> esigners." --
>> ZnU
>
>
> LOL
Alan Baker fizzled out again.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-2234C...@news.shawcable.com...
> > In article <R1Bfn.2241$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "The industry's choice for professional web development"
> >>
> >> "Dreamweaver� 8 is the industry-leading web development tool, enabling
> >> users
> >> to efficiently design, develop and maintain standards-based websites and
> >> applications. With Dreamweaver 8, web developers go from start to finish,
> >> creating and maintaining basic websites to advanced applications that
> >> support best practices and the latest technologies. Get more done with
> >> Dreamweaver 8. New features and optimized workflows reduce the time
> >> required
> >> to complete common tasks. Integrate XML data with a powerful drag and
> >> drop
> >> workflow. Zoom in to get control over design and stay focused on the code
> >> with Code Collapse. Add Flash� Video in five clicks of a mouse."
> >>
> >> http://www.drake.edu/it/hardware/adobeproducts/dw8_datasheet.pdf
> >
> > Wow. Adobe marketing speak taken as gospel by Edwin!
>
> Wow. Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
> Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of his
> willful stupidity.
They can market it as whatever they want...
...it doesn't make it so.
>
> >>
> >> "There's a reason that Macromedia Dreamweaver appears on most Web
> >> developers' r�sum�s: It offers both tremendous productivity and
> >> extensibility in a professional development environment. Dreamweaver 4
> >> Bible
> >> covers this remarkable product from soup to nuts, guiding you through the
> >> basics of the program all the way to implementing sophisticated
> >> techniques."
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.com/Dreamweaver-Bible-Joseph-W-Lowery/dp/0764535692
> >
> > Again: marketing speak.
>
> Wow. Alan Baker dismisses a manual for professional developers as
> "marketing speak" in yet another stunning display of his willful stupidity.
They're trying to sell the books, aren't they?
>
> >>
> >> "Adds new functionality to Adobe Dreamweaver!
> >>
> >> If you're using popular Concurrent Versions System, the dominant
> >> open-source
> >> network-transparent version control system, now you can use it inside
> >> Adobe
> >> Dreamweaver! CVS offers outstanding benefits for version and source code
> >> control. It's a useful tool for any professional developer - freelance,
> >> small to medium business or larger distributed teams."
> >>
> >> http://www.dmxzone.com/go?5864
> >
> > Look up "puff piece".
>
> Would that give an explanation for your willful stupidity?
LOL
LOL
Snit
12:49 PM:
Web servers are often Linux based. This does not mean the web developmet
tools are.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <R1Bfn.2241$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > "The industry's choice for professional web development"
> >
> > "Dreamweaver� 8 is the industry-leading web development tool, enabling
> > users
> > to efficiently design, develop and maintain standards-based websites and
> > applications. With Dreamweaver 8, web developers go from start to finish,
> > creating and maintaining basic websites to advanced applications that
> > support best practices and the latest technologies. Get more done with
> > Dreamweaver 8. New features and optimized workflows reduce the time
> > required
> > to complete common tasks. Integrate XML data with a powerful drag and drop
> > workflow. Zoom in to get control over design and stay focused on the code
> > with Code Collapse. Add Flash� Video in five clicks of a mouse."
> >
> > http://www.drake.edu/it/hardware/adobeproducts/dw8_datasheet.pdf
>
> Wow. Adobe marketing speak taken as gospel by Edwin!
And as if starting a new thread with my name in the subject rather than
replying in the existing thread wasn't trollish enough (especially when
Edwin knows I have him killfiled), Edwin also decided to crosspost the
thread to COLA, despite the original thread being only in CSMA.
What a useless troll.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Tim Adams
wrote:
> "The industry's choice for professional web development"
>
> "Dreamweaver� 8
Is what - 5-6 year old? Proving that Znu was quite correct with his claim that
web development has moved on.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Tim Adams
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
You really wouldn't expect Adobe to be marketing it for amateurs would you?
Znu was totally correct when he pointed out that Adobe merely puts it in with
their App's "through simple inertia". They needed a replacement for Go Live
which was in dire need of updating, bought a better (at the time) product and
have dragged it along ever since. You might want to note that Dreamweaver 8
dates from around 2002 when Macromedia owned it. That was the version (IIRC)
that Adobe bought.
~snip
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-40CB29.22...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
2/19/10 8:21 PM:
>>> Wow. Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
>>> Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of
>>> his
>>> willful stupidity.
>>
>> They can market it as whatever they want...
>>
>>
>> ...it doesn't make it so.
>
> You really wouldn't expect Adobe to be marketing it for amateurs would you?
>
> Znu was totally correct when he pointed out that Adobe merely puts it in with
> their App's "through simple inertia". They needed a replacement for Go Live
> which was in dire need of updating, bought a better (at the time) product and
> have dragged it along ever since. You might want to note that Dreamweaver 8
> dates from around 2002 when Macromedia owned it. That was the version (IIRC)
> that Adobe bought.
On one side of the debate we have:
* Who the product is made for
* Who the product is marketed to
* Who the product is priced for
* Multiple reviews looking at Pro tools
* The view of Snit, who uses it and teaches it, but who admittedly
is very much a beginner in other areas of web technologies (PHP,
JavaScript, etc.)
On the other side of the debate we have:
* ZnU, who offers a sincere opinion and is knowledgeable
* Sandman, who wanted to troll me based on my noting problems
with his web sites
* Alan Baker: who is sometimes reasonable and sometimes not.
* Tim Adams: who will side against me no matter what and whose
opinions are of *zero* value
Let the reader decide for his or herself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9953bae7-9731-4dc0...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com on 2/19/10
3:04 PM:
Do not know much about the Acid2 test other than its use to test browsers,
not sites... but I do know that Dreamweaver make code that is generally W3C
compliant... with some exceptions which they talk about in help and on their
website. They explain the reasons they have made the choices they have and
are specific about how to make the code compliant if you want. Not 100%
ideal, but hardly bad and, frankly, better than most other tools.
I did a little experiment tonight and looked up "Professional Web Design"
(or Developer.... I forget now). Of the first five sites that talked about
what tools or techniques they used, here is what I found: 4 spoke well of
Dreamweaver, 1 spoke poorly of it. If you wish to double check my work (and
I admittedly did it quickly):
The four which showed supportive comments:
<http://www.dburnsdesign.com>
<http://www.gatesix.com>
<http://www.mountevansdesigns.com>
<http://www.web-eze.com>
The one which was clearly against its use:
<http://www.leveltendesign.com>
Not that this was a scientific examination, but it seems that while there
are others who share ZnU's view (which is not surprising), for the most part
the industry still accepts and embraces Dreamweaver.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
alangbaker-7E66D...@news.shawcable.com on 2/19/10 4:26 PM:
>> Wow. Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
>> Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of his
>> willful stupidity.
>
> They can market it as whatever they want...
>
>
> ...it doesn't make it so.
Which leads the question of if the product is being sold to pros and they
are using it, as is apparently the case, what else is needed for it to be a
"pro" tool?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
<snip>
Wait, just let me get this straight. Are you, Edwin, claiming that
Dreamweaver is a profesional web development tool? I know this is not
a business you're active in (and I am) and I just want to know if
you're just reporting google searches or if this is actually a
personal opinion on your part and you're joining Snit in this delusion?
Please clarify.
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
C7A4B596.65C1D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-40CB29.22...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 2/19/10 8:21 PM:
>
>>>> Wow. Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
>>>> Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of
>>>> his
>>>> willful stupidity.
>>>
>>> They can market it as whatever they want...
>>>
>>>
>>> ...it doesn't make it so.
>>
>> You really wouldn't expect Adobe to be marketing it for amateurs would you?
>>
>> Znu was totally correct when he pointed out that Adobe merely puts it in with
>> their App's "through simple inertia". They needed a replacement for Go Live
>> which was in dire need of updating, bought a better (at the time) product and
>> have dragged it along ever since. You might want to note that Dreamweaver 8
>> dates from around 2002 when Macromedia owned it. That was the version (IIRC)
>> that Adobe bought.
>
> On one side of the debate we have:
>
> * Who the product is made for
Anyone that wishes to buy it! And that market will increase simply by having
the potential purchaser believe that it is used by a class of person that
the purchaser is working towards being included amongst!
> * Who the product is marketed to
See above! You seem naive as to how marketing works Snit.
> * Who the product is priced for
The product is priced for the person selling it Snit!
Clearly if the producer can persuade a larger target audience to purchase it
by persuading newcomers for example that this is what the pros use then that
is a successful marketing ploy wrt volume, the rest is obvious.
> * Multiple reviews looking at Pro tools
> * The view of Snit, who uses it and teaches it, but who admittedly
> is very much a beginner in other areas of web technologies (PHP,
> JavaScript, etc.)
Yet still clings to pro status based on the fact that he uses and teaches a
product that is claimed by its maker to be made for, marketed to, and priced
for pros?
You seem to fit perfectly into the level of pro that Znu has already
mentioned Snit.
>
> On the other side of the debate we have:
> * ZnU, who offers a sincere opinion and is knowledgeable
And who has already had you fail miserably wrt backing your claim that you
know pros that use Dreamweaver!
Why is it that when push came to shove you could make claims but failed so
badly substantiating them?
> * Sandman, who wanted to troll me based on my noting problems
> with his web sites
This/These threads have been about specific issues, you now claiming to know
what Sandman "wanted" is the troll!
> * Alan Baker: who is sometimes reasonable and sometimes not.
Which means what exactly wrt the topic at hand?
> * Tim Adams: who will side against me no matter what and whose
> opinions are of *zero* value
Just because you cannot counter his criticism of you Snit that is no good
reason to put zero value on Tim's opinions, why does Znu rate a positive for
his "sincere" opinions yet Tim rates a Zero for his?... Because they reflect
badly on you Snit? That's hardly fair.
> Let the reader decide for his or herself.
I do believe they have Snit if the kill filtering that has been claimed
within CSMA is anywhere near accurate.
RonB
> Clearly if the producer can persuade a larger target audience to
> purchase it by persuading newcomers for example that this is what the
> pros use then that is a successful marketing ploy wrt volume, the rest
> is obvious.
I tried DreamWeaver when I was still messing with websites. Took way too
much time to learn, in my opinion. I just used NetObjects Fusion. Sure
it's limited compared to DW -- but man is it easy to use.
But I think your point is still valid, BTW.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
7
Waat?
Is inglish your oonly language?
Are you claiming web developers are better with off the shelf tools?
So guess who has to sweep up after those retards have created
their 'mock ups' and attempt to go live?
Eeek!
Where do you think all the web security problems come from?
And how do you think they are dealt with?
Wally
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:58:36 +0800, Wally wrote:
>
>> Clearly if the producer can persuade a larger target audience to
>> purchase it by persuading newcomers for example that this is what the
>> pros use then that is a successful marketing ploy wrt volume, the rest
>> is obvious.
>
> I tried DreamWeaver when I was still messing with websites. Took way too
> much time to learn, in my opinion. I just used NetObjects Fusion. Sure
> it's limited compared to DW -- but man is it easy to use.
And as long as you achieve exactly what you want to achieve then it is
perfect for you, nothing wrong with that at all in fact it is good to see
that you appear to gain satisfaction based on what you do rather than on
what you claim to be.
>
> But I think your point is still valid, BTW.
I try! :-)
-hh
> Alan Baker stated in post:
>
> >> Wow. Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
> >> Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of
> >> his willful stupidity.
>
> > They can market it as whatever they want...
>
> > ...it doesn't make it so.
>
> Which leads the question of if the product is being sold to pros and they
> are using it, as is apparently the case, what else is needed for it to be a
> "pro" tool?
Since that's a reductio ad absurdum inquiry, the answer is obviously
exactly what you want it to be.
But now stop simply trying to defend that for which you have a
personal investment in, and try asking the _correct_ question.
-hh
-hh
> -hh stated:
>
> > In any event, I think that its a futile effort. There is no doubt
> > that there isn't _some_ percentage of the so-called "Professional" web
> > development market that is using this - - - or any other - - - tool.
In other words, as soon as one pitiful loser has used Dreamweaver to
sell his "web development" services once for ten bucks, then DW can be
pedantically called a "Pro's Web Dev Tool".
Of course, the same is equally pedantically true of the same guy's
coffee mug on his desk...
> > And of course, there may very well be an overdose of irony if the
> > situation here is that a poster who has previously lambasted others
> > for "failed validation" personal webpages is now actively advocating a
> > "Pro" product that Wiki reports has having performed poorly on the
> > Acid2 valication test.
>
> Do not know much about the Acid2 test other than its use to test browsers,
> not sites...
That was my understanding too, but since Acid2 requires validated code
in order to test a browser, their process must have a way to validate
their test code, so its not a tall leap to accepta code generation
tool evaluation capability, too.
> I did a little experiment tonight and looked up "Professional Web Design"
> (or Developer.... I forget now). ... If you wish to double check my work ...
How convenient that you forgot, since that invariably defeats
independent verification.
> Not that this was a scientific examination,
No, it wasn't. Your approach is fundamentally flawed; its results &
conclusions are meaningless.
Since there's not any dispute that some percentage of people-who-
somehow-get-paid-for-their-work use DW, proving that some exist isn't
germane, nor that some of them would post positive comments. What
you've not proven - - nor is it possible by your approach - - is to
prove that "that which is findable" represents anything statistically
meaningful, such as being even more than a mere 0.1% of all pro web
developers....or even of the pool of all developers, professional or
not.
FWIW, what you should also realize is that what "pro web development"
means can be interpreted at different levels, in part based upon
professional need & insight. For example, I asked yesterday an
individual in this field what tool they used, and the response was
"Vignette". Yeah, go try to figure out that answer.
-hh
Tim Adams
wrote:
Dreamweaver is a good product for the home user that wants to create a small
site for the family on the space given them by their isp. It's easy to learn as
you merely drag and drop items into a graphical field, no coding experience
needed. A classic example of this is very easy to find - do a search for
"Prescott Computer Guy" at www.youtube.com. Do any of them deal with the actual
code?
~Snip
Snit
2/20/10 12:06 AM:
How does one define a "professional tool"? I think one would be hard
pressed to come up with such a definition that excluded Dreamweaver.
Professional tools generally:
* Are more expensive than consumer tools
* Are made for professionals
* Are marketed to professionals
* Are used by professionals
* Offer a great deal of flexibility and many options
* Are often very extensible
Any other criteria you can think of?
I know ZnU is working to show that because he thinks, based on his use of
the product close to a decade ago when it was owned by another company, that
it works against professional goals, but that is merely an opinion - not
something that disqualifies something as a professional tool. I could argue
that Final Cut Pro makes it too easy to make bad choices, too... but that
would not make it something other than a Pro tool.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
... as oppose to a useful troll :-)
--
Rick
Snit
It is not as if you are doing anything other than trolling, Wally.
But, just to play in your circus for a bit, what do you think it takes for
something to be a "professional tool"? If being made for, marketed to, and
used by pros is not a pretty big part of your definition, then what is?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
teadams$2$0$0$3-35DA5B.09...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net, "Tim
Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Not a Youtube one but there is this one Tim ...
Prescott Computer Guy: A01B: First Web Page - Hand Coding
I started watching it up to the point where after a couple of minutes Snit
says ...
<quote>
"I'm just going to leave my head empty for now"
<end quote>
At that point I just figured business as usual for Snit then. :)
> ~Snip
Snit
3:32 AM:
...
>> Web servers are often Linux based. This does not mean the web developmet
>> tools are.
>
>
> Waat?
Where did you get confused? The concept is pretty simple.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
43e3654e-e13e-4fd1...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 2/20/10
5:36 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Alan Baker stated in post:
>>
>>>> Wow. � Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
>>>> Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of
>>>> his willful stupidity.
>>
>>> They can market it as whatever they want...
>>
>>> ...it doesn't make it so.
>>
>> Which leads the question of if the product is being sold to pros and they
>> are using it, as is apparently the case, what else is needed for it to be a
>> "pro" tool?
>
> Since that's a reductio ad absurdum inquiry, the answer is obviously
> exactly what you want it to be.
Well, the answer is pretty obvious. But I am curious, do you have an
alternate definition of what a pro tool is? Maybe you do... maybe ZnU does.
If so, maybe we are just disagreeing over what makes a tool a "pro tool".
> But now stop simply trying to defend that for which you have a
> personal investment in, and try asking the _correct_ question.
Personal investment? No more than anyone else in this discussion.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
29682ded-bbff-44e4...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 2/20/10
6:14 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> -hh stated:
>>
>>> In any event, I think that its a futile effort. � There is no doubt
>>> that there isn't _some_ percentage of the so-called "Professional" web
>>> development market that is using this - - - or any other - - - tool.
>
> In other words, as soon as one pitiful loser has used Dreamweaver to
> sell his "web development" services once for ten bucks, then DW can be
> pedantically called a "Pro's Web Dev Tool".
>
> Of course, the same is equally pedantically true of the same guy's
> coffee mug on his desk...
So how do you define a "pro tool"? To me, if a tool is marketed for, made
for, packaged as, and used by professionals then it is a pro tool. Clearly
Dreamweaver fits these criteria... there is no solid argument against it
being a pro tool. The one Sandman and ZnU are now pushing is that they do
not think it would serve them well in their workflows. OK. Nobody said it
did. Sandman went so far as to lie and say I could not understand that his
CMS code would not view well in DW. In other words, he simply sank to
lying. Hardly a reliable opinion from that one. ZnU, on the other hand, I
think is sincere... I just happen to disagree.
>>> And of course, there may very well be an overdose of irony if the
>>> situation here is that a poster who has previously lambasted others
>>> for "failed validation" personal webpages is now actively advocating a
>>> "Pro" product that Wiki reports has having performed poorly on the
>>> Acid2 valication test.
>>
>> Do not know much about the Acid2 test other than its use to test browsers,
>> not sites...
>
> That was my understanding too, but since Acid2 requires validated code
> in order to test a browser, their process must have a way to validate
> their test code, so its not a tall leap to accepta code generation
> tool evaluation capability, too.
>
>
>> I did a little experiment tonight and looked up "Professional Web Design"
>> (or Developer.... I forget now). ... If you wish to double check my work ...
>
> How convenient that you forgot, since that invariably defeats
> independent verification.
I posted it with my initial stating of it. But use either term. I also
posted sites of developers who both did and did not speak well of
Dreamweaver.
>> Not that this was a scientific examination,
>
> No, it wasn't. Your approach is fundamentally flawed; its results &
> conclusions are meaningless.
So offer a better "test".
> Since there's not any dispute that some percentage of people-who-
> somehow-get-paid-for-their-work use DW, proving that some exist isn't
> germane, nor that some of them would post positive comments.
But when you do a search and four out of the first five you find speak
highly of it, and there is *no* counter to this, it is at least something to
consider. That is if you are trying to be reasonable.
> What you've not proven - - nor is it possible by your approach - - is to prove
> that "that which is findable" represents anything statistically meaningful,
> such as being even more than a mere 0.1% of all pro web developers....or even
> of the pool of all developers, professional or not.
Let us be clear: you have discounted looking at if it is a pro tool based on
any reasonable definition of what a pro tool is, and now you are discounting
it based on if an arbitrary sampling of pros actually use it.
What criteria do you suggest?
> FWIW, what you should also realize is that what "pro web development"
> means can be interpreted at different levels, in part based upon
> professional need & insight. For example, I asked yesterday an
> individual in this field what tool they used, and the response was
> "Vignette". Yeah, go try to figure out that answer.
>
>
> -hh
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
C7A53ABF.65E9E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I know ZnU is working to show that because he thinks, based on his use of
> the product close to a decade ago when it was owned by another company,
Oh! So you missed where ZnU stated quite clearly that he *had* checked on
more recent versions of Dreamweaver Snit? ..... Really? LOL
Let me refresh your memory one more time...
"I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
merely encouraging them."-ZnU
<snip>
Snit
2/20/10 7:02 AM:
>> Yet still clings to pro status based on the fact that he uses and teaches a
>> product that is claimed by its maker to be made for, marketed to, and priced
>> for pros?
>>
>> You seem to fit perfectly into the level of pro that Znu has already
>> mentioned Snit.
>>
> Dreamweaver is a good product for the home user that wants to create a small
> site for the family on the space given them by their isp.
It can be used for that, too. Yes.
> It's easy to learn as you merely drag and drop items into a graphical field,
> no coding experience needed.
Not needed to use Dreamweaver at its lowest levels... and it can be used
that way. Sure.
> A classic example of this is very easy to find - do a search for "Prescott
> Computer Guy" at www.youtube.com. Do any of them deal with the actual code?
So you accept those videos as the be-all and end-all of Dreamweaver lessons.
Interesting. But even then, you show no knowledge of the videos... but, no,
I am not interested in turning this into a debate about my work or my
videos. So let us look at other videos:
<http://www.lynda.com/home/ViewCourses.aspx?lpk0=364>
Even if you do not have an account there, you can look at some videos and
see the names of others.
If you really do want to see my newest video series, I have it for sale.
Are you interested in buying it so you can at least try to make reasoned
arguments about it? Of course not.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
He has not used it much in close to a decade. He admittedly knows little of
the product.
If you want to learn more about it, check here:
<http://www.lynda.com/home/ViewCourses.aspx?lpk0=364>
Even if you do not have an account there, you can preview some videos and
look at titles. Now try to defend ZnU's claims.
Then again, to do in a reasoned way so you would have to give up your
trolling. And you would need to show understanding - and you are very bad
at that.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
...
>> Dreamweaver is a good product for the home user that wants to create a small
>> site for the family on the space given them by their isp. It's easy to learn
>> as you merely drag and drop items into a graphical field, no coding
>> experience needed. A classic example of this is very easy to find - do a
>> search for "Prescott Computer Guy" at www.youtube.com. Do any of them deal
>> with the actual code?
>>
>
> Not a Youtube one but there is this one Tim ...
>
> Prescott Computer Guy: A01B: First Web Page - Hand Coding
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yk2orpz
>
> I started watching it up to the point where after a couple of minutes Snit
> says ...
>
> <quote>
>
> "I'm just going to leave my head empty for now"
>
> <end quote>
>
> At that point I just figured business as usual for Snit then. :)
>
>> ~Snip
>
It does show your level of understanding. :)
[Hey, at least you had a smiley... nothing wrong with a bit of teasing]
In the end, it is true that my class focused *mostly* on techniques other
than hand-coding... there are other classes that focus on that. It is not
like my class is the only class on web development.
If you really want to know what my current videos show, I have them for
sale. What you are looking at is an older series.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
C7A5429D.65EAB%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
If you find it easier to suggest that rather than to address my points Snit
... Then fine!
> But, just to play in your circus for a bit, what do you think it takes for
> something to be a "professional tool"?
Your question has already been answered by Znu far better than I could do by
him indicating the level of the industry that is likely to use it Snit.
I have yet to see you put forward any reasonable argument why his opinion
should not be used as a pretty reliable gauge of the product for someone
such as myself Snit, But in contrast to that I have witnessed you fall apart
in your attempt to show where people that you claimed to know actually used
Dreamweaver pretty heavily professionally Snit.
It really is a no brainer to see who's opinion has credibility Snit.
> If being made for, marketed to, and
> used by pros is not a pretty big part of your definition, then what is?
It is a ludicrous suggestion to expect someone that doesn't use a product to
actually define it Snit.
I suspect you asking it merely reflects your desperation on this matter!
Snit
>> It is not as if you are doing anything other than trolling, Wally.
>
> If you find it easier to suggest that rather than to address my points Snit
> ... Then fine!
You are not making any points, Wally. You are trolling. To pretend
otherwise would be dishonest.
>> But, just to play in your circus for a bit, what do you think it takes for
>> something to be a "professional tool"?
>
> Your question has already been answered by Znu far better than I could do by
> him indicating the level of the industry that is likely to use it Snit.
>
> I have yet to see you put forward any reasonable argument why his opinion
> should not be used as a pretty reliable gauge of the product for someone
> such as myself Snit, But in contrast to that I have witnessed you fall apart
> in your attempt to show where people that you claimed to know actually used
> Dreamweaver pretty heavily professionally Snit.
>
> It really is a no brainer to see who's opinion has credibility Snit.
What do you think his argument is. In your own words.
Face it: you have no idea. Nor have shown any idea of what you think a pro
tool is.
>> If being made for, marketed to, and
>> used by pros is not a pretty big part of your definition, then what is?
>
> It is a ludicrous suggestion to expect someone that doesn't use a product to
> actually define it Snit.
I did not ask you to define a tool. You simply do not understand what you
read.
> I suspect you asking it merely reflects your desperation on this matter!
So you have no idea what a pro tool is... but will side against me that a
specific tool is a pro tool.
As noted: you are just trolling. You have no opinion, no support... no
concept of what is even being discussed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> It is a ludicrous suggestion to expect someone that doesn't use a product to
> actually define it Snit.
I have done no such thing... but you side with ZnU who admits he has had
little experience with a tool *he* defines as being non-pro.
Nice self-nuke there, Wally. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
wrote:
Funny how he doesn't use this 'pro tool' Dreamweaver he keep advocating for his
task. It must not have been up to the coding job he was doing. :)
>
> I started watching it up to the point where after a couple of minutes Snit
> says ...
>
> <quote>
>
> "I'm just going to leave my head empty for now"
>
> <end quote>
>
> At that point I just figured business as usual for Snit then. :)
:)
Snit
2/20/10 8:50 AM:
>> http://tinyurl.com/yk2orpz
>
> Funny how he doesn't use this 'pro tool' Dreamweaver he keep advocating for
> his task. It must not have been up to the coding job he was doing. :)
>
Correct - no possible way Dreamweaver could have been used to do that. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
-hh
>
> > But now stop simply trying to defend that for which you have a
> > personal investment in, and try asking the _correct_ question.
>
> Personal investment? No more than anyone else in this discussion.
So everyone else participating in this thread gets compensation for
**teaching** how to use one of said "tools"?
Cite, please.
-hh
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> -hh stated in post
> 43e3654e-e13e-4fd1...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 2/20/10
> 5:36 AM:
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Alan Baker stated in post:
> >>
> >>>> Wow. � Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
> >>>> Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of
> >>>> his willful stupidity.
> >>
> >>> They can market it as whatever they want...
> >>
> >>> ...it doesn't make it so.
> >>
> >> Which leads the question of if the product is being sold to pros and they
> >> are using it, as is apparently the case, what else is needed for it to be a
> >> "pro" tool?
> >
> > Since that's a reductio ad absurdum inquiry, the answer is obviously
> > exactly what you want it to be.
>
> Well, the answer is pretty obvious. But I am curious, do you have an
> alternate definition of what a pro tool is? Maybe you do... maybe ZnU does.
> If so, maybe we are just disagreeing over what makes a tool a "pro tool".
I'm mostly done with your circus. I just read a dozen posts of yours
that contain precisely zero new content.
But I'd like to point out that you are seriously misrepresenting me. My
position on the "pro tool" issue (and I have said this a couple of times
now) is not that Dreamweaver is not a "pro tool", but that the whole
question is a meaningless argument over categories and definitions.
My actual position is simply that Dreamweaver is not really relevant to
modern best-practices web development.
There some people who call themselves pros -- and I suppose technically
are, in the sense that they get paid for their work -- who are not
practicing modern best-practices web development, so it is not hugely
surprising to find some of them using Dreamweaver. I mentioned the
likely existence of such people in my very first reply to you on this
subject.
> > But now stop simply trying to defend that for which you have a
> > personal investment in, and try asking the _correct_ question.
>
> Personal investment? No more than anyone else in this discussion.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Snit
2/20/10 10:43 AM:
> In article <C7A5439B.65EAF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> -hh stated in post
>> 43e3654e-e13e-4fd1...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 2/20/10
>> 5:36 AM:
>>
>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker stated in post:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wow. � Alan Baker misses the point that Adobe produces and markets
>>>>>> Dreamweaver as a professional development tool, in a stunning display of
>>>>>> his willful stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>> They can market it as whatever they want...
>>>>
>>>>> ...it doesn't make it so.
>>>>
>>>> Which leads the question of if the product is being sold to pros and they
>>>> are using it, as is apparently the case, what else is needed for it to be a
>>>> "pro" tool?
>>>
>>> Since that's a reductio ad absurdum inquiry, the answer is obviously
>>> exactly what you want it to be.
>>
>> Well, the answer is pretty obvious. But I am curious, do you have an
>> alternate definition of what a pro tool is? Maybe you do... maybe ZnU does.
>> If so, maybe we are just disagreeing over what makes a tool a "pro tool".
>
> I'm mostly done with your circus. I just read a dozen posts of yours
> that contain precisely zero new content.
>
> But I'd like to point out that you are seriously misrepresenting me.
How so?
> My
> position on the "pro tool" issue (and I have said this a couple of times
> now) is not that Dreamweaver is not a "pro tool", but that the whole
> question is a meaningless argument over categories and definitions.
Wait... if you are not saying that Dreamweaver is not a pro tool, then I am
not sure what you have been arguing.
-----
Maybe it's still used by the "pros" doing $800 web sites for
Bar Mitzvah video companies or something.
-----
I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are
people who could be properly called professional web
developers or web designers.
-----
It has essentially no place in modern professional web design
or development except perhaps at the very bottom of the
market.
-----
Actual legitimate pros used to use tools like Dreamweaver,
before a lot of new technologies came along and made the
WYSIWYG approach unsuitable. The product remains part of
Creative Suite mostly through simple inertia.
-----
Seems quite clear you were denying it was a pro tool.
> My actual position is simply that Dreamweaver is not really relevant to
> modern best-practices web development.
And yet you have been shown a number of pro developer groups who value
Dreamweaver skills and presumably use it. In fact, of the small sample that
was taken, 80% used it, 20% did not. I am not going to say that is overall
representative of the market - but neither you not I know.
What we do know is that you have not really used it to any significant
degree in close to a decade (I believe you said 8 years). This means you
likely have significant holes in your knowledge of what the program does and
does not offer.
> There some people who call themselves pros -- and I suppose technically
> are, in the sense that they get paid for their work -- who are not
> practicing modern best-practices web development, so it is not hugely
> surprising to find some of them using Dreamweaver. I mentioned the
> likely existence of such people in my very first reply to you on this
> subject.
Yes, you pretty much mocked those who use Dreamweaver. You have since been
shown that it is not just the market you pointed to that uses it.
I get that you think Dreamweaver does not encourage best practices... but
what other tool encourages them any better? The only answer I can think of
is your noting that with other tools it takes more work to write code so it
is less likely someone will repeat themselves. That is a pretty weak
argument.
>>> But now stop simply trying to defend that for which you have a
>>> personal investment in, and try asking the _correct_ question.
>>
>> Personal investment? No more than anyone else in this discussion.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
d9de6a12-79c6-4266...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 2/20/10
10:22 AM:
So you are an alien from Mars and you eat only cheese.
Cite, please.
There - now we have both made up stories about the other. Wasn't that fun!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Seems quite clear you really want to waste lot of time on a totally
useless debate over the meaning of the term "pro tool" -- a term which
you introduced into this discussion.
> > My actual position is simply that Dreamweaver is not really relevant to
> > modern best-practices web development.
>
> And yet you have been shown a number of pro developer groups who value
> Dreamweaver skills and presumably use it. In fact, of the small sample that
> was taken, 80% used it, 20% did not. I am not going to say that is overall
> representative of the market - but neither you not I know.
One of us is a working professional web developer, and one of us is not.
This whole false equivalence -- "neither of us knows for sure so my
opinion is equally valid" is not really compelling.
[snip]
Snit
2/20/10 1:33 PM:
...
You made a claim that Dreamweaver was not used in the Pro market:
-----
Finally... who actually still uses WYSIWYG HTML editing tools
in 2010? These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved
death in professional markets years ago with the rise of
semantic HTML and CSS. Particularly using WYSIWYG tools to
create HTML that developers are going to have to work with
directly just seems cruel.
-----
I noted that it is still quite popular, which has been supported to at least
some extent from my small but arbitrary sampling of professional web
designers.
You argued that Dreamweaver does not work well with modern semantically
structured pages with CSS-based layout, and I noted that essentially every
Dreamweaver book out there, even the "for Dummies" series, now has a focus
on this (and most have for some time). I have also pointed to Lynda.com
training where this is a pretty big focus. I have acknowledged there is
room for growth and that I am disappointed by the rumors that say DW CS5
will not add much for HTML5 and CSS3. Really think it is time to add those
to the product.
In the end, it is clear that DW is, under any reasoned definition, a
professional web development tool.
>>> My actual position is simply that Dreamweaver is not really relevant to
>>> modern best-practices web development.
>>
>> And yet you have been shown a number of pro developer groups who value
>> Dreamweaver skills and presumably use it. In fact, of the small sample that
>> was taken, 80% used it, 20% did not. I am not going to say that is overall
>> representative of the market - but neither you not I know.
>
> One of us is a working professional web developer, and one of us is not.
> This whole false equivalence -- "neither of us knows for sure so my
> opinion is equally valid" is not really compelling.
I am pointing out evidence that is contrary to your opinion. I am also more
familiar with Dreamweaver, though you are almost surely more familiar with
the overall web development ecosystem.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
In other words, after clearly articulating my position several times
(namely, that Dreamweaver is useless in modern best-practices web
development, but may still be in use at the bottom of the market), I
wrote something which someone who wanted to deliberately misinterpret my
position could read in a slightly different way. You have decided to do
this, and to argue with me over what my position is.
[snip]
> >> And yet you have been shown a number of pro developer groups who
> >> value Dreamweaver skills and presumably use it. In fact, of the
> >> small sample that was taken, 80% used it, 20% did not. I am not
> >> going to say that is overall representative of the market - but
> >> neither you not I know.
> >
> > One of us is a working professional web developer, and one of us is
> > not. This whole false equivalence -- "neither of us knows for sure
> > so my opinion is equally valid" is not really compelling.
>
> I am pointing out evidence that is contrary to your opinion.
You are not really qualified to interpret the evidence.
Hadron
Actually not. It was quite apparent that your view of Dreamweaver was
outdated and your claim that its only used in the "bottom of the market"
is plain out and out wrong. I am no fan of things such as Dreamweaver
myself but that doesnt mean its not a "pro tool" and does not mean its
not used in the great majority of professional web development
companies.
-hh
>
> ... I am no fan of things such as Dreamweaver
> myself but that doesnt mean its not a "pro tool" and does not mean its
> not used in the great majority of professional web development
> companies.
"Great majority"?
Given that the 2008 survey that I had randomly found (& cited
previously) that showed that 80% of its respondents reported that they
were using tools _other than_ DreamWeaver, this assertion sounds
rather...interesting.
What's the basis for your statement?
-hh
Sandman
Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually not. It was quite apparent that your view of Dreamweaver was
> outdated and your claim that its only used in the "bottom of the market"
> is plain out and out wrong. I am no fan of things such as Dreamweaver
> myself but that doesnt mean its not a "pro tool" and does not mean its
> not used in the great majority of professional web development
> companies.
It is not used in the great majority of professional web development
companies.
--
Sandman[.net]
Hadron
It is ones I have crossed swords with. Note that I did NOT say it is used
exclusively.
Peter Köhlmann
His nether-regions.
He absolutely needs to support dishonest twits like Snit Michael Glasser,
so whatever lunacy that imbecile claims, it will be supported by Hadron
Quark
--
Individualists unite!
Snit
2:22 PM:
...
I am disappointed in ZnU. He generally argues his points well... but
clearly he does not like it when he is wrong. He made some claims he could
not support based on his own dislike of the tool. So be it - it is not like
I am trying to talk him into using it. Has he noticed he is the only one to
take his side of the debate, other than obvious trolls?
He repeatedly claimed that DW works against best practices, but when asked
why, his comments were that it did not do what other tools did not do. Very
odd.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
-hh
> -hh stated in post:
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But now stop simply trying to defend that for which you have a
> >>> personal investment in, and try asking the _correct_ question.
> >>
> >> Personal investment? No more than anyone else in this discussion.
> >
> > So everyone else participating in this thread gets compensation for
> > **teaching** how to use one of said "tools"?
> >
> > Cite, please.
>
> > -hh
>
> So you are an alien from Mars and you eat only cheese.
>
> Cite, please.
<http://www.lulu.com/content/digital-video-disc/dreamweaver-cs4-
training/8220949>
Are you really going to try to deny that that's your Dreamweaver
training listed for sale?
-hh
Snit
2/20/10 2:13 PM:
...
>>> Seems quite clear you really want to waste lot of time on a totally
>>> useless debate over the meaning of the term "pro tool" -- a term
>>> which you introduced into this discussion.
>>
>> You made a claim that Dreamweaver was not used in the Pro market:
>
> In other words, after clearly articulating my position several times
> (namely, that Dreamweaver is useless in modern best-practices web
> development, but may still be in use at the bottom of the market), I
> wrote something which someone who wanted to deliberately misinterpret my
> position could read in a slightly different way. You have decided to do
> this, and to argue with me over what my position is.
In your defense of your above comments about how DW is not a part of the pro
developers tools, you claimed that DW is "useless in modern best-practices
web development" and used, primarily, a claim that it does not work well
with semantic CSS layouts. I noted you were incorrect about this and
pointed you to look at *any* book on DW, including even the "For Dummies"
series. Next time you are in a bookstore pick up a copy and look at page
16, the start of the "Creating CSS Layouts" chapter. I also pointed you to
the Lynda.com training site where there are a number of training modules on
DW CS4. In most, of course, they discuss CSS Layout. Look at their
"essential training":
<http://www.lynda.com/home/DisplayCourse.aspx?lpk2=708>. The entirety of
Chapter 10 is "Controlling Layout with CSS".
I can also point you now to other sources which talk about using CSS
correctly in DW CS4, including directly from Adobe:
<http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/articles/css_best_practices.html>
Even other training courses, brief ones that last merely 2-3 days, have a
focus on CSS Layout.
<http://www.webucator.com/adobe/course/introduction-adobe-dreamweaver-cs4-tr
aining.cfm>
So this idea you have that somehow DW and CSS best practices are somehow at
odds is simply, well, an odd and poorly supported claims.
Also: from the professional developers I have shown online, when looking at
an arbitrary sampling of five, 80% promote the fact that the use
Dreamweaver. It is a very popular tool in the professional development
world.
This does not mean you should use it. This does not mean it is the best
tool for all professionals. This does not mean, well, anything offensive.
If you wish to be offended by the fact that Dreamweaver is a powerful tool
used by many web development professionals then so be it... but I really
cannot imagine why this would be offensive to you. I have been kind in my
disagreement with you, noting that I respect your opinion even if I disagree
and, if - as is the case - you are not really able to answer for the mass of
evidence that is contrary to your view.
In other words, when you say things like:
-----
Maybe it's still used by the "pros" doing $800 web sites for
Bar Mitzvah video companies or something.
-----
You simply are wrong. Pros doing more than "$800 web sites" use it (heck, I
know that people use it for such from directly experience - I have used it
for much larger sites than that).
-----
I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are
people who could be properly called professional web
developers or web designers.
-----
When you say that people who could be properly called professional web
developers or web designers are unlikely to use DW, you are wrong, or at
least have not supported this and have no counter to the contrary
information.
-----
It has essentially no place in modern professional web design
or development except perhaps at the very bottom of the
market.
-----
Again, your attempts at support for this have shown to not be solid - even
intro books on DW show it is used to do what you say it works against.
------
Actual legitimate pros used to use tools like Dreamweaver,
before a lot of new technologies came along and made the
WYSIWYG approach unsuitable. The product remains part of
Creative Suite mostly through simple inertia.
-----
And, again, this was shown to not be true based on the books and online
lessons I pointed you to.
>>>> And yet you have been shown a number of pro developer groups who
>>>> value Dreamweaver skills and presumably use it. In fact, of the
>>>> small sample that was taken, 80% used it, 20% did not. I am not
>>>> going to say that is overall representative of the market - but
>>>> neither you not I know.
>>>
>>> One of us is a working professional web developer, and one of us is
>>> not. This whole false equivalence -- "neither of us knows for sure
>>> so my opinion is equally valid" is not really compelling.
>>
>> I am pointing out evidence that is contrary to your opinion.
>
> You are not really qualified to interpret the evidence.
So now it comes down to you not liking the evidence I have shown so you are
going to put me down... you are leaving the realm of talking about the topic
(Dreamweaver) and talking about a person. This does not speak well of you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
64f492f5-ae3e-42f3...@o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com on 2/20/10
6:11 PM:
Huh? I commented elsewhere in this discussion that people could buy that if
they wanted to see my current videos. Now why would I deny it?
You really are just lost. I did not post a link to the product because,
face it, other than ZnU, the only people disagreeing with me are people who
are just trolling me and do not really have anything approaching a desire to
do anything than lash out. Even ZnU is pretty bent out of shape that I did
not accept his claims even though I was able to show evidence he was wrong.
Just odd... I expected better from him.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
3:42 PM:
I do not think anyone has said that it is used exclusively. Heck, I have
made my limitations in the field clear and I certainly do not use it
exclusively. I cannot imagine many full time pros do.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/20/10 3:30 PM:
A fine opinion... but can you *support* it?
This is where you and ZnU are struggling - you make claims you cannot
support. I at least did some work to try to find out - I looked at 5
arbitrary pro development companies and found that 4 of the 5 spoke of using
it. The other spoke poorly of it. I am not saying that this means 80% of
the pro market uses it (I suspect that is a rather high number) but to just
say without any evidence your view of its usage is basically meaningless.
With that said, I am not sure I would say the "great majority" use it... I
mean, a majority would be simply be anything over 50%... a great majority...
would that take 60%? Not sure where to even draw the line.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7ed94af1-c937-4832...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 2/20/10
3:14 PM:
Who says that they use it exclusively... in other words, that they do not
also use other tools?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
3:42 PM:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> writes:
Just some more info I decided to dig up:
<http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_getstarted.asp>
-----
However, professional web developers often prefer HTML
editors like FrontPage or Dreamweaver, instead of writing
plain text.
-----
<http://online.kaplanuniversity.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/kuonline/HW_SW_R
eqs_100113.pdf>
-----
Adobe CS4 Web Standard or Premium is recommended, as both of
these versions contain all the software required for the Web
development courses.
-----
<http://www.phoenix.edu/information/online-web-design-degree.html>
-----
Online Web Design Degree Concentration
From there, you'll learn and apply best practices for
creating quality web page layouts, navigation, appearance,
functionality, multimedia and more to create basic designs
using the Adobe CS4 software package including
AdobeDreamweaver� ...
-----
I do not get where ZnU thinks he knows better than w3schools, Kaplan and
University of Phoenix. Clearly they all accept Dreamweaver as a legitimate
tool for pro users.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Snit
7:28 PM:
Of course. I get why Sandman used to debate this with me - he just wanted
to debate and, frankly, clearly knows little other than his own CMS system
(which is not to say it is not an impressive system). He has tied his ego
to being "knowledgeable" in the area of web design and was just trolling me
to get "revenge" for my pointing out areas of growth for his sites. Wally
and Tim Adams troll me to troll me - they simply have nothing of value to
say.
But with ZnU this is just odd... his ideas are generally well thought out
and he is a very knowledgeable person. I have a lot of respect for him. He
simply is wrong in this area - or at least unable to counter the
ever-growing mass of evidence that contradicts his view. And this clearly
bothers him... which is a shame. I would hope he would take it as a
learning opportunity.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
-hh
> 6:11 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> -hh stated in post:
> >>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> -hh wrote:
>
> >>>>> But now stop simply trying to defend that for which you have a
> >>>>> personal investment in, and try asking the _correct_ question.
>
> >>>> Personal investment? No more than anyone else in this discussion.
>
> >>> So everyone else participating in this thread gets compensation for
> >>> **teaching** how to use one of said "tools"?
>
> >>> Cite, please.
>
> >>> -hh
>
> >> So you are an alien from Mars and you eat only cheese.
>
> >> Cite, please.
>
> > <http://www.lulu.com/content/digital-video-disc/dreamweaver-cs4-
> > training/8220949>
>
> > Are you really going to try to deny that that's your Dreamweaver
> > training listed for sale?
>
> Huh? I commented elsewhere in this discussion that people could buy that if
> they wanted to see my current videos. Now why would I deny it?
Then its proof that you have an "investment" in a particular
solution: a conflict of interest that precludes you from being
impartial.
Case Closed.
-hh
Snit
bae7795a-18a9-4e40...@a1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 2/20/10
8:25 PM:
...
>>>>>> Personal investment? No more than anyone else in this discussion.
>>
>>>>> So everyone else participating in this thread gets compensation for
>>>>> **teaching** how to use one of said "tools"?
>>
>>>>> Cite, please.
>>
>>>>> -hh
>>
>>>> So you are an alien from Mars and you eat only cheese.
>>
>>>> Cite, please.
>>
>>> <http://www.lulu.com/content/digital-video-disc/dreamweaver-cs4-
>>> training/8220949>
>>
>>> Are you really going to try to deny that that's your Dreamweaver
>>> training listed for sale?
>>
>> Huh? �I commented elsewhere in this discussion that people could buy that if
>> they wanted to see my current videos. �Now why would I deny it?
>
> Then its proof that you have an "investment" in a particular
> solution: a conflict of interest that precludes you from being
> impartial.
>
> Case Closed.
As I said: No more than anyone else in this discussion.
Now, since you have sort of entered the discussion, might be a counter to
that - but clearly ZnU has a personal investment in supporting his web
development methods.
Why not look at the content of the discussion? As it stands, I have shown
that Dreamweaver is supported by pro shops, schools that teach web design,
and the product is marketed and sold as a pro tool. The idea that it does
not work well in the pro market has pretty solidly been debunked.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-3EC709.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/20/10 2:13 PM:
>
> ...
> >>> Seems quite clear you really want to waste lot of time on a totally
> >>> useless debate over the meaning of the term "pro tool" -- a term
> >>> which you introduced into this discussion.
> >>
> >> You made a claim that Dreamweaver was not used in the Pro market:
> >
> > In other words, after clearly articulating my position several times
> > (namely, that Dreamweaver is useless in modern best-practices web
> > development, but may still be in use at the bottom of the market), I
> > wrote something which someone who wanted to deliberately misinterpret my
> > position could read in a slightly different way. You have decided to do
> > this, and to argue with me over what my position is.
>
> In your defense of your above comments about how DW is not a part of the pro
> developers tools
Sorry, were you hoping that if you inserted "developers" between "pro"
and "tool" that I wouldn't notice that you're still trying to turn this
into a meaningless word game around a term you introduced?
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
None of the supposed evidence you have provided is inconsistent with
Dreamweaver being used occasionally at the bottom of the market but
essentially irrelevant to modern best-practices web development.
You know, my *actual* position, not the one you invented.
Snit
2/20/10 9:23 PM:
> In article <C7A5D79F.65FF3%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-3EC709.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/20/10 2:13 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Seems quite clear you really want to waste lot of time on a totally
>>>>> useless debate over the meaning of the term "pro tool" -- a term
>>>>> which you introduced into this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> You made a claim that Dreamweaver was not used in the Pro market:
>>>
>>> In other words, after clearly articulating my position several times
>>> (namely, that Dreamweaver is useless in modern best-practices web
>>> development, but may still be in use at the bottom of the market), I
>>> wrote something which someone who wanted to deliberately misinterpret my
>>> position could read in a slightly different way. You have decided to do
>>> this, and to argue with me over what my position is.
>>
>> In your defense of your above comments about how DW is not a part of the pro
>> developers tools
>
> Sorry, were you hoping that if you inserted "developers" between "pro"
> and "tool" that I wouldn't notice that you're still trying to turn this
> into a meaningless word game around a term you introduced?
I would prefer if you would actually read and respond to the comments that
show your claims were incorrect. Here they are again (though I see my page
number is wrong, should be 167, not 16. My mistake.
----------
In your defense of your above comments about how DW is not a part of the pro
<http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/articles/css_best_practices.html>
<http://www.webucator.com/adobe/course/introduction-adobe-dreamweaver-cs4-tr
aining.cfm>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/20/10 9:28 PM:
...
>> As I said: No more than anyone else in this discussion.
>>
>> Now, since you have sort of entered the discussion, might be a counter to
>> that - but clearly ZnU has a personal investment in supporting his web
>> development methods.
>>
>> Why not look at the content of the discussion? As it stands, I have shown
>> that Dreamweaver is supported by pro shops, schools that teach web design,
>> and the product is marketed and sold as a pro tool. The idea that it does
>> not work well in the pro market has pretty solidly been debunked.
>
> None of the supposed evidence you have provided is inconsistent with
> Dreamweaver being used occasionally at the bottom of the market but
> essentially irrelevant to modern best-practices web development.
>
> You know, my *actual* position, not the one you invented.
I did not invent your position:
lessons I pointed you to, as well as the schools which focus on it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-079933.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/20/10 9:28 PM:
>
> ...
> >> As I said: No more than anyone else in this discussion.
> >>
> >> Now, since you have sort of entered the discussion, might be a counter to
> >> that - but clearly ZnU has a personal investment in supporting his web
> >> development methods.
> >>
> >> Why not look at the content of the discussion? As it stands, I have shown
> >> that Dreamweaver is supported by pro shops, schools that teach web design,
> >> and the product is marketed and sold as a pro tool. The idea that it does
> >> not work well in the pro market has pretty solidly been debunked.
> >
> > None of the supposed evidence you have provided is inconsistent with
> > Dreamweaver being used occasionally at the bottom of the market but
> > essentially irrelevant to modern best-practices web development.
> >
> > You know, my *actual* position, not the one you invented.
>
> I did not invent your position:
I'm not interested in defending your deliberate misinterpretation of my
position, and I'm even less interested in arguing with you over what my
position is.
[snip]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I am not interested in having a discussion with someone who reads what I
write with an eye to twisting it into something he can argue with,
rather than attempting to understand it.
Snit
2/20/10 9:50 PM:
> In article <C7A606B7.66062%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-079933.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/20/10 9:28 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>> As I said: No more than anyone else in this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Now, since you have sort of entered the discussion, might be a counter to
>>>> that - but clearly ZnU has a personal investment in supporting his web
>>>> development methods.
>>>>
>>>> Why not look at the content of the discussion? As it stands, I have shown
>>>> that Dreamweaver is supported by pro shops, schools that teach web design,
>>>> and the product is marketed and sold as a pro tool. The idea that it does
>>>> not work well in the pro market has pretty solidly been debunked.
>>>
>>> None of the supposed evidence you have provided is inconsistent with
>>> Dreamweaver being used occasionally at the bottom of the market but
>>> essentially irrelevant to modern best-practices web development.
>>>
>>> You know, my *actual* position, not the one you invented.
>>
>> I did not invent your position:
>
> I'm not interested in defending your deliberate misinterpretation of my
> position, and I'm even less interested in arguing with you over what my
> position is.
I have shown you were your claims were incorrect... or at the very least
there is contrary evidence for which you have no reasoned counter.
Dreamweaver is heavily used in the professional web design market: it is
made and marketed as such a tool, the books on the program teach the very
skills you say DW does not handle well, well respected colleges teach it as
a part of their pro web development programs, it is taught on online
schools... etc.
I know this is contrary to your idea that it is used only for the low end of
the pro market... and clearly this bothers you. I wish it did not. I wish
you would actually respond to comments you are not comfortable with and not
take things personally. You are now making accusations against me - saying
the quotes of your claims are somehow a sign of my inventing your claims. I
did no such thing. I quoted your claims and noted why they are incorrect,
or at best there is evidence to counter your claims and no real support for
your claims other than your own opinion.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
C7A54FDA.65F17%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C7A620D7.5427%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 2/20/10 8:29 AM:
>
>>> It is not as if you are doing anything other than trolling, Wally.
>>
>> If you find it easier to suggest that rather than to address my points Snit
>> ... Then fine!
>
> You are not making any points, Wally. You are trolling. To pretend
> otherwise would be dishonest.
>
>>> But, just to play in your circus for a bit, what do you think it takes for
>>> something to be a "professional tool"?
>>
>> Your question has already been answered by Znu far better than I could do by
>> him indicating the level of the industry that is likely to use it Snit.
>>
>> I have yet to see you put forward any reasonable argument why his opinion
>> should not be used as a pretty reliable gauge of the product for someone
>> such as myself Snit, But in contrast to that I have witnessed you fall apart
>> in your attempt to show where people that you claimed to know actually used
>> Dreamweaver pretty heavily professionally Snit.
>>
>> It really is a no brainer to see who's opinion has credibility Snit.
>
> What do you think his argument is. In your own words.
Again so quickly your confusion takes over Snit...
"I have yet to see you put forward any reasonable argument why his opinion
should not be used as a pretty reliable gauge of the product for someone
such as myself Snit"-Wally
I have only stated what ZnU's 'opinion' was, if you want to know the
argument that sustains that opinion simply read ZnU's posts don't ask me to
interpret them for you Snit!
>
> Face it: you have no idea. Nor have shown any idea of what you think a pro
> tool is.
Now we see why you need me to interpret ZnU's posts for you Snit ... You
clearly cannot comprehend what you have read!
To most people it would be obvious that a tool used in a certain industry by
the lower echelons of a particular group would not be afforded the same
status by those at the cutting edge of that industry therefore ZnU's and
Sandman's comments make perfect sense Snit.
But here we see you asking me to define what is a pro tool in the forlorn
hope that you can then conclude that use by a pro (of any level) will afford
it pro tools status *that* aint gonna happen Snit!
>>> If being made for, marketed to, and
>>> used by pros is not a pretty big part of your definition, then what is?
>>
>> It is a ludicrous suggestion to expect someone that doesn't use a product to
>> actually define it Snit.
>
> I did not ask you to define a tool.
Then how did your conclusion below that I have no idea what a pro tool is
come about Snit?
> You simply do not understand what you read.
At least irony has not deserted you as common sense appears to have done
Snit.
>
>> I suspect you asking it merely reflects your desperation on this matter!
>
> So you have no idea what a pro tool is...
You just stated that you did *not* ask me to define a tool Snit so what did
you conjure up to arrive at the conclusion that I don't know what
constitutes a pro tool?
> but will side against me that a
> specific tool is a pro tool.
It's not a matter of sides Snit, it's a matter of opinion, your argument is
too weak for it to sway my opinion that's all .... don't take it so
personal!
> As noted: you are just trolling. You have no opinion, no support... no
> concept of what is even being discussed.
Take my advice Snit .... Don't take it so personal!
Hadron
> In article <C7A5D79F.65FF3%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-3EC709.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/20/10 2:13 PM:
>>
>> ...
>> >>> Seems quite clear you really want to waste lot of time on a totally
>> >>> useless debate over the meaning of the term "pro tool" -- a term
>> >>> which you introduced into this discussion.
>> >>
>> >> You made a claim that Dreamweaver was not used in the Pro market:
>> >
>> > In other words, after clearly articulating my position several times
>> > (namely, that Dreamweaver is useless in modern best-practices web
>> > development, but may still be in use at the bottom of the market), I
>> > wrote something which someone who wanted to deliberately misinterpret my
>> > position could read in a slightly different way. You have decided to do
>> > this, and to argue with me over what my position is.
>>
>> In your defense of your above comments about how DW is not a part of the pro
>> developers tools
>
> Sorry, were you hoping that if you inserted "developers" between "pro"
> and "tool" that I wouldn't notice that you're still trying to turn this
> into a meaningless word game around a term you introduced?
>
> [snip]
You introduced it. Pro is short for professional.
YOU said
,----
| in 2010? These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved
| death in professional markets years ago with the rise of
`----
Indicating it was not a professional tool.
Snit
2/20/10 9:52 PM:
There is no twisting your comments. I quoted your claims and noted why I
disagree - in short, because the evidence does not support what you said.
But so there is no misunderstanding, by all means state your position in
response to this post so I will not have to quote it from past posts which
you find, for some reason, offensive.
If you do so, I suspect you will repeat your comments about how DW works
against semantic CSS layout and the like - which has been shown by the
evidence to not be supported by other sources (books, schools, online
training, etc). But if you think I have misunderstood you and not just
refuted you then I respectfully ask you to explain just what your position
is.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:52 PM:
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> writes:
I quoted him repeatedly. He claimed I "invented" his views. I have asked
him to please, then, state his views again so I do not need to quote them.
Will be interesting to see how he responds. I suspect he will decline and
blame me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
So show where it is used only by the "lower echelons"... or do you mean it
is used both by people new to the profession and also those who are more
experienced?
> But here we see you asking me to define what is a pro tool in the forlorn
> hope that you can then conclude that use by a pro (of any level) will afford
> it pro tools status *that* aint gonna happen Snit!
If you think it is not a pro tool then explain why it is made and marketed
and sold as such, why colleges teach it in web development programs, why pro
development companies advertise the fact they they use it, that online
schools teach it, etc. And keep in mind the books, the schools, and the
online classes and material cover the very topic ZnU claimed DW worked
against (CSS layout).
Of course, Wally, all of that is going to go over your head. You have no
clue what you are talking about and are just trolling. But it is fun to
play with you for a bit. :)
>>>> If being made for, marketed to, and
>>>> used by pros is not a pretty big part of your definition, then what is?
>>>
>>> It is a ludicrous suggestion to expect someone that doesn't use a product to
>>> actually define it Snit.
>>
>> I did not ask you to define a tool.
>
> Then how did your conclusion below that I have no idea what a pro tool is
> come about Snit?
>
>> You simply do not understand what you read.
>
> At least irony has not deserted you as common sense appears to have done
> Snit.
>
>>
>>> I suspect you asking it merely reflects your desperation on this matter!
>>
>> So you have no idea what a pro tool is...
>
> You just stated that you did *not* ask me to define a tool Snit so what did
> you conjure up to arrive at the conclusion that I don't know what
> constitutes a pro tool?
>
>> but will side against me that a
>> specific tool is a pro tool.
>
> It's not a matter of sides Snit, it's a matter of opinion, your argument is
> too weak for it to sway my opinion that's all .... don't take it so
> personal!
>
>> As noted: you are just trolling. You have no opinion, no support... no
>> concept of what is even being discussed.
>
> Take my advice Snit .... Don't take it so personal!
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
No, it isn't. You have offered nothing that indicates that it is used
anywhere other than at the bottom of the market. And even if you managed
to find one or two specific examples (which I'm sure you've looked for,
yet you haven't posted any), this would demonstrate nothing of
statistical significance.
Meanwhile, it is trivially obvious to anyone who understands how modern
web sites are constructed that Dreamweaver is essentially useless to
that process. Modern web sites, once you move past trivial brochure
sites (actually, even those, a lot of the time now), are not collections
of HTML pages, but are web apps that present various views. Dreamweaver,
as an HTML page editor, literally doesn't even edit the right sort of
thing.
Wally
C7A55020.65F18%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C7A620D7.5427%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 2/20/10 8:29 AM:
>
>> It is a ludicrous suggestion to expect someone that doesn't use a product to
>> actually define it Snit.
>
> I have done no such thing...
Of course you have....
"If being made for, marketed to, and used by pros is not a pretty big part
of your definition, then what is?"-Snit
You are clearly asking for my definition of a product that I have never
claimed to use Snit!
> but you side with ZnU who admits he has had
> little experience with a tool *he* defines as being non-pro.
Firstly in your opinion would a Top Class Chef for example need extensive
use of a utensil before being able to deem it unsuitable Snit?
And secondly how could ZnU have defined it as being "non-pro" when it was
*he* that identified the level of the pro market that would likely use the
tool in the first place?
You are clearly misrepresenting ZnU's comments Snit!
You are simply providing one more example of why your argument is so weak
that you need to falsely represent what has been said Snit!
>
> Nice self-nuke there, Wally. :)
You think? LOL
ZnU
Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a distinction here. Snit is trying to turn the debate from one
about professional practices into one about where certain tools are
positioned in the web content creation tool market, so that he can claim
Dreamweaver must be a "pro tool" because it is ostensibly sold as one.
Snit
2/20/10 10:14 PM:
...
>>>> I did not invent your position:
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in defending your deliberate misinterpretation of my
>>> position, and I'm even less interested in arguing with you over what my
>>> position is.
>>
>> I have shown you were your claims were incorrect... or at the very least
>> there is contrary evidence for which you have no reasoned counter.
>>
>> Dreamweaver is heavily used in the professional web design market: it is
>> made and marketed as such a tool, the books on the program teach the very
>> skills you say DW does not handle well, well respected colleges teach it as
>> a part of their pro web development programs, it is taught on online
>> schools... etc.
>>
>> I know this is contrary to your idea that it is used only for the low end of
>> the pro market...
>
> No, it isn't. You have offered nothing that indicates that it is used
> anywhere other than at the bottom of the market. And even if you managed
> to find one or two specific examples (which I'm sure you've looked for,
> yet you haven't posted any), this would demonstrate nothing of
> statistical significance.
So while it is used by pro groups, taught by schools teaching pros, taught
by online sources, and the very techniques you say it does not handle well
are covered in every book on the subject, you think it is not evidence that
it is heavily used.
Before you defined your low end as "$800" sites for Bar Mitzvah's. Do you
wish to amend that? How about show any evidence that it is used only as you
say.
> Meanwhile, it is trivially obvious to anyone who understands how modern
> web sites are constructed that Dreamweaver is essentially useless to
> that process.
This is not support... it is just you making a claim.
> Modern web sites, once you move past trivial brochure sites (actually, even
> those, a lot of the time now), are not collections of HTML pages, but are web
> apps that present various views. Dreamweaver, as an HTML page editor,
> literally doesn't even edit the right sort of thing.
Seems you are agreeing with me that it is not a CMS... though I wonder if
you know how often it is used in the design of pages for such systems?
You keep repeating the same thing over and over: you do not believe it is
used and you think it works counter to making sites. What you have failed
to do is offer support for your opinion. You claim I simply do not get
it... well, great, then show some support.
That would be a lot more interesting than you complaining that I "invented"
your quotes.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
That is total nonsense of course. Dreamweaver can be seen to be used all
over the place in projects far from the "bottom of the market". You have
offered ZERO evidence to the contrary. And have even shown you are
unaware of the modern capabilities of Dreamweaver.
Wally
C7A548ED.65EFD%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C7A618E6.5414%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 2/20/10 7:55 AM:
>
>> On 20/02/10 10:07 PM, in article
>> C7A53ABF.65E9E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> I know ZnU is working to show that because he thinks, based on his use of
>>> the product close to a decade ago when it was owned by another company,
>>
>> Oh! So you missed where ZnU stated quite clearly that he *had* checked on
>> more recent versions of Dreamweaver Snit? ..... Really? LOL
>>
>> Let me refresh your memory one more time...
>>
>> "I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
>> about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
>> have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
>> above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
>> merely encouraging them."-ZnU
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> He has not used it much in close to a decade. He admittedly knows little of
> the product.
"I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
merely encouraging them."-ZnU
Misrepresenting someone's position does nothing to bolster your own Snit!
Snit
You have no idea how you self-nuked... which proves my point about your lack
of understanding about what is being discussed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/20/10 10:17 PM:
...
>> You introduced it. Pro is short for professional.
>>
>> YOU said
>>
>> ,----
>> | in 2010? These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved
>> | death in professional markets years ago with the rise of
>> `----
>>
>> Indicating it was not a professional tool.
>
> There is a distinction here. Snit is trying to turn the debate from one
> about professional practices into one about where certain tools are
> positioned in the web content creation tool market, so that he can claim
> Dreamweaver must be a "pro tool" because it is ostensibly sold as one.
It is not just sold as one. It is also used an important part of training
programs for pro developers. It is also used by a substantial number of pro
developers. You have denied it works well with CSS, but I have shown you
were pretty much every book on DW cover CSS layout. I have also shown you
where this is covered by Lynda.com and other online training outfits.
You have sense stopped repeating that and noted it is not a CMS. Right. It
is not. And, sure, while it can and often is used in the design of CMS
pages, it is not what creates each page (by the very nature of a CMS!).
Your claim that DW died a much-deserved death is simply wrong. The evidence
is contrary to your claim.
This is not to say it is the best tool for every situation or that every pro
developer uses it, just as not every pro image editor uses Photoshop or any
other given tool.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:19 PM:
>>> I have shown you were your claims were incorrect... or at the very least
>>> there is contrary evidence for which you have no reasoned counter.
>>>
>>> Dreamweaver is heavily used in the professional web design market: it is
>>> made and marketed as such a tool, the books on the program teach the very
>>> skills you say DW does not handle well, well respected colleges teach it as
>>> a part of their pro web development programs, it is taught on online
>>> schools... etc.
>>>
>>> I know this is contrary to your idea that it is used only for the low end of
>>> the pro market...
>>
>> No, it isn't. You have offered nothing that indicates that it is used
>> anywhere other than at the bottom of the market. And even if you managed
>> to find one or two specific examples (which I'm sure you've looked for,
>> yet you haven't posted any), this would demonstrate nothing of
>> statistical significance.
>
> That is total nonsense of course. Dreamweaver can be seen to be used all
> over the place in projects far from the "bottom of the market". You have
> offered ZERO evidence to the contrary. And have even shown you are
> unaware of the modern capabilities of Dreamweaver.
Pretty much right on the money. He does not use it and thus has deemed it a
bad tool. There really is not much more to his argument... which started
off focusing on CSS layout, and when that was shot down moved to DW not
being a CMS, which it was never claimed to be.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
...
>> He has not used it much in close to a decade. He admittedly knows little of
>> the product.
>
> "I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
> about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
> have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
> above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
> merely encouraging them."-ZnU
>
> Misrepresenting someone's position does nothing to bolster your own Snit!
>
>
Um, where do you think I misrepresented his opinion? You think "checking
in" with a product implies he knows it well?
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Already done Snit ... Effective marketing?
> why colleges teach it in web development programs,
Same reason as you do presumably! $$$$$$
> why pro
> development companies advertise the fact they they use it,
Because those wishing to enter the industry would likely have seen it
mentioned therefore feel comfortable with an app they have at least heard
about ... Again a very sound marketing ploy.
> that online schools teach it, etc.
As above.
> And keep in mind the books, the schools, and the
> online classes and material cover the very topic ZnU claimed DW worked
> against (CSS layout).
$$$$$$$$$$$, Remember those that you mention are only a stepping stone
*into* the industry where the *real* learning begins Snit!
Perhaps that concept is new to you?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Hardly surprising as it is your delusion Snit!
> which proves my point about your lack of understanding about what is being
> discussed.
As I say .... It's your delusion run with it Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C7A6E600.546D%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 2/20/10 10:30 PM:
>
> ...
>
>>> He has not used it much in close to a decade. He admittedly knows little of
>>> the product.
>>
>> "I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
>> about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
>> have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
>> above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
>> merely encouraging them."-ZnU
>>
>> Misrepresenting someone's position does nothing to bolster your own Snit!
>>
>>
> Um, where do you think I misrepresented his opinion?
"He admittedly knows little of the product."-Snit
Whereas...
"At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
merely encouraging them."-ZnU
Clearly indicates otherwise!
> You think "checking
> in" with a product implies he knows it well?
Not simply being content with misrepresenting ZnU's comments now you
misrepresent mine Snit! Oh well!
> LOL!
>
Snit
...
>>> But here we see you asking me to define what is a pro tool in the forlorn
>>> hope that you can then conclude that use by a pro (of any level) will afford
>>> it pro tools status *that* aint gonna happen Snit!
>>
>> If you think it is not a pro tool then explain why it is made and marketed
>> and sold as such,
>
> Already done Snit ... Effective marketing?
>
>> why colleges teach it in web development programs,
>
> Same reason as you do presumably! $$$$$$
>
>> why pro
>> development companies advertise the fact they they use it,
>
> Because those wishing to enter the industry would likely have seen it
> mentioned therefore feel comfortable with an app they have at least heard
> about ... Again a very sound marketing ploy.
>
>> that online schools teach it, etc.
>
> As above.
>
>> And keep in mind the books, the schools, and the
>> online classes and material cover the very topic ZnU claimed DW worked
>> against (CSS layout).
>
> $$$$$$$$$$$, Remember those that you mention are only a stepping stone
> *into* the industry where the *real* learning begins Snit!
> Perhaps that concept is new to you?
>
>> Of course, Wally, all of that is going to go over your head. You have no
>> clue what you are talking about and are just trolling. But it is fun to
>> play with you for a bit. :)
As noted, you have nothing of value to add. Really. You clearly are just
lost. You think schools teach students do not need, which would drive
students away, to make more money. Huh? How would losing business make the
get more money? And why would development companies look for employees for
programs they do not use? And why advertise that they use a product they do
not use - such a lie would simply lose them business. And you think
products are marketed to pros just to sell them - not because that is the
market they are made for.
You are completely lost, Wally... and completely ignorant. Just to remind
you: it is clear you are just trolling. As is Tim Adams. And, surely,
Steve Carroll will jump in soon. The three of you love to co-troll, each of
you is cowardly without the support of the other.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 21/02/10 1:40 PM, in article C7A61550.6609B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C7A6E600.546D%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 2/20/10 10:30 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> He has not used it much in close to a decade. He admittedly knows little
>>>> of
>>>> the product.
>>>
>>> "I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
>>> about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
>>> have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
>>> above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
>>> merely encouraging them."-ZnU
>>>
>>> Misrepresenting someone's position does nothing to bolster your own Snit!
>>>
>>>
>> Um, where do you think I misrepresented his opinion?
>
> "He admittedly knows little of the product."-Snit
>
> Whereas...
>
> "At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
> merely encouraging them."-ZnU
>
> Clearly indicates otherwise!
Actually, given that I have shown how essentially all books and other
training on the topic covers the very skills ZnU claimed it "encouraging"
contrary practices, it is pretty strong support for my claim.
As even ZnU has noted, he has not used the product much in the last 8 years.
He knows little about it, knows little of those who use it, knows little
about how it deals with CSS layout, etc.
>> You think "checking
>> in" with a product implies he knows it well?
>
> Not simply being content with misrepresenting ZnU's comments now you
> misrepresent mine Snit! Oh well!
See how you are just trolling.
Hadron
> On 21/02/10 1:40 PM, in article C7A61550.6609B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C7A6E600.546D%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 2/20/10 10:30 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> He has not used it much in close to a decade. He admittedly knows little of
>>>> the product.
>>>
>>> "I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
>>> about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
>>> have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
>>> above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
>>> merely encouraging them."-ZnU
>>>
>>> Misrepresenting someone's position does nothing to bolster your own Snit!
>>>
>>>
>> Um, where do you think I misrepresented his opinion?
>
> "He admittedly knows little of the product."-Snit
>
> Whereas...
>
> "At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
> merely encouraging them."-ZnU
>
> Clearly indicates otherwise!
No it doesn't. What the hell are you talking about?
Steve Carroll
You're the "teacher"... so teach.
Explain how what you're taking issue with that ZnU wrote is in error:
"HTML, in modern practice, represents structure; it
doesn't define a specific visual presentation. Visual presentation is
defined through CSS rules. These *should* target specific DOM
elements
through semantically meaningful element names, class names, ids, and
relationships given to those elements by the designer/developer.
But if some WYSIWYG app is creating CSS rules in response to the user
selecting some text and applying a style, the software has no way of
inferring semantic information from that action. It can only
associate
that CSS rules with that bit of text by applying some semantically
meaningless class or id to the text in question and using that to
bind
the CSS rule.
This can be somewhat mitigated in trivial cases by allowing the user
to
define styles with semantically meaningful names and apply them to
multiple elements. But this approach breaks down very quickly when
you
move beyond simple character and paragraph styles. And the user can't
ever take advantage of CSS's ability to target elements via
relationships with this approach." - ZnU
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a7f5cac26889b002?dmode=source
My prediction: You WILL run.
Even Kenneth Berger has stated of DW in the past:
"As far as semantic CSS and clean XHTML: well, semantics are about
meaning, so Dreamweaver can't guess them for you--they come from the
person creating the page."
Do you think this has changed, Snit? Has DW developed the ability to
"guess them for you"?
ZnU
Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's impossible to prove a negative. What I can do (and have done) is
point to reasons why Dreamweaver is not really a suitable tool for
serious web development.
> And have even shown you are unaware of the modern capabilities of
> Dreamweaver.
If you're reading form COLA you won't have actually seen most of my
comments on this subject, since this subject was confined to CSMA until
Edwin decided to start a second crossposted thread.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-574103.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/20/10 10:17 PM:
>
> ...
> >> You introduced it. Pro is short for professional.
> >>
> >> YOU said
> >>
> >> ,----
> >> | in 2010? These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved
> >> | death in professional markets years ago with the rise of
> >> `----
> >>
> >> Indicating it was not a professional tool.
> >
> > There is a distinction here. Snit is trying to turn the debate from one
> > about professional practices into one about where certain tools are
> > positioned in the web content creation tool market, so that he can claim
> > Dreamweaver must be a "pro tool" because it is ostensibly sold as one.
>
> It is not just sold as one. It is also used an important part of training
> programs for pro developers.
Formal education in fast-moving technical fields tends to be years out
of date.
[snip]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-045B19.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/20/10 10:14 PM:
[snip]
> > Meanwhile, it is trivially obvious to anyone who understands how modern
> > web sites are constructed that Dreamweaver is essentially useless to
> > that process.
>
> This is not support... it is just you making a claim.
An issue like whether Dreamweaver is suitable for creating certain types
of web sites is not the sort of thing that has an indisputable objective
answer, and as far as I am aware there are no large scale surveys that
would tell us what tools are used to develop what kinds of sites. What
we have here is you claiming Dreamweaver is suitable for creating
certain types of sites, and a couple of professional web developers
telling you that no, it really isn't.
To the best of my knowledge you have not ever created a modern dynamic
web site, so I'm not sure why'd you'd feel qualified to argue this issue
with people who have.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
It's a complete non sequitur. The topics books cover tell you little
about the actual behaviors products encourage or enable. The design of
the C programming language effectively encourages writing code with
buffer overflows (you have to do extra work to avoid them, and there's a
performance penalty). Yet any book you read on C will repeatedly hit you
over the head with the need to avoid buffer overflows.
Similarly, it is quite possible that the Dreamweaver interface
effectively encourages writing non-semantic code even as DW training
materials warn against it.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Which it wasn't.
> moved to DW not being a CMS, which it was never claimed to be.
Yes, but you don't seem to understand that to a fairly close first
approximation, basically all professionally created web sites beyond the
level of trivial brochure sites (and even most of those) are now built
either as custom web apps or on top of existing content management
systems or blogging engines. Clients generally now consider the ability
to easily update their own content to be a non-negotiable core
requirement.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
So it was a concept you were unaware of ..... Ok fair enough!
> Really. You clearly are just
> lost. You think schools teach students do not need, which would drive
> students away,
Any time you feel able to make sense Snit ... Be my guest!
> to make more money. Huh? How would losing business make the
> get more money?
Get some sleep Snit you're rambling!
> And why would development companies look for employees for
> programs they do not use? And why advertise that they use a product they do
> not use
Who said they wouldn't use it?
>- such a lie would simply lose them business.
No lie ... Had you had any experience of good teaching practices you would
realize the merit in showing the mistakes within an industry as well as the
good practices, that may well be the reason for Dreamweaver?
> And you think products are marketed to pros just to sell them
WTF are you on Snit?
> - not because that is the market they are made for.
Are you really as ignorant as you are showing yourself to be Snit?
If a company markets a toothpaste with the slogan .. "The toothpaste that
Dentists use" are you really suggesting that the intention is to persuade
other Dentists to buy it also? ROTFLMAO!
It couldn't possibly be to persuade the masses that if it's good enough for
a Dentist then it *must* be good?
>
> You are completely lost, Wally... and completely ignorant.
Yer right? LOL
> Just to remind
> you: it is clear you are just trolling. As is Tim Adams.
Keep telling yourself that Snit! :)
> And, surely,
> Steve Carroll will jump in soon. The three of you love to co-troll, each of
> you is cowardly without the support of the other.
Hence the reason that you state that Steve will jump in *soon*?
And yes I know that comment will be far too subtle for you Snit!
Wally
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I should have added ...
Clearly indicates otherwise!(to those that have bothered to read more than a
handful of posts?)
Sandman
Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> writes:
>
> > In article <4d0657-...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually not. It was quite apparent that your view of Dreamweaver was
> >> outdated and your claim that its only used in the "bottom of the market"
> >> is plain out and out wrong. I am no fan of things such as Dreamweaver
> >> myself but that doesnt mean its not a "pro tool" and does not mean its
> >> not used in the great majority of professional web development
> >> companies.
> >
> > It is not used in the great majority of professional web development
> > companies.
>
> It is ones I have crossed swords with. Note that I did NOT say it is used
> exclusively.
Regardless, it is not used in the great majority of professional web
development companies. It is not even used in minority for
*professional* web *development* companies.
It is used by beginners and companies that don't do web *development*,
but rather does some low-end web page composition for cheap web sites.
And yes, I work in this business as a web developer.
--
Sandman[.net]