Expression vs Dreramweaver (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Expression Web Help



Message

Mango Himself -> Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/24/2006 18:52:37)

OK masters

by now, some of you have had the chance to compare. How does it look when compared to Dreamweaver? I still like to handcode but now and then I use DW and FP. Does it hold its own or not?

I am only asking this since I am starting to get my feet wet with Expression. Also, for those of you who use FP and DW, is the learning curve in Expression similar to DW or FP?

thanks



mar0364 -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/24/2006 19:23:07)

My 2 cents.

More like DW. MS says that 3rd parties are going to be able to build extesnision (DW type). If extensions are built it could compete with DW in the webmaster world. If the extensions don't come it's going to be a very good html editor. If you have the most current dot net platform EW really rocks. If not don't go far from DW.



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/25/2006 4:20:01)

One huge point, Expression has no support for PHP. [:@]



Tailslide -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/25/2006 6:58:51)

Out of interest, because I don't really "get" how these WYSIWYG editors work - when you say that Expression has no support for PHP, what does that mean? Does it mean that you can't go into "code view" and paste in a PHP script yourself for instance or is it that it doesn't have something like autocomplete for PHP?



jaybee -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/25/2006 8:06:49)

Yes you can paste PHP code in code view but that's where it stops.

Some editors will highlight the php code with different colours the same way FP does with HTML. Some have php autocomplete. Dreamweaver puts little icons in the page in preview mode so you can see where the php is.

None of them will show the php results unless you have php running on your machine which means a server set-up.



mar0364 -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/25/2006 8:41:44)

That where I think extensions should come in.



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/25/2006 11:35:14)

DW supports ASP.net right out of the box, without extensions. The supporting of both ASP and PHP should be a standard.



mar0364 -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/25/2006 11:43:33)

In a world where MS gave a darn what anyone else thought that would be true. We live in a world where they don't.

Such is life my friend.



WantToLearn -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/25/2006 15:39:52)

Interesting article on the subject:

"Microsoft's Expression Web Designer vs. Adobe's Dreamweaver: Let the rumble begin."
http://www.digitalmediadesigner.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43025-1

quote:


In the War of the Web Designer tools, Microsoft has two battles to fight. The first is to prove that their new product is as good as, or better than, Dreamweaver. The second larger battle is winning mind share. Rightly or wrongly, Microsoft has not gained great support from the professional designer community for products such as FrontPage. I mean, let's face it, as a professional designer, if you saw someone trying to sell themselves as a Web Designer but they used FrontPage to do all of their work, you were likely to snicker to yourself and pass off the "would be" designer. Close, mate, but no cigar.

Microsoft has to prove that Expression Web Designer is a better product that Dreamweaver not by inches but by leaps and bounds.

There is no mistake that Adobe and Microsoft are setting the battle field and will square off against each other. In this new war of Web designer tools, Microsoft is looking a lot like David and Adobe is looking like a limber and strong Goliath.

Let the rumble begin.




BobbyDouglas -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (9/25/2006 20:18:29)

Great article!

I think this is going to be the biggest selling point for professionals who work with ASP.NET:
quote:

Expression Web Designer does tightly integrate with development tools such as Visual Studio Web Developer Express and Visual Studio 2005. The following example shows an ASP.NET control is an Expression Web Design page.

The following screen shows Visual Studio 2005 Web Developer Express rendering the same screen with the same control. The two programs happily jump back and forth. The design is controlled by Expression Web Designer and the application development is controlled by Visual Studio.



Mango Himself -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/4/2006 20:01:08)

Guys,

thanks to everyone for the support and opinions. Highly valuable material!

My own opinion after toying with EW is that I want to wait until its official relase.

I do believe developers may want to develop extensions. I, however agree with Bobby on the ASP support DW offers.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

One issue I am not in agreeance is the following quote:

quote:

if you saw someone trying to sell themselves as a Web Designer but they used FrontPage to do all of their work, you were likely to snicker to yourself and pass off the "would be" designer


That opinion shows the absolute ignorance of the critic! At some levels, even if you drop names like DW, they'll laugh at you! The really informed customer wants someone who knows his/her code well. Forhet about DW, FP, EW, it's the code. stupid!

Yet, you can know all the code in the world, have all the WYSIWYG software and still dish out crap.

If you know what you're doing, FP can be a valuable tool. The erroneus perception is because it contains templates, buttons and a lot of stuff (including bloated code, but that's another thread) that makes your everyday secretary (no offense to secretaries) think she can create the company website.

I'll repeat myself, great sites can be created with FP or DW or Notepad if you know what you're doing.



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/5/2006 0:37:32)

Mango, you raise a great point. I think that is the main reason why MS isn't releasing another FP, but instead a totally different program/name.

If the new development tool that MS is making was actually named FP instead of EWD then many people wouldn't even bother looking at it. Developers must understand that not everyone wants to pay for perfectly clean coded/validating site. FP has many things that make producing an entire website take VERY little time over DW. In lots of situations, developers can actually make an entire website in less time using FP over DW. I know from experience because I have used (and still use) both. I've also done websites that take less time in DW than in FP, however these were all php based and worked with lots of scripts.

FrontPage themes + web components make FP much quicker for a lot of websites. When you try to factor in some PHP/MySQL, FP sucks. It seems like so many developers hate the fact that less skilled people can make a perfectly functional website in FP (with contact forms, discussion area, counters, etc..). Developers hint at FP being a newb tool, and used to say it produced horrible code (FP 03 corrected most of the bad code though).

The main reasons why I liked FP seem to be ones that are being left out of EWD.



Mango Himself -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/5/2006 20:47:02)

quote:

It seems like so many developers hate the fact that less skilled people can make a perfectly functional website in FP (with contact forms, discussion area, counters, etc..


I agree with you. In all honesty, I believe intelligent humans want to evolve. What I mean is this: there will always be people creating sites with Yahoo Sitebuilder, etc. Many of us have tried different software. What do the really dedicated developers have in common? We are always trying to make it better, regardless of the software. I doubt there are many developers who have outgrown DW or, for that matter FP. It's just like Excel. Everybody can use it but only a few can master it!

So what if a bunch of people are using FP? Unless you are continuously learning new techniques, new software and visiting hundreds of sites daily, you will not evolve. FP users don't worry me! I have seen sites created with FP that are real masterpieces!

quote:


The main reasons why I liked FP seem to be ones that are being left out of EWD.


I agree as well! I love learning new software but if EW will be another DW why bother? I already know DW.

I feel a lot of us are ovelooking an interesting concept: with FP outdated, how many weekend designers will want to learn EW? Not many, I think. Now, will customers tell you "I want the site designed with EW"? I doubt it.

Bottom line, I personally feel EW is aiming mostly at enhancing Gates and Balmer's egos by putting a fight to DW!

just my 2 cents



Tailslide -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/6/2006 2:56:00)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mango Himself
...the really dedicated developers ...


Yeah but Mango that's the problem - for every "really dedicated developer" who can design an accessible, semantic, valid, functional, attractive website in Notepad, FrontPage, DW whatever - there are 200 who produce WYSIWYG dross that barely works cross-browser, is ugly, hard to update and not even approaching accessible - and understand me here, that's not just FP - it's DW and all the others too.

As you may guess I'm not a fan of FP, DW or any WYSIWYG editor - mainly because to get a good result (and that's CSS layout, accessible, valid, semantic, cross-browser as well as attractive) the user has to resort to using it as an extremely expensive text editor which in my book negates the whole purpose of using the package for professionals - i.e. speed. It's not that you can't get a good result using it - I just don't see the advantage of paying out a large sum of money for a glorified text editor.



Seventh -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/6/2006 4:15:26)

quote:

Bottom line, I personally feel EW is aiming mostly at enhancing Gates and Balmer's egos by putting a fight to DW!


Of course. But now that it's a part of Adobe I can only imagine how it will put EW to shame in the future with it's direct-link to Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash without so much as moving a mucsle. But I could be wrong. They could also muck up the whole thing.

As far as what tool is best for designing websites, I'd have to say your brain. Eveything else is sorta like a Photoshop extension. Yes, it can make some actions faster, but what happens when the extension no longer works with the program?



Tailslide -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/6/2006 4:26:49)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seventh

As far as what tool is best for designing websites, I'd have to say your brain.


/goes away to Google "Brain"...



Mango Himself -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/8/2006 12:58:37)

quote:

As you may guess I'm not a fan of FP, DW or any WYSIWYG editor - mainly because to get a good result (and that's CSS layout, accessible, valid, semantic, cross-browser as well as attractive) the user has to resort to using it as an extremely expensive text editor which in my book negates the whole purpose of using the package for professionals - i.e. speed. It's not that you can't get a good result using it - I just don't see the advantage of paying out a large sum of money for a glorified text editor.


This is one of the of the most intelligent opinions I have read on the subject of expensive software for web design! You are right!

It is incredible how many hours I've spent rewriting code on an application that should do it all.

quote:

now that it's a part of Adobe I can only imagine how it will put EW to shame in the future with it's direct-link to Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash without so much as moving a mucsle.They could also muck up the whole thing.


Mango just finished reading a 1,200 page book on Flash. Mango vehemently hopes Adobe doesn't sell out now. Mango doesn't like learning curves turning into steep mountains!



mar0364 -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/9/2006 8:51:34)

I like Flash in its proper place. I'm just not sure its found that place yet. It's one of those things thats full of hope for me but hasn't gotten there yet.



Mango Himself -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (10/9/2006 13:17:30)

You are right

I use Flash a lot for tutorials and backgrounds. Shouldn't be overused as well!




OscarSierra -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/4/2006 16:16:34)

I never ask the car mechanic wich tools he (or she) will use to fix my car, my sole interest is the result and the price. I don't care if there is a Hazet banner (great tools) on the wall in the workshop.....

I suppose a business owner is much more anxious about his bottom line and how his website looks and works, if it will be done with FP, EW or DW is never in his mind!(?)

So in my mind it's all about wich tool fits "that" part of the job best, I don't care who maid it. But, I need more than one tool, because I have different stuff to be done.

- Oystein



rubyaim -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/4/2006 18:36:58)

quote:

I just don't see the advantage of paying out a large sum of money for a glorified text editor.


It probably depends on how the software is used. I think the main reason I plan on hanging onto FP for as long as I can is because of all the things I've done over the years to save time - macros, custom toolbars and code snippets etc save hours.

Business use aside, I would not like to see the end of WYSIWYG editors totally and would like to see personal / hobby sites flourish no matter how ugly or how badly created.

Being able to create a website without learning to code has allowed people to share a lot of info over the years and provide support to others around the world. I think it's wonderful that someone can start researching a rare medical condition (as an example) and find an entire support network ready to help them.

If I am desperate to find info on 'X' I'm usually grateful that someone cared enough to build a site about it - the last thing I'm going to do is pick it apart.

If I am looking at buying 'X', or joining 'X', or working at 'X' the first thing I will do is pick a site apart [;)]



Tailslide -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 2:51:17)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rubyaim
macros, custom toolbars and code snippets etc save hours.



I'm fairly sure you can do all of those things in HTML-kit - plus all the site management stuff (I say pretty sure because I only use about 10% of it's capabilities). And HTML-kit is free!

Hobbyists can use what they like to make their sites doesn't bother me at all. I just don't see the point in a WYSIWYG for a professional - too expensive, too big and clumsy and often not faster at all.

HTML editors come in all shapes and sizes and many include a load of features very similar to a WYSIWYG package minus the WYSIWYG feature itself (which is what causes the problems). So bearing in mind that a professional designer would understand the markup anyway - why bother with the WYSIWYG feature at all. And if you don't bother with it at all, why fork out for the package?

I've considered buying DW long and hard. In the end I couldn't justify it to myself - I can't see myself getting anything more from it to make the cost worthwhile.



jaybee -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 6:49:07)

Horses for courses. I learned using FP and as a beginner tool I always recommended it because of the WYSIWYG which allows someone with no knowledge of web design whatsoever to create a site. However, there is no arguing that the code it produces is clunky to say the least, even MS have acknowledged that otherwise they wouldn't be scrapping FP (and all the other stuff associated with it) and moving to EW.

EW produces better code out of the box but we've seen examples on here already of amateur sites full of nested tables and all the other no-nos. Any WYSIWYG editor, used as such can produce appalling output. It's down to knowing your subject.

For me FP is a rare tool of choice simply because I end up having to correct so much to get decent valid, accessible code. DW I have never invested the time to learn properly and on odd forays into it have spent more time looking for the right button to press than it would have taken to write the code in the first place.

I have an old version of DW and FP2003. Will I be upgrading them? No. HTML KIT, Stylemaster and others are free. They do require you to know your code in order to produce anything but then a Professional Web Designer should know code, it's the basic tool of the trade. Based on a comment above, I wouldn't take my car to be serviced by a guy who tells me he's read the Haynes manual for it and has taken his bike apart and put it back together and so thinks he'll have no problem with my Toyota.

My big problem with FP is that it gives complete amateurs the impression that, having built themselves a site, they can now go out and tout themselves as professionals. We get a lot of people coming on here for help who have set themselves up a developer's web site. They've looked at the real professional's sites and picked up some good buzzwords to use. They claim they can develop e-commerce sites, database driven sites, do SEO the works yet they're on here asking basic questions about how to get their page background to sit right or how to add a forum as there's no button for one in FP.

These people often have no intention of learning their subject. They will flat out tell you they're not interested in learning what you suggest and quite frankly, are taking clients for a ride and giving the rest of us a bad name. You'd be amazed the number of emails I and some of the other mods get from people asking us to log onto their host and install this, fix that, configure the other. But if we have the nerve to quote for the work then "Oh but I didn't think I'd have to pay for it. I thought that people on the forums did it for nothing".

Yeah sure, they are conning their client into thinking they know what they're doing but then expecting the pros to do it for them, for nothing, to get them out of a hole of their own making. Sorry, I had to spend the time learning my stuff so why the heck shouldn't they.

Then they charge a pittance for a bad job and when the client finally realises that what they have is less than professional, they come to us to get the site done properly but don't want to pay the going rate for it.



womble -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 14:32:55)

Well having thought long and hard about to which thread I would donate my 4000th post....it looks like it's gonna be this one! [:D]

I'm with Tail. I simply can't see the point of shelling out for what's gonna end up for me a glorified text editor. I can waste more time tidying up bloated and non-valid, inaccessible code than it takes to hand-code it. That's not to say I do everything by hand. I started out on FP, and at the time it did it's job, but to be honest now there are only two reasons it's still around - one is for my seven year old nephew to play around on, cos though he's a damned clever kid, I think HTML's a bit beyond him, so WYSIWYG FP is it, and the other's to quickly code a table or something. I like the control of doing it myself and knowing the code's right. TopStyle Pro's my editor of choice at the mo, although after all the raving Tail's done about it, I've just had look at HTML-kit's site, and it looks pretty impressive.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with WYSIWYG so long as you know what to do with them to product something that works visually, and works technically in as much as you get reasonable results on all browsers, and doesn't cause accessibility problems etc. I disagree on ugly sites though.

As Jaybee, Tail and others have all said though, if you're doing this professionally you have to know your code, even if you do use FP or whatever as a tool. I wouldn't take my car to the guy that's read the Haynes manual either, or go to a doctor who'd done a St John's first aid course and was Casualty's biggest fan. WYSIWYG editors do have their place, but they're responsible for a lot of people producing a site, and as Jaybee says thinking they're a pro. I've had PMs from people too who want whatever fixing, but then when you say, "Well it'll cost you X", strangely I never hear anything from them again.

One thing I've learnt over the past couple of years or so is just how much you need to know to develop sites that are gonna work well and stand the test of time, and have the knowledge to be able to do what a client wants it to do. I don't know half of what there is to know, and it's gonna a fair while yet before I'm happy with my skilllset, and like any other profession if you want to be taken seriously you have to keep up with the latest developments, trends and technologies. Using FP doesn't mean you can't do that, but FP, EW, DW, whatever - they're all just tools that can make the job slightly easier and quicker. It's what you do with them that matters and all the buttons and extensions and gizmos aren't gonna make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.



Nick -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 15:29:21)

I found this board many years ago because our church wanted to have a web presence and nobody stepped up to the plate so it fell on me. I have zero artistic ability and the thought that I could buy a template that I thought was professional looking was exactly what we needed. I learned how to add the content we wanted and it was/is everything we could want.

Our first template was done by none other than Thomas Brunt himself and even though we have since moved to other templates, the thought of having to build my own site scares me to death. I could never make sites that look like you all do and truthfully don't have an interest in learning how to. A man has to know his limitations.

So my question is can a person get templates for something such as HTMLkit that JB and a few others use? I hope this question makes sense. This is the reason I chose FP in the first place, I had already purchased FP before I had ever heard of DW.

Thanks as always,

Nick



jaybee -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 15:44:47)

No Nick, not as such.

Something like HTMLKit is not really meant for hobbyists although if you want to learn HTML code then there's no reason why you shouldn't use it.

You can buy a template and open the pages up in HTMLKit but unless you understand HTML code and possibly CSS, you probably wouldn't get too far.

You can get the idea by opening your site up in Frontpage and then ignore the design tab, just work with the code tab. That's a non WYSIWYG editor in action.

Some HTML editors have preview screens like FP but many don't as they expect you to preview in the actual browser. Expression Web has followed suit.

quote:

I could never make sites that look like you all do and truthfully don't have an interest in learning how to. A man has to know his limitations.
A couple of comments there.

Yes you could make a site like that, pretty much anyone could, but it's all about wanting to learn how. It's like anything else, if you have a burning interest in it then you'll find out what you need to know.

Limitations, without the wish to learn then we all have limitations, I just wish everyone was as astute as you are. [:D]



Tailslide -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 15:52:55)

There are no templates made specifically for text editors like HTML-kit. However there's nothing stopping you buying a template from one of the many template sites like template monster for instance.

You can edit any site you like with a HTML editor - it's basically a half-way house between Notepad and the tied-in-software-specific WYSIWYGs like FrontPage and Dreamweaver. Some HTML editors do more than others - I have no idea if any of them do that "recalculate links" thing that FrontPage does and you have to do stuff like forms yourself (no big deal frankly). In other words, you control the software not the other way around.

I'm certainly not saying that HTML-kit is the finest HTML editor out there - it's got some features that I absolutely hate and I only use a tiny percentage of it's capabilities - but I do end up going back to it again and again. I've got about 10 editors on my pc at the moment and I swap around between them occasionally to see what I like and don't like - that's the thing with HTML editors - it's not like learning a whole new language - it's just a slightly different interface to do the same thing. You end up sticking with the one you like most (and most are free).

I'm also not personally against people using WYSIWYG for fun sites and personal sites (I don't have the energy for that fight!!) and I don't care if professionals use them either as long as they clean up after themselves. The problems arise when they don't and I find that very irritating.

I'm just too lazy and too cheap to ever bother with buying and learning something like Dreamweaver (sorry, it wouldn't ever be FrontPage or Expressions) - there's way too much other stuff that I need to learn!




Nick -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 15:56:39)

Just as I thought Jaybee, and yes I have been in the code pages of FP enough to be thankful for the WYSIWYG editor. :)

So for folks like myself, we will need to use FP, DW, Expression or the freebie who's name escapes me now. It sounds as if DW is tough to learn, and if that's the case I would rather just learn the actual code itself, but if Expression or the freebie can do everything FP can do without the FPSE's of FP then I would be OK with that.

I understand what you major leaguers are saying, but if one can be happy in the minors and make a decent site for the world I believe we can coexist without to much angst.

Tailslide, I didn't see your post before I posted. I agree with you 100%, there is to much for me to learn (non-computer related) to want to start over learning how to create a website.

Nick



Tailslide -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 15:59:21)

The freebie's probably Nvu which is meant to produce fairly reasonable code.



mar0364 -> RE: Expression vs Dreramweaver (12/5/2006 16:08:23)

When all is said and done it comes down to what works for you. I agree Jay and Tail on the benefits of knowing the code behind. I started webdesign using HomeSite, which was shareware way back when. Now if push comes to shove I end up opening code in notepad.
Devils Advocate:
When you consider project constraints you should take into account the rapid data/xml/rss integration that both DW and EW offer. That kind of integration can pay for itself in hours of frustration.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.399414E-02