Learning curve: Macromedia vs. Adobe

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
If I was to get into web based programs, which suite would be easier to pick up?



I have no programming background so I'm looking for something easy to learn.



For instance, is the Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Flash combo easier than say the Photoshop, GoLive and LiveMotion package?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    i'd say they're about the same. the adobe suite might be a little bit easier, but not so much so that it makes to much difference. it all depends in your background. i started off pretty much as an adobe user with the exception of flash ( livemotion wasn't even a twinkle in they're eye yet). for me at least, as i got more knowledge in development, macromedia's tools had more flexibility and just made more sense. add to that the majority of firms seek people with macromedia experience didn't hurt to pursuade me either. but hey, both companies have 30 day demos, try them out. you might also look into freeway (beat you macanoid?) as well. i didn't care for it all that well, but it may suite you and your work style.



    [ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by satchmo:

    <strong>If I was to get into web based programs, which suite would be easier to pick up?



    I have no programming background so I'm looking for something easy to learn.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I personally thought Dreamweaver was way more intuitive and easier to pick up than GoLive - but that was years ago and I have no clue if that is true anymore.



    But I would mention that as a guy who started doing web design with Adobe (photoshop and simpletext) and has since moved to MM products I would say Fireworks alone swings my vote way to the side of MM. I found that web design + vectors is a huge win over web design + bitmaps. I use photoshop for real image manipulation still of course (but am going to try out GIMP when I get some free time - I don't want to pay for an upgrade of photoshop just to go X native).



    I think another plus with MM is if you want to develop .swf why not go with the people who hold control of .swf? I would imagine their tool would take advantage of the newest additions to the format first (but that isn't based on anything - are they required to put out .swf specs before a new version for some reason?)



    I haven't used the newest version of Photoshop but really Fireworks was built with web design in mind, and photoshop has had it bolted onto the side.



    As far as learning curve, I would imagine they would both be pretty similar.



    I guess you could say I like MM products.



    [ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 17
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    Really, learn HTML, it isn't hard.. it isn't really a 'programming language' either, more of a script; the logic in programming is not there (though a lot of us wish it was...). Anyways, neither dreamweaver nor Golive does CSS properly, what's up with that? (Golive being worse I think).



    Back in the day I thought Golive was a lot easier to use than dreamweaver (actually back in the day I prefered Pagemill, less clutter than Golive).



    But, I'm not a serious web designer, so take me with a grain of salt



    Oh and Flash can suck it.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    i had the trial of dreamweaver and now i just downloaded the trial of freeway and in a couple of days i've gotten more out of freeway than i ever did dreamweaver. but i'm a complete novice, so if you're coming from that direction......
  • Reply 5 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by chych:

    <strong>Really, learn HTML, it isn't hard...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That is the best advice by far. At some point you are going to have issues with rendering no matter what WYSIWYG you use. If you don't know HTML you won't have any clue as to how to fix things.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Pie Man:

    <strong>



    That is the best advice by far. At some point you are going to have issues with rendering no matter what WYSIWYG you use. If you don't know HTML you won't have any clue as to how to fix things.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Thanks for all the responses. I think I'll take a stab at MM suite first. I've toyed with Adobe GoLive 4 before and didn't find it that precise.

    As far as HTML, yes I don't think it's that difficult to learn. But I'd rather focus on the design and interface. I think that WYSISYG programs are at a point where HTML are insignificant for most simple to intermediate projects. I liken them to the early days of Illustrator and page description type programs. It was all in Postscript. Today, it's become transparent.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    You have to learn html if you want well programmed web pages, and you do need to understand the issue of seperating logic from formatting, which is the central issue of web programming, if you want pages that function well across platforms and browsers. Dreamweaver does have a lot of features that go beyond it's use as a code generator. I recommend these apps, among the ones you listed:



    Photoshop

    Dreamweaver

    Flash
  • Reply 8 of 17
    HTML isn't necessarily even like a script, it is, in short, a markup language. Basically, you're just using modifiers in brackets to 'markup' your content. Really, that is HTML at the simplest level. If you want to put something in bold, you "mark it up". Same with if you want to put it in a table.



    I cannot recommend actually learning HTML enough. You'll also have a much better idea as to why your sites will look the way they do... or maybe why something is happening on one and you don't know why even though you though you clicked that damn button in Dreamweaver that was supposed to not make it do that.



    Actually knowing HTML is like doing surgery on someone and knowing how the human body works. Not knowing HTML and using an editor is like doing surgery on someone and having a pretty general idea as to where the things are in the human body that you want to get to. You'll be more confident if you know it.



    Anyhow, with that said... I don't use Dreamweaver, Fireworks, GoLive, LiveMotion, etc. I pretty much just use BBEdit, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Flash MX for web stuff. (Though please, don't build something in Flash for the sake of building it in flash. Most things can be done, and done better, in HTML) But I have my own workflow for creating Internet content, probably different from most anyhow. I guess I'd probably push you towards the Macromedia suite of things... but really, I like my suite of tools better
  • Reply 9 of 17
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    I'm all for actually learning HTML, but when you're dealing with complex tables and trying to get the widths looking right, sometimes it's easier just to use a WYSIWYG editor and then tweak it just right. DW is my WYSIWYG of choice, with a heaping portion of BBEdit for the coding. I don't like GoLive because it's got its own way of doing things which seem obscure (like .site files - what are those?). I prefer DW because it's way more transparent. Plus Fireworks is a great little vector program specifically for the web.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    Tables?
  • Reply 11 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by cowerd:

    <strong>Tables?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    no thanks, i already got one. mine is glass and metal. been a real bitch finding chairs to go with it though.



  • Reply 12 of 17
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by cowerd:

    <strong>Tables?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, tables. Not ideal, I know, but I'm trying to make sure I'm as backwards compatible as possible. :/ My website is not terribly exciting. (research stuff)
  • Reply 13 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by torifile:

    <strong>



    Yes, tables. Not ideal, I know, but I'm trying to make sure I'm as backwards compatible as possible. :/ My website is not terribly exciting. (research stuff)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    to true. tables still display way more consistently than using css layers from browser to browser. i'm too lazy to have to do multiple layouts of the same page to placate different browser and platforms.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    Meh, BBEdit.



    I code dirty tables by hand. No problem. It's much easier than a lot of other things. To tell you the truth, I bet I can crank out some pretty ridiculous tables by hand as fast as you can do it in WYSIWYG. And best of all, BBEdit Lite is freeware.
  • Reply 15 of 17
    I agree with Splinemodel, I'm fairly confident I could build a set of complex tables in BBEdit quicker than anyone could in a WYSIWYG editor. My friend Jon Schalliol conceded and said I could too, but attributed it to the fact that I'm better than him, and that I would do it even faster in a WYSIWYG.



    Which I completely doubt. When I open up Dreamweaver, I don't even know how to begin. When I open up BBEdit, I know exactly what I want to do. I see the design through the HTML.



    Besides, all WYSIWYG editors still write a handful of non-standard code that you have to go in and clean up anyway. I can see how people would find complex table construction difficult... but if you indent your code properly, there is no reason why it should be hard to understand.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by M3D Jack:

    <strong>I agree with Splinemodel, I'm fairly confident I could build a set of complex tables in BBEdit quicker than anyone could in a WYSIWYG editor. My friend Jon Schalliol conceded and said I could too, but attributed it to the fact that I'm better than him, and that I would do it even faster in a WYSIWYG.



    Which I completely doubt. When I open up Dreamweaver, I don't even know how to begin. When I open up BBEdit, I know exactly what I want to do. I see the design through the HTML.



    Besides, all WYSIWYG editors still write a handful of non-standard code that you have to go in and clean up anyway. I can see how people would find complex table construction difficult... but if you indent your code properly, there is no reason why it should be hard to understand.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    my guess is that you can also type. me, i'm all hunt and peck. it would take me forever and a day to markup any kind of resonably complex table via a text editor. you may be faster, but not by much. any small advanatge you might gain by table creation would be lost somewhere else along the process. as far as non standard code, i'm not sure what your refering to. golive can do some goofy things with javascript and css if you don't know what your doing and it tends to be fairly verbose, but i haven't had to rewrite anything in dreamweaver in a long time. do they write the leanest code possible? no, but then again i don't think it matters all that much to me.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    i understand the desire to get the most out of your time investment by learning just one interface and applying your familiarity of it to accelerate your adoption of several programs in a suite of applications.



    however, the 3 programs that you should definitely have a relationship with if you are going to be doing web stuff and flash animation are :

    Photoshop

    Dreamweaver

    Flash



    as was stated here earlier.



    the idea of you hand coding complex stuff by hand as a starting point is not a practical place to start if you are a visually oriented creator.



    in Dreamweaver you have the ability to design in a WYSIWYG window while seeing what the code is that's being written in an attached window. it's a good way to get started learning what goes where code-wise while actually knocking out some visually useable pages.



    do yourself a favor if you are able to and use the MX version of Dreamweaver and Flash they are superior to their predecessors and easier to learn.



    use at least Photoshop 5.5.
Sign In or Register to comment.