How useful is Dreamweaver for web design?

[Carwash]

WYSIWYG editor tend to produce really ugly code which isn't valid

While it's true that WYSIWYG editors have improved in this regard, they sadly still tend to produce code that's hairier than a yak's armpit, in my experience. There's still no substitute for doing it by hand. The dark side is quicker, easier, more seductive. Much of the Dreamweaver-generated code I've seen is full of semantically-null divs nested deeper than a pair of newlywed cave vultures. Blech.

Give Dreamweaver a go, and see if you like it… but I suspect you'll quickly outgrow it. My advice is to find a good editor that you like – emacs, vi, it doesn't matter – and learn to use it.

(Yes, I'm feeling metaphorical this morning. Also, yak's don't have armpits and there are no such things as cave vultures.)

 

[marzjennings]

It's one thing if the OP has an interesting in learning to code a web site which is a great challenge in itself. But if their main objective is to set up a personal site, then learning and maintaining code is a complete waste of time. Much simpler to pay for a hosted solution which will allow more time to concentrate on content.

 

[beanzontoast]

It's one thing if the OP has an interesting in learning to code a web site which is a great challenge in itself. But if their main objective is to set up a personal site, then learning and maintaining code is a complete waste of time. Much simpler to pay for a hosted solution which will allow more time to concentrate on content.

I agree. As someone who started with Dreamweaver and progressed over several years to coding by hand, if you just want to have a website rather than become a web guru, learning coding is unnecessary - and you will probably never reach a point where you know enough to be able to do everything you want your website to do as web technologies and as the rules of coding keep changing. A good web design firm worth its name should be up-to-date with all the latest developments (and no - I don't work for a web design firm, so no vested interest).

 

[Black Sheep]

Being able to write HTML and CSS is more useful in my opinion.

I use dreamweaver to be able to type the code and see what happens to then upload it. this is because my copy doesn't produce validated html anymore as the standards have changed since CS2

www.w3schools.com should be your first port of call in learning web design.

 

[Black Sheep]

Definitely not true of Dreamweaver. It's fully standards-compliant.

only until the standards change!

 

[CopperBrompton]

only until the standards change!

Which they do very slowly. It's only now that we're getting HTML5 - about four or five years after video on websites became commonplace!

 

[beanzontoast]

Which they do very slowly. It's only now that we're getting HTML5 - about four or five years after video on websites became commonplace!

I think things change more often than with a new version of HTML. Every time a new browser version arrives for instance - and there's a lot of browsers out there - I check to see what things look like in it. Unless you are involved in coding on a daily basis, keeping up with what's possible, what's deprecated, dealing with browser bugs and knowing which browser (and version of that browser) supports what technology or feature, knowing how to use PHP, javascript etc is just not practical. I've never found a software solution to this. Software to me is a tool - but it's ongoing research, reading and studying that gives you the knowledge to use that tool to shape things to your liking.

HTML5 is still very much 'the future' rather than 'the present' IMO. We stlll have to design for the browsers that people actually use - not always the latest version - and that limits what can be done.

This is why I suggested that for the person who just wants to 'have' a website, learning coding is not the way forward I would recommend, and an 'off-the-shelf' solution may be better.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I think things change more often than with a new version of HTML.

New browsers and browser versions do, but with the exception of Internet Explorer, they tend to be standards-compliant these days.

HTML5 is still very much 'the future' rather than 'the present' IMO. We stlll have to design for the browsers that people actually use - not always the latest version - and that limits what can be done.

The spanner in the works here is iPhones and iPads.

For a photography website, slideshows are not optional, they are absolutely expected by clients. Until recently, you could use Flash, which the vast majority of people had installed (there are always a few grumpy geeks who refuse to install it, of course). But the popularity of the iPhone and iPad, and the amount of mobile browsing that is now done, means I will reach more people with an HTML5 slideshow (which all recent browsers render, as well as the latest ones) than with Flash, hence me being in the process of switching from one to the other.

This is why I suggested that for the person who just wants to 'have' a website, learning coding is not the way forward I would recommend, and an 'off-the-shelf' solution may be better.

I agree entirely, though I'd suggest a basic level of familiarity with HTML is handy also.