Fast Company on Adobe Muse

DESIGN GURU Jeffrey Zeldman, says while he likes Muse for its ease of creating layouts, it still doesn’t answer his plea for a better Internet. ‘Software can’t generate HTML that is search-engine friendly, accessibility-friendly, and portable between desktop and mobile,’ he says. ‘Only web design professionals who understand semantic markup, responsive and adaptive web layout, and mobile user interface can do that.’”

Adobes Muse Lets Designers Make Websites Without Knowing Code | Co. Design.

6 thoughts on “Fast Company on Adobe Muse

  1. Adobe (Muse) could quite possibly trigger a regression to the bad old days of web design with this one product. Apparently the market for a real web design app is to $mall. #NOTaMused

    Bracing for the influx of new clients looking for a correctly coded rework because their site was “designed” with Muse and now they feel ripped off and jaded for no ROI or worse, long term brand/rep damage.

  2. I took a look at the Muse beta, and concluded that this “tool” was good for creating mock-ups of a site’s “look”, but nothing more. I am leery of anything that “writes the code for you” without offering the opportunity to fix the bad code that the application generates.

    Also, as pointed out in the article, there’s no way to generate anything other than HTML, which disqualifies it for all the sites out there (90% of them?) that use PHP or other dynamic page generation.

    This reminds me of the early days of Pagemaker: Just like Pagemaker created a glut of poorly designed documents, Muse is gonna give us loads of badly designed web sites built by people who don’t know s**t about web design or programming, but who are suckered into using a tool that helps them build a “professional looking” site.

    It’s like giving power tools to someone who knows nothing about construction and telling them they can build a house.

  3. I’m sure this could hurt web devs, but in general I believe any time a machine or software is created to do a human job, we see professionals step up their game and make some really incredible work out of necessity to compete. So perhaps we should be excited by what we’ll see devs do.

    I have a feeling that the work this will cost us is probably the kind led by people with delusional budgets and a general lack of appreciation for an expertly crafted website. So fear not.

  4. Muse says a lot about Dreamweaver.

    It will be perfect for the small design centric lightly used sites, but the proof’s in the pudding. If the code is unbelievably excellent, that’s only half the battle. Web Design is all about UX and AI, about integrating that into the structure let alone the feel of the coded site. Will a program that Adobe creates do all that? Of course not. By the time a designer learns all that, they might as well be coding.

    Will it have a market share because some the existing designers are too old to have learned how to code for the web, of course.

    I can even see it flourishing if HTML/CSS/Javascript continue to become more complicated, and when it does, that will help secure Muse’s future. Think CSS5 with variables, functions, etc. Having a nice front end might sound appealing to a visual problem solver.

    There is a large divide between programers and designers that persists, despite some crossover, as coding and designing are two very different activities.

    I actually applaud Adobe for trying to do what it does best, and I wish them success!

  5. This has been Adobe’s Modus Operandi for almost a decade. Provide short cuts to code writing for designers who need assistance or efficiency. Eventually, since the code is usually ridiculously shoddy, they pick up a book like Zeldman or Myers or Neilson and realize they need to learn to write it themselves to get the job done right. In the end, it’s just an embarrassing phase most of us have all gone through at some point.

Comments are closed.