This way, they can have the best of both worlds.

The article that you linked makes mention of “If they can use Microsoft Word, they could use this CMS.” The problem is what do you do when faced with a client that is unable to handle using a CMS system and is going to continue to come to you to update their site. Granted I can see that argument that then it will make your job easier because you are using the CMS for updating yourself and would prefer that way, but what happens when something goes wrong. You are installing a security patch, upgrading it to the newer version of the CMS or a database gets corrupted and the site crashes. Now who do you charge the time it is going to take you to straighten it out. Do you charge the client who really didn’t need the CMS in the first place because a static HTML site would have worked? Do you eat the cost because you felt it would be easier on you for updating it? For me I would end up eating the cost because I wouldn’t be able to bring myself to charge the client knowing that I didn’t need to use it.

I know that I keep going back to just because it is there to use doesn’t mean that it is always the best option for every scenario, but it is true. If a client ask me for one or I think that that is the best option for them then I would use one. But if the client is not interested in updating their own content, isn’t planning on regularly updating their site, or just wants a static site then why not just build them a static site using Dreamweaver. I have much the same feeling of Flash sites. I feel that they have certain niches that they fit in, but for the most part I would never recommend one. If someone asks me for one and they are bound and determined that they want one though, then I’ll build them one.

Thank you for the heads up on the Concrete5 project. I had not heard about that one yet. I am planning on checking it out though.

Until they realize a) what a dynamic website can do for their business or b) their competition realizes before they do, and they have to scramble to regain their footing. Look around, it’s happening very quickly as we speak. When the wheel came out, I’m sure there were a few skeptics then too.

The problem many Dreamweaver users face is that they have a disease They’re too used to the way they do things to see around the bend. Here’s another good article on the subject by another converted Dreamweaver user: http://www.cmsexpo.net/newsroom/87-updates/436-buh-bye-dreamweaver.html

Concrete5 (www.concrete5.org) – a new open source CMS, is worth keeping an eye on. It’s very focused on ease of use. Just like I prodded at in my comment above, it offers inline ajax content editing. Not just articles, but blocks/modules as well. It’s still new and there aren’t many add-ons yet (and the few good ones are commercial – one license per site), but it seems like the right evolutionary direction.

I’m a big believer in empowering and making things easier. IMO, Dreamweaver is not doing that and when compared to some of the newer alternatives… it’s really missing the boat. I believe that’s what Tom is trying to say.

Give these alternatives a try before forming such strong opinions people. You’ll have to spend more than a few hours to learn a CMS, but once you do learn… that’s when things get much easier.

Estatic page demand will remain or even increase. Web 2.0 and 3.0 will just create additional oportunities in the web. A complete master designer should had worked on all of them if possible.

My understanding of using a CMS is that the majority of them have to be tied to a database of some sort for it to work, which for some people that would just be another thing to have to keep up with. For the few sites I have done for people, they had no use for anything more than static HTML pages to just inform people about their business and how to contact them. They had no interest in anything more complicated, nor did they want to budget in having to have someone constantly install update patches to the CMS or deal with an error in a database that would give a dreaded “Can not connect to database” page. They don’t wish to deal with getting feedback from customers on their website through comments or postings, but instead are happy to see their customers walk through the front door of their physical business or to drop them a quick email. Personally I see myself creating static HTML pages for many years to come yet if I stay living in the area that I live now. And for me Dreamweaver will continue to be the tool that I use to create them for the most part.

It is great that the web is moving forward with Web 2.0 and even 3.0, but you have to remember that you are going to have many people that just want to stay in the 1.0 web world. Eventually they may wish to move forward, but for most part the extras that make up interactivity of Web 2.0 is just unneeded to them.

You are an idiot and a waste of skin. You are a terrorist to the internet world. Have a nice day.

I agree that DreamWeaver is an aging app and lot of its current features really should go the way of the dodo. However, there’s no denying that it shines as a WYSIWYG editor and CSS handling and reviewing is fabulous in the CS4 version. What other app comes even close? (Golive being gone)

And there are other points as well. Read on.

I make part of my income training people to understand, design and ultimately develop their web sites. From that experience I conclude that a huge number of people (who call themselves professional, BTW) struggle with the first part. Without that there really cannot be the second and the third.
Here’s where DreamWeaver CS4 is great (as stated before in this thread). Build a simple site from the templates provided, adding some AJAX and using DreamWeaver’s very nice template structure, and one will very soon understand what web site design and development is about.
After this you can begin planning & specing your site and choose the right CMS for it, etc.

I also believe that DreamWeaver needs to incorporate the three major CMSs somehow. Adobe, in my opinion, should not try to develop a CMS of its own. DreamWeaver should be a designer/developer front end to a CMS. That is the dream I’ve woven for myself, anyway. : )

Stephanie, love the book BTW. Hope to see you soon in Finland.

-Tommi

I agree about the in browser experience. Once you’ve tried the web dev toolbar or Firebug, you’ll see why this is true…and how it’s actually more designer friendly than Dreamweaver ever was Yes, it can evolve. I see things like some CSS aids for beginners and image handling. Already, you have inline content editing with Joomla and Drupal. If this were ajaxified (no wait everytime you click the edit button), it would be another great step. So you’re right. How will DW even fit into this unless they become like a CMS?

And yes cms can do similar stuff but in a scalable way – combine Drupal, CCK, Views and some of the Views output modules and you can pull out any content and present it via tabs, carousels, accordions etc .

Regarding Stephanie’s point about the give-it-away-for-free cms philosophy. The point is that everyone gains so much from the pool that they want to chip in and help others – it’s not compulsory.

And while you are piggybacking off all this work, and so can take your own much further, I can assure you that choosing the themes and modules that you need and creating the site framework, tagging etc to pull it all together is very much a full-time professional job for which you will charge (more because you are providing your clients with so much more).

I’m not talking about a one-size-fits-all at all – every site is different and needs to be individually designed. I’m arguing that that design is better done in a cms rather than in Dreamweaver.

You obviously don’t understand what this is even about. There is something called progressive enhancement, in which no user agent is left behind, that allows you to provide “cool” Ajax interfaces/effects, while still providing complete access to content for others (and that content can be beautifully designed as well). Dreamweaver and the Spry Framework are the ONLY tools currently available to address this in a visual, “not-to-geeky” way – while still providing the underlying code for any intermediate/advanced user that wants it.

No other framework does it this easy – and NO CMS (to my knowledge) can handle this – and very definitely NOT in a visual manner.

Finally, while we all agree that dynamically driven sites are definitely interesting, the beauty of the web is that it’s not a “one-size-fits-all” world.