Adobe and HTML

http://html.adobe.com/?hn

by Brajeshwar • 14 years ago

44 37 14 years ago

html.adobe.com

andrewfelix• 14 years ago

I can vouch for Edge as an animation tool. We've already started creating commercial work using it.

But I wouldn't touch Reflow if Adobe Muse is anything to go by. Muse produced horribly verbose and unreadable code.

dheavy6• 14 years ago

To be fair with Muse, I've tried the first public beta some time ago and I admit the produced code was a sad laughable mess. I had to opportunity to reopen my try-out site on the latest public release, did an export, and took time to compare: it's much, much better. Seeing how fast their release iteration is, and the short time between the two tests I did, I turned from mocking skeptic to actual...hmmm... believer(?).

That is of course, considering the main target for the product is not me or my peers but rather non-coders... I'm always better off on my own with my big hairy hands on the keyboard typing my code.

est• 14 years ago

I'd hope there's open source effort based on bootstrap, with actual human maintainable css/js code generator.

nshankar• 14 years ago

it is already a complete tool to create websites. what else do we want?

dheavy6• 14 years ago

If I understood correctly what est meant... For non coders, maybe an actual WYSIWYG? Or even for coders, as a rapid-prototyping tool?

davidjgraph2• 14 years ago

http://thegraphicalweb.com/meet-svg

For those that don't remember, Adobe produced an SVG plugin for IE, which they pulled in 2006. Having SVG on all browsers reduced their competitive advantage they had with Flash having a higher penetration then SVG.

Adobe was doing their best to kill off open standards in favour of their proprietary ones 6-7 years ago, a plan that failed due to the poor quality of Flex, IE 9's support for SVG and iOS' dislike of the technology.

It's always amusing to see such folks eat some humble pie, particularly when the technology they were trying to peddle was such a poor piece of engineering.

The new adverts about IE 10 trolls are really an attempt to divert from the real reason people have beef with MS and Adobe. They tried to kill open standards, failed, now want to join the cool gang like nothing happened.

But don't limit our penetrating stare to just those that have historically done this. Keep an eye on where Google are going with the various Chrome extensions.

So, Adobe and HTML, fine, but they only joined us because they couldn't beat us.

ivanb2• 14 years ago

What is that poor quality of Flex you are talking about? How can you even compare Flash and SVG? How was Adobe trying to kill off open standards?

andy_boot2• 14 years ago

I agree, I thought Flex was a powerful and useful tool.

hubb• 14 years ago

Having spent a year writing AS3 code for Flex, the compiler and the runtime continually struck me as generally ambiguous, and at times contradictory. Most of these were either amusing, or mildly irritating, as an indicator of poor quality and attention to detail, but some were more severe.

Personally, it's an environment that I was very glad to leave behind.

dheavy6• 14 years ago

And for instance, you could say that "iOS's dislike of the technology" was nothing more than a strategic move from Apple and Jobs to win a battle of content over the channel, where the money lies, but you chose or forget to acknowledge this in your discourse; I just don't see how it is any different from MS or Adobe or any other corporation trying to do what they are supposed to do: making profit.

Also, ouch on the "poor piece of engineering"... If I recall it has been able to help push some usage of the web forward (Youtube? Before Flash?), and foster creative content (anyone been working in the game or ad industry these past decade could testify... I'm talking Art Directors and Flash devs on websites, not annoying page ads). Or maybe I'm wrong on this - if so, please someone correct me. I don't remember Java succeeded in this field.

I don't want to start a flame war, it's just this anti-someone view, whoever that may be, raises my eyebrow all the time. As far as I know they do what _every_ other company on the field does: use and protect their hero assets for as long as they can, then catch up with the disruptive tech as soon as they penetrate.

JuDue2• 14 years ago

Steve disliked Flash because it crashed small mobile devices and chewed system resources.

A few years later Adobe AGREED with this by discontinuing Flash on Android.

davidjgraph2• 14 years ago

I fully agree. I could have continued past Adobe and MS and started on the likes of Apple, but it'd have been a very long post. I considered whether the MS comment was out of context, that was my attempt at saying it goes beyond just Adobe.

But the OA is about Adobe and HTML. Of course, it's not so much that they'll jump to the tech that has displaced them, it's more the marketing language (which, again, I know everyone's at it) suggests "yeah, cool, we always wanted this one to win, honest". They even give a history lesson on the site, and that's not the history I remember.

Poor engineering, that's aimed more at Flex than Flash. I spent many months suffering at the hands of Flex and the Adobe IDE. We implemented exactly the same app in both Flex and Java, Flex and its environment were painful, relatively.

Companies will protect their own interests, but both I personally view Adobe's decision to drop the SVG plugin, and Microsoft's decision to enforce their own standard on IE as de facto, as having put a general drag on what could and can be achieved in browsers. They're entitled to do so, but I think the decisions have been detrimental to the Internet population as whole, that's all.

shinratdr2• 14 years ago

> And for instance, you could say that "iOS's dislike of the technology" was nothing more than a strategic move from Apple and Jobs to win a battle of content over the channel

You could say that, but then you'd be choosing to forget the fact that mobile Flash was awful from day one until it was discontinued, which was 100% of Steve Jobs' public position on Flash. Performance sucked, it was a battery hog, and it didn't interpret touch gestures correctly at all.

Who really cares what the motivation of Apple was? We're all better off with Flash never making a successful foothold in mobile. Feel free to write it off as nothing but selfish evil if you must, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a positive overall and only Apple had the balls to do it, regardless of potential motivation.

streptomycin• 14 years ago

I don't think it's fair to say that pulling a plugin that they wrote in the first place is akin to "doing their best to kill off open standards". It's more like looking the other way.

neovive• 14 years ago

Overall, this is a very good thing. Adobe had a chance to really bring SVG into the mainstream back in 1999 when they introduced LiveMotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_LiveMotion) but they failed to include SVG support. They were still focused on proprietary standards and were clearly envious of Flash.

At it's heart, Adobe is a tools company. Regardless of whether or not they wanted to embrace SVG and Canvas, the fact that they are now building tools to support these standards will only make them more accessible to many more developers and non-programmers.

digitalengineer4• 14 years ago

Great topic! Adobe and HTML. What's hot at Adobe right now? Digital Publishing is. What are the main players? Adobe and Quark (yes they still exist). One uses InDesign Postscript-to-Javascript and Air to create, build and publish. The other (far older player, Quark) uses an HTML-engine to build and publish, see: http://www.appstudio.net/#2 So Adobe loves HTML? Doesn't look like it from my perspective.

Volpe5• 14 years ago

... Right because Adobe ONLY produce InDesign.

For digital publishing, Adobe have Dreamweaver, Muse, Edge, (part of InDesign), Flash... all linked with Creative Cloud, which allows you to publish 'to-the-web' (Great for non-technical designers).

I would hazard a guess that you work for Quark, or are an Apple-like fanboy of them, to present such a one sided argument with a fraction of the complete information.

digitalengineer4• 14 years ago

You would guess wrong. I'm actually a huge InDesign fan and have been accused of being an Adobe fanboy. Source: Smashing Magazine (see comments for my article): http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/10/27/10-pre-press-tips... or just read my blog full of InDesign only tips http://digital-engineer.net/

As an (non-paid) author for the Dutch InDesign User website and magazine I do find it funny someone might accuse me of working for Quark!

sbuk2• 14 years ago

"Apple-like fanboy" really? I come here to avoid idiocy like this. Your point is valid, but you've rendered it moot by behaving like that.

digitalengineer4• 14 years ago

With regards to your other arguments: I'm talking about Digital Publishing (Magazines, Newspapers, eBooks, on tablets, see http://www.adobe.com/nl/solutions/digital-publishing.html ). Dreamweaver, Muse, etc play almost no role in that field because Adobe/InDesign are tied-to-the-hip with Postscript. Quark on the other hand is not and is free to utilize HTML.

angry-hacker• 14 years ago

The custom fonts on Chrome (Windows) looks horrible, well known bug for everyone, same time Chrome is the most popular browser in most of parts of the world... are people who are using custom fonts on their pages ignoring this issue because all the designers/developers user Mac's or I just dont understand...

Surio• 14 years ago

Thank you. Thank You. Thank you.

Fellow sufferer here. "looks horrible" is probably understatement. Some days "makes me want to poke my eye out" is appropriate. I have resorted to custom Stylish font replacement scripts to step around the problem.

mnicole• 14 years ago

It's less about the font itself and more about how people are using them. For some reason, people think that type on the web should be small and on top of that, don't take font-smoothing into consideration. Adobe buys TypeKit and this is still the way they lay out web typography.

One of my biggest gripes with [Adobe] is that for a company that tries to be an end-all be-all for designers and content creators, their application designs, splash screens, icons are all incredibly weak if not outright dated. If they don't even understand (or care) about the industry they're marketing to to do these things internally, how can I expect their tools to be the right solution?

sparkinson• 14 years ago

Humorously, when their stats script gets blocked none of the links actually work in my Chrome build.

Adobe and HTML

Related Stories