Talk:Adobe Dreamweaver

Adobe
I am perhaps being pedantic, but although Adobe bought over Macromedia, all programs which were originally developed by Macromedia retained the name "Macromedia ..." - to change this article's page to Adobe Dreamweaver is incorrect. I suggest a revert back. Dannerz
 * I agree. The current version (8) is still called 'Macromedia Dreamweaver'. If you go out and purchase a copy of it, it still says "Macromedia Dreamweaver", not "Adobe Dreamweaver". In the Adobe Store it is also still called "Macromedia Dreamweaver" When the next version is released, if it is called "Adobe Dreamweaver", then the title of the article can be changed. 131.230.72.101 16:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like Adobe is renaming thier products starting with Adobe Creative Suite 3. The some of the old Macromedia products that are being kept, including Dreamweaver, will carry the Adobe name starting with the CS3 version.  After the new products are officially released, we should look in to changing this an other Adobe product pages to match the new naming scheme.--Janus657 18:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Copying
I have no idea if copying is allowed, but just in case it is not somebody should veiw this website: OldVersion.com Dreamweaver and compare it to this article --DotDarkCloud 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It all depends on which direction things are copied. Can you take text that's under copyright and add it to Wikipedia? No. Can others take text from Wikipedia and put it on their sites? Sure -- WP has lots of mirrors all over the place, and that's allowed by the license. In this particular case, it looks as those those folks took the description of all or most of their apps from WP and then put they own copyright on it. That's not a good idea, but I doubt that anyone from here is going to go chasing them down unless they try enforcing their non-existent copyright.
 * It's kind of interesting; by looking at their site you can just about figure out when they grabbed each app's description. Their Firefox page, for example, is based on the WP Firefox entry towards the end of June 2006. Dori 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I think we should put a disambiguation page for "Dreamweaver", or at least but a notice at the top. There's a "Dream Weaver (song)" and and article about "Dream Weavers", a band. 24.42.21.58 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it. &brvbar; Reisio 20:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've long suspected the program was named after the song - can anyone confirm or deny? Lee M 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

HTML editor?
Dreamweaver is not just a HTML editor. It supports PHP, asp, CSS. Maybe a "web development" tool is a better word for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghezus (talk • contribs) 20:37, January 12, 2006


 * Go for it. &brvbar; Reisio 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may throw in my $0.02 -- DW started out as an HTML editor and is still primarily associated with that market. Also, look up HTML editor to see that they have broadened its definition. If you feel that this change is really needed, I'd suggest that we don't remove the term "HTML editor" althogether.


 * Oh, I just realized that "web editor" might be a good alternative, it already redirects to HTML editor. Jbetak 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have several objections to the change. "Web editor" is a horrible term as it is so ridiculously ambiguous.  Additionally, linking to web editor would be an ambiguous link (link to a redirect).  At the least, the phrase should remain "HTML editor". However, I agree that recent versions of Dreamweaver have steered the application away from being just an HTML editor and with the addition of support for several sever-side technologies as well as its CSS and Javascript support, it has, in fact, become a "web development" tool.  I'll rephrase the opening paragraph to emphasize this. BurntSky 06:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Click to activate and use this control" Issue

 * i feel that the fact that dw has addressed this issue is worth mentioning. this needs to be here or in the comparison chart of all web/html editors. its an important feature that dreamweaver has been the first to include(?). the feature is a big help to non coders who need to add multymedia to their page, and don't know how to use the javascript workaround.:: chaitanyak 05:41, 06 september 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't see what this has to do with Dreamweaver at all and not instead internet explorer. it doesn't belong on the page as it has nothing to do with dreamweaver. Donatj 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also fail to see the connection between DW and this section. I think it should be moved, but I don't know enough about the issue to say where it should go.

I agree. This section should be moved elsewhere or removed completely. This would be more appropriate in the Internet Explorer article, not the Dreamweaver one. 131.230.53.142 23:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue is already mentioned in the Object Linking and Embedding article, therefore I recommend that it be removed from this article. 131.230.53.142 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Market share
"Dreamweaver (...) currently holds approximately 80% of the HTML editor market."

I highly doubt that. Where are your sources? --Peter Eisenburger 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This might be true if you only count the editors that people actually pay for. Most people use free editors this is one of the few people are willing to pay money for. So it might hold *0% of the market but that doesn't mean 80% designers are using it. Still needs a source. 131.91.92.184 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wine and Unix mention?
Is the Wine mention really necessary? I use Wine to run Adobe products, but the point is that Wine is developed to run Windows programs non-native to *nix on *nix. Mentioning on every single page about a software product, excepting those that run on *nix, that it can be emulated, is unnecessary. Dylan 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * AOL, that's redundant. There's plenty of virutalisation techniques and emulation software that can run it on platforms other than it was intended for. Jerazol 05:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dreamweaver cs3.png
Image:Dreamweaver cs3.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Manual Code Preservation
I remember the most publicized feature of the original Dreamweaver was its ability to preserve manual html (it didn't change any part of the html unless you specifically edited it). It was called "round-trip" editing or something like that, and it was the first one to use it (GoLive copied it afterwards, I think), shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in the article? IMO it's what's missing in a lot of the open-source alternatives. 200.106.69.146 06:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WinSoft
The page mentions that the middle eastern versions are available from WinSoft; while this may be true, is it relevant at all? Ms331 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I fail to see the relevance either. Evening Scribe (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Article is not very useful
For an article on such a mainstream piece of software, it is pretty useless. There's no info whatsoever on its features. I don't think readers come here to read on the program's history. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoted below is a "Features" Section from an earlier version of the Article. I wonder why it was deleted before, but perhaps we should put this back for starters.


 * Features


 * Adobe Dreamweaver is a proprietary web authoring application that allows users to preview websites natively in a preview pane or in locally installed web browsers. It provides transfer and synchronization features, the ability to find and replace lines of text or code by search terms and regular expressions across the entire site, and a templating feature that allows single-source update of shared code and layout across entire sites without server-side includes or scripting. The behaviours panel also enables use of basic JavaScript without any coding knowledge, and integration with Adobe's Spry Ajax framework offers easy access to dynamically-generated content and interfaces.


 * Dreamweaver can use third-party "Extensions" to extend core functionality of the application, which any web developer can write (largely in HTML and JavaScript). Dreamweaver is supported by a large community of extension developers who make extensions available (both commercial and free) for most web development tasks from simple rollover effects to full-featured shopping carts.


 * Dreamweaver, like other HTML editors, edits files locally then uploads them to the remote web server using FTP, SFTP, or WebDAV. Dreamweaver CS4 now supports the Subversion (SVN) version control system.


 * Syntax highlighting


 * As of version 5, Dreamweaver supports syntax highlighting for the following languages out of the box:


 * ActionScript
 * Active Server Pages (ASP).
 * ASP.NET (no longer supported as of version CS4 - http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/402/kb402489.html)
 * C#
 * Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)
 * ColdFusion
 * EDML
 * Extensible HyperText Markup Language (XHTML)
 * Extensible Markup Language (XML)
 * Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT)
 * HyperText Markup Language (HTML)
 * Java
 * JavaScript
 * JavaServer Pages (JSP) (no longer supported as of version CS4 - http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/402/kb402489.html)
 * PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor (PHP)
 * Visual Basic (VB)
 * Visual Basic Script Edition (VBScript)
 * Wireless Markup Language (WML)


 * It is also possible for users to add their own language syntax highlighting. In addition, code completion is available for many of these languages.''

Not "supported"?
What does it mean to say it's no longer supported. I have the MX 2004 version and it still works just fine. M. Frederick (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not mean that you can no longer use the products or that it won't work. It means that the company will no longer provide updates or technical support for that version. Benjam47 (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms in Features section
Does anyone feel that the criticisms of DW's HTML-hiding are out of place in the features section? Many other software and technology entries have a separate "Criticisms" section near the bottom of the page, and perhaps this entry could benefit from that as well. Also, most criticism sections are generally well cited, to prevent the editor from appearing to be ranting about the technology.

I am mostly a reader of Wikipedia, and not much of an editor (I don't even have an account, as you can see) but this just seemed off compared to most other similar entries. 99.28.108.83 (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PRON?
the application makes it very easy to create PRON table-based layouts. I'm confident PRON doesn't mean here what it usually means, but what does it mean? Probably not Jaruzelski's fan club either.--87.162.3.103 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dreamweaver and disambiguation
Hi!

There's a discussion regarding disambiguation at Talk:Dreamweaver which may be of interest.

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 18:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs a Criticism Section
This article really needs a criticism section. Dreamweaver is an extremely rigid, complicated and painful application to learn. It is really the Windows of the design world, everyone is stuck with it due to lack of a major competitor. Given that this is Wikipedia and not a PR page for Dreamweaver, there really should be a criticism section to tell the whole story about Dreamweaver.

98.245.170.157 (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a good citation source. PC Magazine has a review (article) of Dreamweaver CS5 that calls it "Overwhelming" and suggests that any beginner to web design would likely be unable to learn how to use it.

I have HTML background and years of web design experience and I find Dreamweaver CS5 to be a true nightmare. I am taking a design class (to learn Dreamweaver, as mentioned I already know HTML) and my instructor struggles with Dreamweaver and he has an impressive web design resume. I have a friend who is taking a different design class and her instructor hates it.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are professional product review articles about Dreamweaver that say similar things. It gets bad reviews especially for its accessibility to those learning how to use it.

Many use it as a coding editor and ignore the regular features which are very difficult to use / quite buggy.

24.8.177.59 (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you guys please clarify what you meant by "rigid"? I learned on DreamWeaver when I took Web Design in 10th Grade (the current version at the time was DreamWeaver 8), and I must say that I was very rarely frustrated by it. It's not like FrontPage (now discontinued), which had no Graphic Interface View and forced you to design a site exclusively by working directly in the HTML source code. Like most HTML editor applications currently developed and sold, DreamWeaver does have a Graphic Interface View for those of us not comfortable working in the actual source code. So, what does "rigid" mean in this context? Any criticism in the Article should be very clear. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is great to know that I am not alone in finding Dreamweaver a nightmare. I have been learning how to use Dreamweaver as part of a Web Design course and came on to the article hoping to find an overview of its features, to help me find my way through the maze. Instead I find an article that might as well be rated as a 'stub'. Why are there no sections on its features? Templates, Library items, Snippets, Assets, Label making etc. ixo (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

How do we fix the version history table from here?
Do you see that extra cell in the lower left that needs to be merged with the cell that says Adobe? How do we make that happen? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we please bring back the old color code in Version History, the one the Firefox Article's table is modeled after still?
Let's face it. The Green and Yellow for current and supported versions, respectively, are much more distinct colors than the 2 shades of green that this Article uses now. I can still see the difference quite well, but not everyone has my color vision (I'm one of the few males who can pass the Fruit Basket Test), and in a color code with relatively few values it's just better aesthetically to make the colors we choose as distinct as possible. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Again with issues in Version History Table

 * A. How do we get rid of the empty pseudo-column on the extreme right?
 * B. How do we change the Green in the color code to a more vivid shade of Green?
 * I would appreciate any and all help with this. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Adobe 2014.1 is actually v.15
NOTE: The following has been done: version 15 was added by me with my update for version 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnvawn (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Although the Adobe name is Adobe CC 2104.1, its actual development version number seems to be v.15 as is shown: Of course, you would need to have 2014.1 installed (as I do) in order to confirm this. Version 2014.1 is available for download at the Adobe site if you have a subscription. Downloading an older version will not remove any other versions in my experience - I have several versions installed.
 * In Windows 7's file properties for the .exe
 * In Mac, when you right click on any html file in Finder and select Open with... the actual Dreamweaver version number(s) will appear in parentheses.

Please install 2014.1 using the following instructions so that you can confirm the version number. I based the instructions on what I did to install Dreamweaver CC and CC 2014.1, and what I did was, in turn, based on this Adobe article about installing older Photoshop versions.

To install, open the CC app (cloud icon in the Windows "tray" or, on a Mac, on the right side of any menu bar). Then use the CC App's menu bar: Apps > FIND ADDITIONAL APPS > Previous Version > Dreamweaver > Install > CC (2014.1) 15.0.0. Note that for some reason they do not provide CC (2014) 14.0.0.

I won't change the version number in the versions table in the article unless someone else will confirm that the version information that I propose is correct. Note that I'd provide screenshots but I am not approved for it yet.

What I propose are two changes, shown in the bullet list below and also shown in the table cells beneath them:
 * 15.0
 * CC 2014.1

Dawnvawn (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Adobe Dreamweaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613075458/http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/05/17/some-artists-give-adobe-cloud-switch-critical-review to http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/05/17/some-artists-give-adobe-cloud-switch-critical-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adobe Dreamweaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070323064143/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200609/091806CreativeSuite.html to https://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200609/091806CreativeSuite.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Version number updated; also, what older versions are still supported?
Thanks, all. Dan Dawnvawn (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just modified the table of Dreamweaver versions to include v.19 which was recently released with the CC 2019 updates. I apologize if I stepped on the toes of Gepree whose update note is: "Updated latest version to 19.0.0.11193" - but I didn't see v.19 on the updated page, therefore I added a row for v.19 CC 2019.
 * Also, I cannot find information at the Adobe site as to which versions of Dreamweaver they still support. If you are able to find that information, please change the bgcolor of the cells appropriately.

Release Date for Dreamweaver 21.0
Just wanted to append to this discussion of versions. I have updated the table to include the latest major release, as of the time of this writing. However, I could only find the month of the release but not the exact date. So, I put Oct 31, 2020 for the time being. If anyone can find out the date, plus update the item.
 * Also, I wanted to corroborate what Dawnvawn noted above. I believe the supported versions needs to be revised. If I am not mistaken, I believe Dreamweaver CS6 is no longer supported. But I didn't want to make any changes since I couldn't confirm it. So, if anyone has some extra time to dig up that information, that would be appreciated!

NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)