Adobe Muse

[Peter McLennan]

Anybody using this software?

After foundering on the rocky shores of HTML and CSS, I discovered this tool in my new Creative Cloud subscription and was amazed at what I could make.  Basically, it's InDesign for the web. In fact, it's written by the team who built InDesign.

It's very easy to use, liberating us non-coders from the inflexible constraints of Content Management Systems, themes and hamstrung page and code editors.

Here's a good example of what Muse is making possible, even easy:

http://webapps.aljazeera.net/aje/custom/drcfinal/the-war.html

[luxborealis]

Very effective use of creative web design elements. Muse looks great.

[john beardsworth]

I played with it, couldn't stop myself calling it Mush, and quickly returned to Dreamweaver. But I don't regard content management systems, themes etc as being inflexible - I'd apply that word to web design apps like Muse that repeat the old mantra about not needing to edit code.  That may be true as long as your requirements are limited, but then you're saddling yourself with the inflexibilities of static HTML.

I just wish that they had put the Muse effort into pulling Dreamweaver back from geekery and making it more accessible for Muse's target market.

[Peter McLennan]

Thanks for your input, John. 

For me, the ability to drag screen elements around freehand and change my mind with ease beats learning HTML and writing code any day. Granted, my web creation demands are simple.  As we so often said in the movie business: It doesn't have to be right, it just has to look right".

I'm not sure what demands will be unmet my Muse, so before I dig my self and my website into too deep a hole, what kinds of impossible-to-do-things will become evident if I continue down this path?

[Justinr]

The issue I would be concerned about is SEO. I've read that Muse stinks at this because it doesn't write code in the way that Google prefers it written. If that is true, it would be the deal breaker for me, no matter how easy it is. Not much use having a website nobody can find.

Sharon

Google changes the way it prefers code to be written with the frequency that you or I change our socks. Anyway, who are Google to dictate how code is written? They don't actually own the web, they just like to think they do. Sorry if that sounds a bit sharp but they really infuriate me.

To be honest I think SEO is greatly overrated nowdays, There was a time when the web was young and innocent, before the big players started spending thousands, then millions on screwing up the system to ensure their name appeared at the top of Google search results, but those days are gone and unless you are willing to spend money with Google then you're pretty much doomed to be found half way down page 17 whatever you do to your site. I'm very much of the view that you need to go out there and bring people to your site rather than hope they'll find it all by themselves.

[Justinr]

We had a call last week from a television station that found our blog on Google. They said it came up first when they searched. We spend zero on ad dollars but we have the content they were searching for and WordPress is great for search engines. I have two sites that I want to update and wondered about Muse but after reading about it, I'll pass.

Sharon

To my mind that's just the problem, you had one call from a media savvy organisation who were probably pretty specific with their search terms, but imply that it doesn't happen that often.

I've come to the sad conclusion that the web works as a primary marketing tool if you are totally focused on it, or have a large enough budget to pay someone else to be. Otherwise a website is no more than an online brochure to which you can direct people, handy to have but not always a deal breaker. But all this goes against the zeitgeist so I best shuffle away with my pipe and slippers.

[Isaac]

Google changes the way it prefers code to be written with the frequency that you or I change our socks.

For example?

Anyway, who are Google to dictate how code is written?

They don't; and Google's spider is plenty happy with ordinary text and standard HTML.

…unless you are willing to spend money with Google then you're pretty much doomed to be found half way down page 17 whatever you do to your site.

No. All you have to do is provide something that others really don't provide; or provide something that others appreciate so much, that they all put links on their blogs pointing to your web pages.

Popular and relevant tops search results. Hmmm, that kind-of works!

[john beardsworth]

Thanks for your input, John. 

For me, the ability to drag screen elements around freehand and change my mind with ease beats learning HTML and writing code any day. Granted, my web creation demands are simple.  As we so often said in the movie business: It doesn't have to be right, it just has to look right".

I'm not sure what demands will be unmet my Muse, so before I dig my self and my website into too deep a hole, what kinds of impossible-to-do-things will become evident if I continue down this path?

I think your needs/skills and mine are very different, Peter. Muse seems to be good at creating shrinkwrapped Powerpoint presentation-style web sites, like the site you linked to, and all that drag and drop does make it easy for those who don't like coding. I like visual ways of putting together a web page, but I am happy with coding and usually want to change too many things. For instance Muse creates a slideshow by making you identify the pictures and bakes them into the HTML, whereas I'd want to have code which examines a folder and automatically populates the slideshow. I can then upload new pictures without editing the web site, and can handle higher numbers of pictures. So very different needs, and I found Muse very limiting for mine.

[Justinr]

For example?

They don't; and Google's spider is plenty happy with ordinary text and standard HTML.

No. All you have to do is provide something that others really don't provide; or provide something that others appreciate so much, that they all put links on their blogs pointing to your web pages.

Popular and relevant tops search results. Hmmm, that kind-of works!

Believe me Isaac, as one who taught himself a bit of web design and I guess created 40 -50 sites for various businesses during which I tried to follow all the ins and outs of SEO I can assure you that all the talk was of the search engines constantly changing their algorithms in one way or another as large company's did what they could to ensure that they came top of the list as much as possible. It was, and I imagine still is, a battle of wits. And yes, a situation occurred that convinced me that you need to be paying Google in one way or another for you to get top of the list.

It wasn't me that was suggesting Google dictate how sites are put together, take another read through.

You can be as different and original as you like but unless someone is searching for the niche you occupy then it's a waste of effort. Unfortunately, with the relentless increase in the number of websites, niches are getting smaller which means search terms have to be ever more specific and I'd suggest that 99% of regular users have never heard of a boolean search let alone used one.

Blogs have to be visited if the link is to be of any use. Have you a blog and if so how many people spend more than 30 seconds on it?

[Justinr]

Who implied what doesn't happen often?

Sharon

You said 'last week'. How many calls have you had since that are directly as a result of a web search rather than someone being directed to your site via a link or other recommendation?

[Justinr]

Before this whole argument gets too heated could I just ask how many people with websites have actually sat down and done a cost benefit analysis of creating and maintaining one including time spent attending to social media sites?

[Justinr]

I'm not at all heated. I'm not sure if you were talking about me.  It often seems the case on LULA that people state things very definitely as fact when it is really only a fact for them. I've read comments on here of people who say you can't sell photographs from your website when we do it all the time.  We get traffic from web searches so a site that limits searches doesn't work for me which is why I want to change two of our sites.

Sharon

I was in fear that the discussion rather than any particular individual would suffer combustion.

Good to hear that you do get sales from your site, something that rarely happens over here. Indeed, a couple of years back I met a website designer who confessed most of his business came by word of mouth and I know another in the same position. If they can't sell their services through a website then what hope for the rest of us?

[Isaac]

…all the talk was of the search engines constantly changing their algorithms in one way or another…

So you don't know of any examples but you saw gossip? :-)

…you need to be paying Google in one way or another for you to get top of the list.

You can always just pay Google for adverts.

Strangely I seem to have moved websites to the "top of the list" mostly by cleaning-out bad HTML that buried website content.

…but unless someone is searching for the niche you occupy then it's a waste of effort.

If no one wants what you provide then…

…have never heard of a boolean search…

And yet they can still manage to choose the search box labelled "any of these words".

Have you a blog and if so how many people spend more than 30 seconds on it?

Over the last month, 42% of the traffic to a plain HTML website (no forums or comments or js or kittens) I deal with came from search results and 18,408 of 44,242 visits lasted longer than 30 seconds.

(Ceteris paribus - make a website easier to navigate, and visit length and pages visited may well decrease.)

[Justinr]

So you don't know of any examples but you saw gossip? :-)

You can always just pay Google for adverts.

Strangely I seem to have moved websites to the "top of the list" mostly by cleaning-out bad HTML that buried website content.


If no one wants what you provide then…

And yet they can still manage to choose the search box labelled "any of these words".


Over the last month, 42% of the traffic to a plain HTML website (no forums or comments or js or kittens) I deal with came from search results and 18,408 of 44,242 visits lasted longer than 30 seconds.

(Ceteris paribus - make a website easier to navigate, and visit length and pages visited may well decrease.)

Gossip, why would you say that? You have no idea where I was sourcing information and I doubt that half of it is still available online anyway. If you are not prepared to take my word for it there fair enough, no reason why you should, but others may find it useful and correct. This was five or six years ago and a lot of life has happened since.

Who's list did you move it to the top of and where you using regular search terms. If you keep searching for a site from the same computer and then open it from the search engine then yes, it will move to the top of the list when you use those search terms again for Google has recorded that it is a site you are interested in. It will be a different story for a fellow down the road though who hasn't visited the site before. Everybody's search results are different so when you say you moved a site to the top of a list you need to qualify just what you mean by that.

Of course you can pay Google for adverts and as mentioned, I was confronted by a situation where a fellow who was paying for adverts was top of the (my) search results no matter what. When he stopped paying for them he disappeared altogether from the first page. All well and good but would it not be more honest of search engines to tell users that the results presented are biased towards those that support them rather than pretend otherwise? BTW, there is a bit more to this story but I'm trying to keep it brief.

People do seem to want what I provide (are you trying to suggest otherwise?) which is why I am meant to be working today rather than wasting time here, but my customers have not found me by internet search, the website is there as a brochure amongst its other uses. There are also plenty of businesses around here that have no internet presence, how are their customers finding them?

This last point touches on something else that has become quite obvious to me over the years and it is a point that Sharon also alighted upon, although not in quite the same context (what people mean is not always clear on LuLa), and that is the cultural difference between North America/Canada and the old world, well this part of it certainly. Here the web is no more than a adjunct to life rather than an essential tool. FB for instance is taken nowhere near as seriously in Ireland as it is over in the States. I seem to recall someone on this forum telling us that FB is a good way of keeping in touch with professional architectural clients, try that here and you'd be laughed off the street. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, only that the role of the web in society differs according to the culture, one size does not fit all despite the basic assumption that it does. I now find myself looking at websites from all over Europe (Bing translate is my friend) and they are quite different to the American style and approach. Are these differences ever accounted for when we are lectured about how the web should operate by mainly US based companies/bodies/bloggers?

BTW, that site you mentioned, is it for a web based business, that is, a business devoted to selling goods on the web or is it what might be termed a billboard site?

[Isaac]

If you keep searching for a site from the same computer and then open it from the search engine then yes, it will move to the top of the list when you use those search terms again for Google has recorded that it is a site you are interested in.

fyi Search and browse privately

Multiple IP's across the US and UK, "regular search terms".

BTW, that site you mentioned, is it for a web based business, that is, a business devoted to selling goods on the web or is it what might be termed a billboard site?

No sales. More like infotainment.

[Peter McLennan]

So, for some reason, Muse-generated HTML is less visible to contemporary SEO algorithms?  OK. Maybe. That's beyond my expertise. What's so weird or special about Muse output HTML?

Besides, isn't this fixable?  Sooner or later, won't someone figure out how to tweak Muse output to level the playing field?  And isn't web visibility related to a lot more than the search engines' parsing of code?

The array of "Muse sites of the day" at muse.adobe.com demonstrates imagery and animations that to my uneducated eye appear both novel and beautiful.  Assuming we can figure out how to make our sites visible, for us non-coder photographers what's not to like about ease of use and accessibility?  I'd much rather spend my time learning graphic design than coding.  It's just more fun.

[john beardsworth]

So, for some reason, Muse-generated HTML is less visible to contemporary SEO algorithms?  OK. Maybe. That's beyond my expertise. What's so weird or special about Muse output HTML

No, it's not really the HTML, Peter.

Search algorithms base their rankings on text that's visible on your web page (and links to you etc). A WordPress site tends to have a lot of text and that makes it easy for search engines to crunch.

Muse though is better suited to web pages that aren't text-heavy - lots of flying graphics and layers as in that aljazeera page. But there's nothing to stop you putting enough relevant text content into a Muse site.

John

[Isaac]

What's so weird or special about Muse output HTML?

fwiw Deeply nested <div>.

Structural HTML gives a search program a better chance to figure out which text is most significant in describing a web page.

…imagery and animations … novel and beautiful.

Sometimes the audience for web pages really is just people, and search programs don't matter; but when we want the web pages to be ranked highly in search results, the web pages need to be both "attractive" to people and "attractive" to search programs.

[Peter McLennan]

... Some people say it is slow and buggy. I'll wait and see if they work out the bugs before I commit to it.
Sharon

It does seem a little buggy, particularly with the relationship between what you see and what you get, depending on which browser you preview with.  However, I do find the relationship between what I want and what I get to be much closer and much easier to achieve than with either the Wordpress or Drupal interfaces.  As for slow, I certainly don't see any slowness in the edit process.  Whether Muse sites load slower or not is not something I can judge.  They do seem to encourage the use of large file-sized imagery.

It seems to me that the SEO issues can be resolved by some creative code additions to Muse's output by the user, if not by Muse itself in future.  In any case, if that's the primary reason for avoiding Muse, surely it's not all that relevant.  Site visibility seems dependent on more than just the search engines' algorithms.  I dunno.  I'm a total neophyte at this.  I just love the instant gratification that Muse seems to provide.

Thanks for all the input.  I'm so impressed by what Muse can do, but wary of its newness and seemingly revolutionary capabilities. The fact that its past upgrade frequency is so high is very encouraging.

[Justinr]

I didn't mean to start anything, I just read a few things about Muse that caused me to lose interest. Some people say it is slow and buggy. I'll wait and see if they work out the bugs before I commit to it.

Sharon

Ah, but you trod upon the hallowed ground of 'Websites and internet stuff' where boys can get all stroppy with each other over just how they clever they are with all this IT malarkey as if being able to score the most minor of points will bring riches and women flocking to their doors. It's all very childish in its way and I envy the ladies in usually being immune to it.