We prioritize performance of the site in browsers. We prioritize use of CSS features rather than using images.
Similarly, doing parallax scrolling effects on mobile devices is extremely difficult, yet Muse does it instantly. Even an expert developer is going to struggle to make a modern design look good in IE8 (it's a horror), yet Muse does this instantly. We prioritize preserving design fidelity across browsers and devices. Instead, Muse is committed to providing designer-developer workflows that allow developers to extend the capability of Muse without squashing the designer's ability to continue doing free-form design.Īs for the code size I agree that Muse could be much better, but I challenge "lines of code" as the best metric for evaluating quality code.
ADOBE DREAMWEAVER VS MUSE UPDATE
Any edits to the code are not represented in the original Muse file, so the designer looses the ability to update the site. The code Muse generates is not intended to be edited by a developer later on. Next time I see something written in Muse I'll have to double my rate or just turn down the project. Don't tell me its a professional solution though. Muse probably has a niche helping people make personal sites or MAYBE small time designers create small websites. js files that I didn't take the time to figure out what they were supposed to do). The original Muse site, to accomplish the same thing was 1350 lines by my most conservative count (there were about a half dozen other. Long story short, my hand-coded site totaled 360 lines of HTML/CSS/JS/PHP. I decided it was easier to rewrite it from scratch.
The Muse code was so messy with endless nested Divs and randomly generated id's and class names, it was basically impossible to sort out the CSS enough to convert it to a responsive design. They also wanted me to turn it into a responsive site. I just finished writing some PHP code for a small 2 page site a client did in Muse. MAYBE Muse creates web standards code, but its certainly not clean code.