Mar 09 2009 at 12:38pm
Is Dreamweaver Are static web pages dying?
I just stumbled upon an article about the increasing obsolesence of Dreamweaver and tools like it. The point is that websites are becoming increasingly dynamic. Building static html pages with a tool like Dreamweaver just doesn’t cut it anymore.
In the relatively near future every website will be a dynamically-generated web application and all of today’s sites built on multiple static pages will be ripped out and replaced.
I was trying to explain this to people in a meeting a few weeks ago. Static files clearly can’t handle the demands of todays websites. Even attempting to build in your own functionality by coding your own php is fraught with problems. Why should you do it yourself when you could just use (WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, your CMS of choice)?
Will there become a time when nobody publishes static html files anymore? Will new designers jump right into WordPress instead of building static websites first? An intersting topic to ponder.
Andrew March 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
As it may no longer be used for static files, there is still a use to design HTML templates and snippets for the web application.
HTML is still the standard in displaying web pages – and it will be that way for a while.
Megan March 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I didn’t mean HTML in general – I meant static HTML pages. Of course HTML and CSS would still be used within the CMS. Sorry if that wasn’t clear
Matt March 13th, 2009 at 12:01 am
I might agree that static HTML websites are dying out, but that does not mean DW will die with it. DW does a ton of stuff. It’s a great PHP and javascript editor. I haven’t found a better IDE for web development on Windows (and I’m looking for one).
Michael Aringer March 15th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Dreamweaver is not equal webdesign or static web. I work in a web-agency and we never touched a tool like this. Everything is hand-written in a text editor, thats simply the best create both static and dynamic pages that meet the standards!
Simon Holywell March 17th, 2009 at 4:51 am
@Matt: Have you looked at Netbeans recently? Dreamweaver is an appalling PHP editor as it goes.
RTFVerterra April 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 am
I am not a professional developer but I own a Macromedia Dreamweaver 8.0. It is an obsolete version but I can’t do my stuff without it. I cannot memorize all HTML codes and all the attributes for any particular code. I am relying on Dreamweaver’s ability to pop-up an option that can easily be selected. I was able to understand how CSS and HTML works together because of the templates available in Dreamweaver. Is Dreamweaver Dying? I hope it will not.
Nicholas Zographos May 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I think that developers of CMS solutions will be using Dreamweaver (or other IDE) for sometime to come.
Currently, no in page GUI (like TinyMCE) comes CLOSE to Dreamweaver in terms of functionality and editing CSS. I make custom CMSs and use open source CMSs like Drupal, and I do a lot of making pages in DW and copy-and-pasting into the CMS.
But, I think we are already seeing a number of non-technical folks side step static pages and go straight for a CMS like WordPress.
So, I foresee Adobe Contribute dying LONG before DW…
Megan May 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
This is interesting because some are really seeing Dreamweaver as a development environment for developers, while in the original post it was assumed that Dreamweaver was used as a WYSIWYG environment for designers to build static web pages in HTML.
I really should have called this “Are static websites dying?” instead… (it’s not really about Dreamweaver actually!). Will designers develop their templates in Dreamwever before converting to a theme? Maybe – that’s not the point I was trying to make.
Supri May 15th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Wow! This is a great thought-provoking post. I see how the static html pages might become obsolete but with so many people using WYSIWYG features and tools like Dreamweaver, I don’t think we can see the static html pages becoming obsolete anytime soon. But, a great post though!
PS: On a side note, I love your blog. ^__^
lazarus July 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Interesting post and food for thought – as a fledgling designer who has spent the last 6 months trying to learn adobe creative suite its given me a lot to think about! Ive learned a lot from your site already – in particular the broder radius in mozilla i stumbled accross when i tried to work out how your beautiful layout wasnt using backround images to round off the panel corners
many threads to pull at here = thanks!
cisqua July 30th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Well dreamweaver is a WYSIWYG so google hate a web make with it.
And when making a website for a costumer its much more appealing to them if they can change it themselves or make new posts.
Ringo July 31st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Static web pages do have some advantages over dynamic ones. For one they are considerably faster for the end user, as there the server does not need to assemble the page on the fly. Static pages place less stress on the server, so more pages can be delivered and it will take many times more visitors for the server to cave under the load.
Of course, it all depends on the kind of page you want. Some pages are not suited for static stuff, most pages can be mostly static, with a couple of snippets of dynamic stuff, and lots of pages can easily be completely static. Of course, remember that a static page can also include JavaScript or Flash, so it doesn’t have to be literally “static”.
I’m starting work on a new site now, and my plan is to write code that pre-generates static html pages based on configuration files. This means that every time I want to update the site, I make some changes and then run a script once to generate all the pages. This makes it as easy to update as a dynamic web site, but saves the server from re-generating each page every time they are clicked.
mysticpixels August 5th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Hi Megan,
Did u forget about the hardworking prototyper community ?
i believe that the decency of code editing that dreamweaver provides is not to be beated. It is a n important tool of prototyping phase and maintaining a 1000 line css code is never so easy as in DW. Im sure, ADOBE, will keep coming with new features and functionalities to this web authoring tool and it sure is to stay here for long … longer 
Megan August 5th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
@cisqua – that’s exactly why static websites are becoming less useful. If you have a small site with limited functionality, usually it’s for a client or small business who needs to be able to edit the content themselves.
I’m not aware of any problems search engines have with Dreamweaver sites. In fact, static pages don’t have many of the same problems that CMS-generated sites sometimes do. Most CMS’s are getting much better at optimizing for search engines now though.
@Ringo – I think the reason why static pages are becoming less common is because it’s getting increasingly rare to find a website that doesn’t require a) editing by regular people or b) advanced functionality that is better provided by an out-of-the-box system rather than being developed from scratch. Your case is an exception
You’re right in that there are some benefits to plain old HTML pages. It seems like now those benefits are being outweighed by the convenience of using a CMS.
@mysticpixesl – I wasn’t talking about people who use Dreamweaver as a code editor. I was talking about the practice of creating static web pages. I don’t know what you mean by “prototyper community”. Personally, I find other tools such as Quanta Plus to be just as good for code editng as Dreamweaver, without all the bloat. But, yes, this could be DW’s niche in the future.
Website design August 21st, 2009 at 4:25 am
I too agree with your view. static pages are becoming too little. All are preferring dynamic websites. But I hope many won’t go with templates, Many prefer custom designing though they are dynamic.
This is my view.
Austin
Easy CSS and HTML September 5th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I don’t think HTML will be written off the web completely to dynamic pages for the fact that some people do not need a dynamic page. For instance a small interior designer company or construction website would not need the flexibility of a php/mysql driven website. They would need some pages that tells about them, lets users submit a request, examples of their work, and how to reach them. Something that wordpress or drupal or joomla may be too powerful and too time consuming to learn.
Megan September 8th, 2009 at 10:28 am
@Easy CSS and HTML – So, how would those sites get updated? See my response to Ringo in my previous comment. I would agree that Drupal or Joomla would be too complex, and even WordPress might not be the most suitable choice, but there are many other basic CMS solutions available.
Discount Asics Shoes November 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 am
I am in that situation right now. I used dreamweaver for many of my sites and I just started to use wordpress. Although wordpress is really good. I love working offline building sites with dreamweaver. I will most likley continue to use both as I do not like depending on one way to do things.