| ||||||
Review: Macromedia Studio MXReviewed By: Kirk Hiner Review Date: September 10, 2002
Macromedia gets it. This is important, because there are very few companies that do anymore...at least very few of the larger companies. It seems that if a software company sells its product for more than $20, there are too many people working on the project, too much red tape to deal with, and too many deadlines to reach, thereby sacrificing what could be excellent ideas and features. Yet somehow, despite its success, Macromedia gets it. As I mentioned in my review of Dreamweaver 4 and Fireworks 4, it took Macromedia a long time to win me over. This wasn't because of any shortcomings in their products, but rather the high quality of their competition (namely, Adobe GoLive). Once I started digging around in Dreamweaver 4, however, and learned how to integrate the features of Fireworks into the Dreamweaver workflow, I was hooked. I was a changed man. That review, therefore, focused on change. What separated Dreamweaver from GoLive? From FrontPage? Well, not so much FrontPage. Give a room full of monkeys a Mac and a text editor, and they'll produce a clean, attractive, useful website before a professional design company could with FrontPage. This review will focus on the parts that comprise the Studio MX package. Are the new features enough to justify the upgrade? Are all the pieces necessary? Before I go into detail, I will say that the short answer to both questions is yes. Yes, in that the OS X compatibility alone is worth the upgrade, and that each of these tools can be very useful in the design and construction of websites. As usual, however, there has to be more.
We'll start with Dreamweaver, as I feel it's the cornerstone of the package. The work space in Dreamweaver MX has been greatly enhanced, allowing for easier access to more tools. Although the interface is easy for the user to customize, the program often takes care of this itself. The insert panel is the best example of this, altering its display depending upon the type of work you're doing and whether you're in visual or text editing mode. Those familiar with Dreamweaver will have no problem navigating the UI, but new users may feel discombobulated at first, wondering where all their tools are going. Macromedia has gone the Microsoft route by offering plenty of quickstart tools, namely: templates, wizards, components and such. These are much more detailed than just the usual "[Click to insert text here]" boxes, but I'm still not sure why they're included. The web designers I know avoid such templates as if they were tuna flavored ice cream, and I can't imagine most general consumers are looking towards Dreamweaver to build a website dedicated to their new Shih-Tzu, Mr. Sniffington. Code editing has also been greatly enhanced, and for good reason. The feature of Dreamweaver that most influenced my switch is the ability to work in visual and text mode at the same time. Unlike most visual web editors, Dreamweaver wants you to edit the code directly. It wants you to learn what it's doing behind the scenes, and it gives you total freedom to take control back there. In Dreamweaver MX, you can now edit the syntax coloring (a blessing, now that I've set it up to mirror that in BBEdit), store snippets of code for later use in the current or in future projects, and print the source code with appropriate formatting. Some of their code decisions still perplex me, however. Entering multiple spaces in visual mode does not install the proper HTML code in the source code. In fact, it does nothing. To enter multiple spaces, you have to type in the code directly. This becomes annoying very quickly, and I hope I'm not just missing a setting somewhere. Also, features such as bookmarks (or anchors, in the Dreamweaver world) seem to be thrown in only as afterthoughts. Creating them is simple enough, but linking to them is much more cumbersome, requiring you to either drag and drop your way through multiple files, or type in the name of the anchor manually. This is the only area in which FrontPage outshines is competition, as it shows a full list of bookmarks on a given page when you select that page in the link dialog box. Simple. Elegant. Highly out of character for a Microsoft product. Dreamweaver MX has seen many other enhancements as well. New server technologies such ASP and JSP are quickly being integrated and supported, ASP.NET is supported through custom tags, web forms, and DataGrid and DataList Objects, CSS compliance has been improved, and much more. Many of the quirks I listed in my previous review of Dreamweaver have been addressed (selecting blocks of text is no longer a problem, for example), but some remain. When deleting graphics or portions of text, the table still doesn't automatically resize to fit what's left. The page always looks right when previewed or uploaded, but it's still disconcerting to see so much white space during the design process. And finally, integration with other programs has been improved. Of course, that's kind of the whole purpose of Studio MX, right? Integration between the parts? Let's do some integration ourselves, and move on to Fireworks MX.
Unlike Dreamweaver MX, Fireworks MX hasn't been updated so much as its been enhanced. There aren't as many new features, but the features already in place have been improved. The greatest example of this is with support for pop-up menus. Fireworks MX pop-up menus are now a bit easier to get through, let you create submenus, and--most importantly--allow you to attach the pop-up menu relative to its navigation graphic rather than absolutely to the whole page. After the fact, the pop-up menus created in Fireworks can now be edited directly in Dreamweaver, saving the hassle of multiple exports and cut and paste jobs. For all its improvements, however, there are still a few basic interface and code generation quirks that bug me, mainly because they're too cryptic. Although the graphics I created and export worked, I still couldn't shake the thought that I was doing them incorrectly. The preload script on rollover graphics, for example, had me baffled. They would generate JavaScript errors when viewed in Internet Explorer on the PC, but seemingly nowhere else. A browser issue, perhaps? A preference issue? I'm not sure. I altered the preload script to more closely match that created by ImageReady, but then I couldn't be 100% sure that the preloads were even working. Still, Fireworks is a program in its toddler years, and it's growing nicely. When a co-worker asked if Fireworks MX was capable of performing a function it couldn't, my answer was, "It will. Ask me next version."
Now, when most people think of Macromedia these days, they probably think of Flash. More and more sites are taking advantage of Flash technology, often to a fault. Most sites don't need Flash, after all...simple HTML will do. Still, when there is a call for it, Flash produces some of the coolest web features out there. As with Fireworks MX, Flash MX mainly sees new and enhanced tools. Time line, animation and graphic design tools have been improved, mainly to accommodate the increasing complexity of files created in Flash. They're now easier to manage. They're also easier to create, as the tools in Flash are growing closer and closer to equalling those in less targeted vector graphics programs. Of course, it's not all about vectors with Flash MX; bitmap support has also been improved, as has that for rich media. By adopting Sorenson Spark technology, Flash MX now has video support. For its first attempt at this, it's done very well. Again, as the complexity of files created with Flash grows, so must the tools. Macromedia has done a good job of adding new tools without messing up the interface. The UI in Flash continues to involve, growing to more closely match those in the other Studio MX programs. Some changes were welcome, while others took longer to get used to. Regardless, Flash does get better with each new version, and MX is no exception.
Finally, there's FreeHand 10. This is somewhat of an odd choice, I think, since many of the web features available in FreeHand 10 can already be produced with Fireworks MX or even Flash MX. People designing specifically for the web probably won't have much use for FreeHand, especially if they're new to this suite of programs...no point in wasting time learning a new program if they can already get similar results from other tools in Studio MX. However, those who design for both print and web will find the product much more useful. It's quite simple to create multi-purpose files with FreeHand 10, mainly due to its tight integration with Flash MX and Fireworks MX. Print jobs are easily published for web use, so it can be done quickly and successfully even if the project was not originally intended for the web. FreeHand 10 is a quality program, but is perhaps not really needed here. I can't imagine that those who have a call for it wouldn't already own it, so I'd like to see Studio MX packaged without it and reduced in price. I guess that's just one of the drawbacks of purchasing a suite of programs. Another drawback is the condensed manual. Rather than provide complete manuals for all four programs, Macromedia understandably created a condensed manual titled "Exploring Macromedia Studio MX." That's pretty much what this does...it allows you to explore. It covers the basics of each program, explains the integration between the four, and offers tutorials of each. Fair enough, but many of the tips and tricks covered in the dedicated manuals go unexplained here. Normally, I'd dock a program a point for this. However, Macromedia's online help system is so robust and easy to use that printed manuals need only complement it to be useful. Considering that most professional web designers have dedicated internet connections, it's fair for Macromedia to take this route. And hey, not to fear. For those not interested in the full suite, complete manuals do still accompany the stand-alone versions of these programs. There's no question in my mind that Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Flash are indispensable tools to the web designer, thereby making Studio MX a must-have program. I question the inclusion of FreeHand 10, but designers who create work for both the web and for print will find it useful. None of the included programs offer blow-away new features, but their refinements and improved capabilities--not to mention support for OS X--still make this an update worth getting (Macromedia is offering upgrade prices for those who to go from any one or more of these programs to the full suite). The lack of full, printed manuals will make it difficult for new users, but there are many resources out there--some of which are integrated into the programs--to help you get started. Again, Macromedia gets it. In the case of Studio MX, so should you.
 [an error occurred while processing this directive] |
. |
Cool Mac Gear• iPod 1G-2G • iPod 3G • iPod 4G • iPod Mini • PowerBook-iBook • Keyboard Skins • Garageband
| ||||
