For the individual developer I think MX is a welcome upgrade – at last
support for XHTML and also PHP. The addition of a validation tool is
also useful. Very pleased that MX seems more stable, at least in the
short time I've used it – it isn't unusual for DW4 to fall over every
once in a while (particularly when you've just finished a more demanding
bit of coding and are just about to save...).
As the supported authoring tool within an institution I'm not so sure. I
know this institution is not unusual in having a distributed/devolved
system of content contribution and in using DW as the supported tool. I
also know that lots of institutions have a, shall we say, very diverse
range of capabilities amongst the desktops – there's still plenty out
there with relatively ancient processors and very modest amounts of RAM
and disk space. Whereas DW4 required a minimum of Pentium 166, 32 MB of
available RAM and 110 MB of available disk space, DW MX has shot up to
require a minimum of Pentium II 300, 96 MB of available RAM (128 MB
recommended) and 275 MB available disk space. We all know it's not
unusual for app upgrades to become increasingly resource hungry but I
still think this is going to present problems for some institutions.
So what to do? Upgrade to MX and insist contributors upgrade their
machines, if need be? Stay with DW4 and loose out on new developments?
Offer both, depending on user capabilities, and thus significantly
complicate documentation, training and user support?
I'll be implementing a site revision fairly soon and it has really
forced the DW4 vs DW MX issue and whether or not to base contributor
templates on XHTML or HTML 4. While I could just offer both versions –
XHTML for those who have MX and HTML for those who have DW4 (or who just
feel too nervous about the validation requirements for XHTML docs) I
would be virtually doubling the needs for documentation and training –
not to mention risking confusion amongst contributors.
In some ways I suppose it also prompts the discussion of whether or not
DW is appropriate as a supported authoring tool. It offers so many
features that the average user just will not ever need and as a
consequence an interface (even more so for MX) that is anything but
simple for the beginner to get to grips with. Nonetheless, users expect
to get the de facto industry standard tool and therefore expect it to be
Dreamweaver...
Kenny
* * *
Web Development Officer
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Room 40, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT
Direct 020 7927 2808 - Fax 020 7580 7593
|