I'm sorry that the DMXZone folks wasted their time dealing with Jennifer Taylor on this issue.

Not one answer even approached the recognition of any new or long-standing issues with the Dreamweaver line. Instead, users are given the standard party line of "we're looking into it" or "we've been given more praise than criticism."

In particular, this whole line about "it's been well received" is garbage. Perhaps the boobs at CNET think it's a great product after spending a few hours (at most) going through its features. But what of the opinions of those who actually use the product for development and real-world solutions?

Fact is that dozens of books, hands-on courses and on-line tutorials invest significant time in preaching workarounds for Dreamweaver as a result of its bugs and idiosyncracies.

I've written to and spoken on the phone with Macromedia countless times over the past few years regarding Dreamweaver issues. The vast majority of issues go unresolved, and bugs are rarely fixed with product patches.

Jennifer Taylor pats herself on the back for releasing a patch for Dreamweaver MX last year. One lousy patch, and one that fixed only a very small list of bugs. Color me impressed.

I was genuinely hoping that Jennifer Taylor's response would take advantage of the fact that the DMXZone community is not on a witch hunt against Macromedia or Dreamweaver; quite the contrary, we LOVE this product and our frustration stems from the fact that it doesn't work as well as it could be.

Unfortunately, even the hardcore users now need to expect the standard party line.

DMXZone (George?) You said "we didn't want bland corporate-speak platitudes" from Customer Services, yet that's what you printed from the Product Manager.

AFAIK, with DMX (version6), I have bought my last MM product. It's not that they are not user-friendly: they're user antagonistic. They say there's nothing to fix in usability because there are no usability problems. HA! They just don't listen. The same goes with bugs.

This attitude comes directly from the top. I know this because a close colleague deals with MM Management regularly. DMX may be the "best program available" but if that's true, then it speaks for the sorry state of the industry. And if enough of us vote with our wallets, perhaps MM Management will get the message.

How in the heck does:

"One thing that I have noticed is that access to a real person at Macromedia has become extremely difficult in the past several years and the only analogy that I can think of is Microsoft. That's what disturbs me."

"I want to add a comment to the "not responding". This refers to an email I sent in shock when I discovered the renewal for Silver Support had increased from $500 last year to $2400 this year. When I called Macromedia, the customer service rep abruptly told me it was a "marketing decision to increase it" and to send an email to Macromedia. I sent a long email and have never received any response."

Turn into:

DMXzone: If a user needs to reach someone at Macromedia, what is the best way for them to do so?

Huh? That question doesn't even APPROACH the level of frustration voiced in the comments preceding it. Poorly done interview!

"That being said, there are always unexpected cases of things we didn’t identify before we shipped ... "

That is such an absolute lie about the entire suite.

I appreciate Miss. Taylor taking time to do some PR for Macromedia but its a little like trying to patch a sinking boat with bubble gum. Sticky sweet and not a solution to the problem.

I have wasted hours upon hours dealing with their screw-ups. They sent me the wrong OS, they messed up my customer information in their database, they took four months to send my "special offer", and if you find a human DON'T let them transfer you to another dept! It may be the last real voice you hear.

I will not be "upgrading". CSS isn't worth my sanity. Even if I did I would not want to be the first to board this ship of fools. The "special" offers go to those who wait.

Marketing, downsizing, cost cutting, reorganization? I don't care what the problem is, there is a problem. They know it too, otherwise they wouldn't send out damage control, they would use the same silent arrogance.

Its really a shame. I miss the old team. S***-can whoever is making these marketing decisions before its too late. MM cant play the MS game and win.

What I do I do because I like to do.

I was looking forward to this interview.

I thought the DWMX product manager would address some tough issues and speak candidly and give us some real insight into Macromedia's processes and QA.

I was disappointed to read bland corporate-speak couched in "everything's going well and we're winning awards" language. Like listening to a politician in the heat of an election - many words were used, nothing useful was said.

I don't see that any of the responses are "short, but reasonably candid".

Ms Taylor's emailed response to you feels like it was prepared, without a lot of thought, in a rush on a Friday afternoon between important meetings. In fact, some of it sounds like it has been cut and pasted from the MM website.

I'm disappointed that DMXZone saw fit to accept this response from MM as an interview and publish it without going back to MM for a follow up.

Very disappointed.

JW

I should point out that, before we summarised the forum posts into questions, Macromedia were given access to all the posts in the forum. The discussion published was the fourth iteration of the document. I set up this forum so that I can pass on the community's comments back to MM; hopefully that will encourage their ciustomer services department to better acknowledge the frustration that people feel.

I should also point out than in a recent DMXzone poll, taken when MX2004 was announced, www.dmxzone.com/showDetail.asp?TypeId=11&NewsId=5467&ShowVotes=true, the largest group of voters was the "Can't wait to upgrade" people. So maybe MM think that the majority of customers are happy, and this forum is unhappy and vocal, but a minority. I wonder if that is still true after people have tried the trial version - so I've set up a new poll www.dmxzone.com/showDetail.asp?TypeId=11&NewsId=5737 to see whether people's minds have changed.

And if Ms Taylor gets back with any more answers, we'll get them straight to you.

I am in total agreement with you, I beta tested this software and felt like my input (bug reports) were totally blown off.
Many were marked as NOB not a bug, otheres were defered.

This 2004 product has serious errors in functionality and in usability, it is not worth the upgrade as a fully customized version of DWMX is not even migrated to the new environment.

I have sent them my wish list and all I got was "we cannot impliment any new enhancements at this time because it is so late in the beta process. The beta is reserved for finding bugs, only."

Funny I had been attempting to get involved for at least 6 mo prior to the Beta, even talked to Ben Forta about it...

On the whole, the DW MX2004 program was; buggy, hard to use, required a new learning curve, not intuitive, not attractive, offered less customization than previous versions and had several dis-enhancements. It looks like the MAC roots are still in effect, it is not conforming tot the windows standards (no matter what they claim) and is just about un usable to design with.

I would reccomend that all users refrain from upgrading until they fix several issues and offer the old style interface and editing workspace (that we have come to know) as an option.

For a preview into what the MX product should look like (iMHO) go to:
www.dosolutions.com/mx
U: ben
P: forta

Please let Ben and myself know what you think.

-Daniel Hoviss



Edited by - dhovis on 17 Oct 2003 18:58:11

Edited by - dhovis on 17 Oct 2003 19:05:45

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I should also point out than in a recent DMXzone poll, taken when MX2004 was announced, www.dmxzone.com/showDetail.asp?TypeId=11&NewsId=5467&ShowVotes=true, the largest group of voters was the "Can't wait to upgrade" people. So maybe MM think that the majority of customers are happy, and this forum is unhappy and vocal, but a minority.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
In general, multiple-choice polls are never a good indicator of a broad market section. Even the best national polls that spend tens of thousands on preparation carry wide margins of error and generally leave out a significant sector.

I don't remember the last time I voted in a web poll, let alone paid attention to their results. One big reason is that one of my former clients is notorious for getting their interns to spend half the day visiting polling sites that deal with the industry and spike the polls in their favor.

Trust web polls and you'd also believe that Major League Soccer is the second-most popular sport in cities where they have teams. As in more popular than the local NBA, NHL, and MLB team.

The proof is in the pudding:

1. Macromedia did not release a completed product, and even admits to it
2. Macromedia has never fixed a number of existing bugs from DWMX
3. Macromedia does not respond to its core user base, especially those were early DW adopters back with version 1 (write a book for New Riders, then MM loves you, otherwise go fish)

I'd love to hear positive comments from actual developers (i.e. not from CNET or MacWorld) that are contrary to those three items above, but I've been looking across the web and nothing yet.

I am sad to say that DMXZone gravely disappointed me in the very poor interview they performed after all the time many of us has spent trying to condense the problems with the software we basically love - and need.

How on earth can dmxzone allow theemselves to water the questions down to something like "sorry we bother you MM".

None of the serious issues we raise (again) in the forum has been answered with anything but hot air! This is not candid!!! this is lame.

Macromedia took our money - they DID NOT fix dmx before releasing a new product. They DID post a page stating you had to disable virus protection - which is crasy even if it WAS an old page (one that was not there before dmx2004 as far as i know).

MM have to put data behind their claim that it is well received (but that wouldnt fix the problems anyhow would it) - no dreamweaver based developer i have spoken to (5) have received dmx2004 well - and they all want a bugfix package for dmx before they regain confidence in MM again.

DMX still do have all the bugs i have posted in the DREAMWEAVER RELEASE forum no matter what MM claims to have fixed.

DMX2004 STILL doesnt allow me to test it before buying. And they got an award - so what? There is always some smuck that thinks he have tested something by just opening it up and run it for two hours.

Real life testing is something different! DMX is great in many aspects- but its also buggy as hell. Why should DMX2004 be any different when we are not allowed to try it?

DMXZone should pick up that phone again and ask the questions they promised to ask.

Sorry to be a 'me too', but I have also reported several bugs to MM that either crash DWMX completely or cause it to consume 100% of the cpu and have to be killed from the task manager, and I have gotten no response back whatsoever.

I find it apropos that the bug reporting form is called 'wishform' like, wish it would just work and stop crashing all the damn time.

There was a rumor a while back that MS was thinking of acquiring MM, and my theory is that MM is striving to show MS that they can can sink to the same poor quality of product and hostility toward their customers that MS strives for, thus making them a more attractive acquisition.

Lately I find myself thinking that an open source project based on NetBeans or Eclipse in combination with Mozilla Firebird and Venkman could probably do the job with a lot less fatal exceptions.

Of course on those days when DW has crashed for the sixth time in a row, or a global search and replace of an entire site caused it to consume over 500 meg of ram and bring my system to a crawl, I begin to think that I could easily replace it with a collection of scripts and macros for vi.

I find it quite a slap in the face when the article points out some of these problems were never found before the release. That is completely untrue like was mentioned by someone. I really worked so hard on helping out with this thing, and pointed out many bugs in more than one program they released and nothing was done about them. Now they're saying that these things were never found by all the beta testers before you released the software?? And blaming us for the state of the software, essentially?

that's so unfair to lie like that after all that free work we gave you guys. Please take responsibility for your own choices and decisions Macromedia. You knew about this stuff, it WAS found, and you made the decision to release the software anyway. Don't try to pass off you never knew aobut it, and WE didn't do OUR job in telling you about it. We did our job well.

<font color=blue><font face='Tahoma'>Hmm...I too am disappointed with the responses she gave. It was all general marketing blather. The usual canned stuff you get from somebody in marketing. I was surprised that one of my questions was quoted, but the answer I could have written by guessing what the response would be and I would have been 100% right. (The one about fixing existing bugs)

On top of that, I was forced to buy this stuff because of classes I am currently taking. I bought Studio MX student edition for $200 8 months ago. I'm still taking classes, so now I have to pay another $200 to follow the upgrade path for my classes? I was grateful for the discounted purchase, but the upgrade for existing users is not much more than the student price. So why don't they give a student upgrade price for like $130? IMHO, they are just trying to suck the industry for what they can and provide minimal effort to keep people happy. I think and I hope it is time for some real competition to Macromedia because they have grown complacent! This from the DMXZone mailer Oct 30 should say it all...

<font size=4>"Macromedia share price tumbles due to slow adoption of MX 2004 "</font id=size4></font id='Tahoma'></font id=blue>

Edited by - Darkwolven on 06 Nov 2003 22:47:44

I'm a Dreamweaver team member. Sorry to post so late, but things have been quite busy and I'm just now getting to visit these sites.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I have sent them my wish list and all I got was "we cannot impliment any new enhancements at this time because it is so late in the beta process. The beta is reserved for finding bugs, only."

Funny I had been attempting to get involved for at least 6 mo prior to the Beta, even talked to Ben Forta about it...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's true. One thing we learned this release was that our customers come in too late to give the most valuable feedback. Getting beta team members signed up and active after all is code complete has been a Macromedia process for as long as I've been here (four plus years). Though that might have served the product well when it was in it's early stages and the features needed were well defined and clear, it's hurting us and (obviously) the product now. When you're working on a product the size of Dreamweaver, increasing performance substantially means rewiring quite a bit of the code, if not doing some re-architecture. Tasks like that are supremely risky in the last month or two of a cycle.

We've taken steps and are discussing the bugs we've missed or passed over. We're also looking at our process to find a good way to get good customer feedback on what we're thinking while we're still thinking about it, not after it's coded.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
On the whole, the DW MX2004 program was; buggy, hard to use, required a new learning curve, not intuitive, not attractive, offered less customization than previous versions and had several dis-enhancements. It looks like the MAC roots are still in effect, it is not conforming tot the windows standards (no matter what they claim) and is just about un usable to design with.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This product has roots in both Mac and Windows; remember we came out with the product on both platforms simultaneously. In fact, this post makes it sound like we're still porting some Mac code to Windows, which I can say with some authority is simply not the case.

I'm also confused about this post since it mentions "requiring a new learning curve". One of the issues I keep hearing is that we simply didn't put enough new features into the product to make it a large impactful upgrade. If that's true (which it may not be for everyone), then the learning curve should be quite small. I'd like to hear some discussion on that.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
For a preview into what the MX product should look like (iMHO) go to:
www.dosolutions.com/mx
U: ben
P: forta
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It looks like no username/password is necessary now. I do have questions about this and the reasons behind your design decisions. Where can I contact you? If you'd like to email me, feel free to do so at

--Craig Jennings

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I find it quite a slap in the face when the article points out some of these problems were never found before the release. That is completely untrue like was mentioned by someone. I really worked so hard on helping out with this thing, and pointed out many bugs in more than one program they released and nothing was done about them. Now they're saying that these things were never found by all the beta testers before you released the software?? And blaming us for the state of the software, essentially?

that's so unfair to lie like that after all that free work we gave you guys. Please take responsibility for your own choices and decisions Macromedia. You knew about this stuff, it WAS found, and you made the decision to release the software anyway. Don't try to pass off you never knew aobut it, and WE didn't do OUR job in telling you about it. We did our job well.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I would like to speak up here as well. Our customers that help us during the release are our most valuable asset. Sound like hooey? It isn't. Being high up in QA I know that you find great bugs and point out issues that would be hard to discover otherwise. We're too involved with the product sometimes to see the forest for the individual trees (and sometimes the other way around too). Dreamweaver's beta testers are some of the most passionate and hard working people to ever give their ideas away for free. And if some of you think we blame YOU for the quality problems we're facing in the product, that's definitely wrong. I apologize to each of you personally if we lead you to believe that.

Again, I think part of the issue is just getting the beta customers involved too late. We felt it, though we may not have known exactly what was happening at the time. We had a fair amount of bugs come in that required a bug fix too risky (because it required testing over too much of the product) to consider in the timeframe we had. The problem then isn't the bugs that weren't found, it was with the timeframe. We're looking at fixing that issue now.

-- Craig Jennings

Craig,
It is great that you have popped in here to respond to these posts. On behalf of the development community I want to thank you for speaking up and starting a dialog.

These posts can be brutal, and should not in any way be construed as an attack on you or Macromedia. We are all involved here to make the products and our work environment better. That is my only concern. While many here are disolusioned by the new product and the beta process I remian hopeful that the short commings can be addressed and the product improved significantly.

&gt;&gt; Too late...

It's true. One thing we learned this release was that our customers come in too late to give the most valuable feedback. Getting beta team members signed up and active after all is code complete has been a Macromedia process for as long as I've been here (four plus years). Though that might have served the product well when it was in it's early stages and the features needed were well defined and clear, it's hurting us and (obviously) the product now. When you're working on a product the size of Dreamweaver, increasing performance substantially means rewiring quite a bit of the code, if not doing some re-architecture. Tasks like that are supremely risky in the last month or two of a cycle.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your customers (that are interested in the beta) should be encouraged to join up as early as possible. To say that the customers join too late is some what incorrect in some casses. Another way to look at this is the beta process is TOO SHORT. What I propose is Macromedia have at least two phases of beta groups. One (alpha test) to address features, functionality and usibility. The other (beta test) to hunt down bugs, programming errors and other incompatibilities. The entire process should be streached out (I myself only recieved two builds.) How can you find and fix anything with only two builds?


Something to keep in mind here is that we (the development community) are your best resource for design and functionality improvements. We should not be marginalized or told that "we signed up too late". This valuable resource should be encouraged at every turn, to remian involved in your product development.

The incredable popularity of Cold Fusion as a launguage was brought about be Allairs determination to foster a development community. I think that Macromedia would do well to return to those practices and listen more closely to the development communities needs, and give more back to the developers. A classic example of this is the way Macromedia charges for extension CDs, making those same extensions free, rather than unavailable execpt by payment would be a token gesture, symbolic of an attitude shift...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
We've taken steps and are discussing the bugs we've missed or passed over. We're also looking at our process to find a good way to get good customer feedback on what we're thinking while we're still thinking about it, not after it's coded.


Good idea, streaching out the process and not sucombing to marketing pressure would go a long way toward making this relationship and your products better.


"requiring a new learning curve".

For a preview into what the MX product should look like (iMHO) go to:
www.dosolutions.com/mx


I do have questions about this and the reasons behind your design decisions. Where can I contact you? If you'd like to email me, feel free to do so at


www.dosolutions.com
802 387 4141

We have already spoke (in email) during the beta.

-Daniel Hoviss

--Craig Jennings
<b></b>

Hi Daniel (and everyone),

&gt; We should not be marginalized or told that "we signed up
&gt; too late". This valuable resource should be encouraged at
&gt; every turn, to remain involved in your product development.

I think we meant the exact same thing. I didn't mean that our beta customers didn't get on board early enough. I meant that Macromedia didn't do the work of getting people on board early enough (didn't give everyone enough time for feedback).

Yes, I hope this does open up a dialog between us too. So far, what you've mentioned is encouraging and I'm hoping to see things go along those lines. Sure, it will take more work and slow things down somewhat. But in the end, I'd rather spend time working on a product that truly helps people become more productive and adds real value to their work over and above what we've already done. Most of the team feels that way too. So, without engaging you all, we're just guessing, and we need to think about how to pull you into the specification phase of the product cycle.

Sign me up!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So, without engaging you all, we're just guessing, and we need to think about how to pull you into the specification phase of the product cycle.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I would like to speak up here as well. Our customers that help us during the release are our most valuable asset. Sound like hooey? It isn't. Being high up in QA I know that you find great bugs and point out issues that would be hard to discover otherwise. We're too involved with the product sometimes to see the forest for the individual trees (and sometimes the other way around too). Dreamweaver's beta testers are some of the most passionate and hard working people to ever give their ideas away for free. And if some of you think we blame YOU for the quality problems we're facing in the product, that's definitely wrong. I apologize to each of you personally if we lead you to believe that.

Again, I think part of the issue is just getting the beta customers involved too late. We felt it, though we may not have known exactly what was happening at the time. We had a fair amount of bugs come in that required a bug fix too risky (because it required testing over too much of the product) to consider in the timeframe we had. The problem then isn't the bugs that weren't found, it was with the timeframe. We're looking at fixing that issue now.

-- Craig Jennings
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Thank you for your message Craig. I am glad not everyone at Macromedia feels the same way as the person interviewed in the article that spawned this entire conversation. I realize your marketing gave you a strict timeframe to work within, which is too bad the quality of the software did not dictate when it was actually released. I definitely feel more sympathy for you guys and the engineers to have to deal with that. Of course, the poor software has also economically affected me as well in a negative way - my product depends on the latest software and sales based on it. why I am so passionate about this subject.

Hopefully marketing will seriously consider the suffering stocks which was probably greatly affected by the poor software quality across the entire suite. Despite the updaters, which was a GREAT decision, I still suffer many problems with 2004 affecting my computer. I hope that marketing realizes how important good software is to make money, not just released before the end of a quarter.


Edited by - caseyjones on 19 Dec 2003 12:52:16

Now that the DW2004 update has shipped, (addressing some but not all of the issues) what is the timeline for requested improvements an further beta testing?

-Daniel

Likewise I have had a dreadful experience bith with the MX 2004 suite in general, the practically non-existent technical support for same and the equally dreadful and confusing Macromedia Web site. After a lot of deliberation I was able to get 'workaround' advice for one or two Dreamweaver problems and fingers crossed its working okay. For one thing - I had weird things happen on account of having outdated extensions installed. One such weirdy was that if you clicked the command button without a fiie actually being open in the workspace you were met with a barrage of JavaScript messages!
I still have issues with Coldfusion6.1 and Freehand also. To keep it brief I don't use freehand much at all but the first time I ever did use it I opened the Princess.fh sample file and tried to convert it to a JPeg. The result of that is System Crash!!! Macromedias Explanation is that I had 'managed to find its achilled Heel.'
I have been buying their products for nigh on 5 years now and I am living in a country where cy is rife but still I support their products - and for what? This is a company who once made great software, had the right idea about design principles and customer care but like Micro$oft MM have got greedy, release new editions before they get the existing one right, have pretty much abandoned customer support (There was a day when people in the US would deal with a query from Ireland where I was then living if noone was available to take the query in the UK. This NEVER happens anymore. I now live in Venezuela and I still get passed on to the UK eventually. In real terms I speak English and am a good deal closer to the USA - but Macromedia don't give two hoots!).
I can rant and rave all night and then some but I will end up writing a book.o
Echo the very accurate dissertion from Jason here - Jennifer Taylor should give herself a promotion and double her salary for all that company politico B******t she spouts! She's way out of touch with the reality of the matter when it comes what design tools are all about (and equally so the Site Design team) - namely usabiliy. MM have seemingly long since strayed from the path of one of the most important fundamentals of what they represent in terms of both software and the market which it targets.
I prayed to a god that seemingly doesn't want to listen, that Macromedia would return to the path of righteousness, produce once more quality products like DW/FW4 and Flash 5 (Maybe improve them as opposed to radically revmping them!) To putting their website back the way it was 3 years ago when information was easy to find and bits of your account and download information didn't magically disappear in these active flash movie/RDS type readers they empoy nowadays), and that above all there would be support on hand when you need it and not more Pseudo Politician types bandien excuses and workarounds to placate the customer rather than genuine fixes.
I loved essential what was at the core of MM products, their philosophy and way of doing things - sadly that's all but gone and Jennifer Taylor does very little in her repost to belie the fact!

A very frustrated MM customer

[color=purple]<b><i>John Murphy</i></b>[/color]