Adobe Muse Test Drive: Is It Worth $15 Per Month?

by on 15th May 2012 with 31 Comments


Adobe has an interesting relationship with folks who design websites. Photoshop and Fireworks have you covered from a static image perspective, but tools to build live, functioning websites are another story completely. Flash is no longer the poster child of modern web technologies (quite the opposite), GoLive went the way of the dinosaurs and Dreamweaver, though still widely used, is regarded by many to be a bloated mess.

One area that Adobe is intent on pursuing is web design for non-coders. They’ve made it their mission to bring the world of professional website creation to the huge market of designers who can’t write a lick of code. Thus far, they’ve largely fallen short of that goal (Project Rome anyone?). Their latest attempt, Adobe Muse, has finally exited beta and is available as a part of Adobe’s new Creative Cloud service ($50 per month) or as a stand alone product ($15 per month). Is Muse worth your time and money? Will it really allow you to create professional level websites without coding? Read on to find out.

A Long Time Coming

I’ve written a lot about Adobe’s road to releasing Muse. In 2010, I discussed why Project Rome fell far short of anything usable for serious designers. Many of the ideas from that project made it into the Muse beta, which launched a rant from me all about why adobe doesn’t understand web designers.

Given my history on the subject, is this article even worth reading? Won’t I predictably just bash Adobe and Muse and tell you to use Flux or code by hand instead?

Yes and no. Do I think Adobe has found the solution the industry has been waiting for? Not remotely. However, Muse has a lot of merit. There’s plenty that I really like about it in addition to what I think could improve. I will say this: Adobe is closer than ever. To see why, read on.

A Weak Start

I downloaded my thirty day trial of Muse, launched it, chose to create a new site and found myself looking at this window.


I was already disappointed. From step one Adobe is forcing me into a static width mindset. Print designers might find this familiar, but it blatantly disregards the current state of web design, which is rapidly traveling in the direction of fluid widths and media query driven breakpoints (responsive web design).

Here’s another problem that I had with this dialog: there are no units. The default page width that pops up is 960. 960 what? Pixels? Inches? Girth units? Seasoned web veterans will assume that this is a pixel based value, but this app isn’t built for seasoned web veterans, it’s built for newbies who need more information than what is offered here.

I was also confused about the margin and padding options presented to me. Was I setting global values for margins and padding? Why would I want to do that? When I code by hand I typically reset these values to zero, is that what I should do here? It turns out though that these values are for your main container. Again, a little more information would go a long way.

It’s not all bad though. I do really like that you can set up columns right off the bat. Really this just amounts to some guides being slapped on the page, but that’s a good thing. I like that setting up a grid doesn’t mean that I’m forced to stick to it in all circumstances.

Meet Muse

The Muse interface is just familiar enough that you’ll know how to get around if you use other Adobe products. There’s a positionable panel of tools on the right, a strip of buttons and options along the top and your main canvas in the center.


The app was built in AIR, which annoys the crap out of me as a Mac user. The result is something that almost looks native but feels quite different than a dedicated Mac application. This leads to several frustrating quirks. For instance, the main panel looks a lot like something you’d see in Photoshop.


Consequently, you expect it to work the same. Unfortunately, this panel can’t be anchored to the side of the screen like you’re used to, which means that it always feels in the way. You can reduce it to an icon strip, but it collapses to the left, so the default right side position becomes a poor spot.

No matter, you can simply move it to the right and keep it collapsed to save room. Like in Photoshop, clicking on a icon expands only that part of the panel, oh wait, no it doesn’t. Instead it expands the entire panel, which entirely defeats the purpose of the button strip.

Moving along, below you can see some of the options and buttons that reside along the top of the interface. There are three main view modes: plan shows you all pages in an outline, design is where you do your building and preview is where you see an in-app live web preview of your site (hit Command-Shift-E to preview in the browser).


Near the center of this topside panel is where you find what would normally be your floating toolbar containing the following: Selection Tool, Crop Tool, Text Tool, Zoom Tool, Hand Tool and Rectangle Tool. This is also where you apply various styles, add links, etc.


Building a Webpage

From here, the workflow is fairly intuitive. If you want to place some text, you grab the text tool. If you want to draw a box, use the rectangle tool; it’s that easy. As a coder, it scares me that I can’t manually set the parameters for elements that I add, but I guess that keeps things simple. For instance, if I want to set a paragraph to 300px wide, I just have to eyeball it or use my grid. And forget the box model, you just shove things where you want them.


One thing that Muse does pretty well is integrate with Photoshop and Fireworks. You can place a file from one of these apps, go back and make changes, and the edits will be updated automatically in Muse.

One of the things that I thought was a little clunky was working with the canvas. I couldn’t figure out how to simply select the background. It turns out just clicking on it does the trick, but there’s really no visual feedback to tell you that you’ve got it right.


From here you can apply a background fill or image with all of the options that you’d expect. If you’re working with an object, you can apply gradients and shadows, define hover states, round the corners, add links to other pages, etc.


Muse’s Workflow: The Good And The Bad


There’s a lot about Muse that Adobe got right. It’s really easy to just pick up and run with. I figured out pretty much everything I needed to with no outside instruction whatsoever. I think non-coders will really appreciate it as something more powerful than the typical WYSIWYG without being as overwhelming as something like Dreamweaver.

At the very least, it’s a great way to mockup websites, and its price range puts it into an area that’s somewhat competitive with online wireframing services that offer a lot less.

Now, from a coder’s perspective, there’s a lot I would change. I know the app isn’t built for coders, and maybe it should stay that way, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t share the constructs used to build web pages. The metaphor here is broken. Adobe needs to stop building page layout apps with web functionality and instead build a visual front end to the coding process.

Working with objects should be much more closely related to working with CSS than it is here. I should be able to set my color with RGBa, define the margins and padding for a button, set a paragraph’s width to 30% of the browser window, and create a font-family, but I can’t do any of this. Adobe has chosen familiarity and pretense over web design constructs and I think they’re on the wrong side of that fence.

The Code

After getting to know the interface, I busted out a super simple page so that I could see what the process is like and, more importantly, take a look at the output. Here’s what I came up with (click the image to see the live demo):


When you check out the demo, be sure to hit View Source so you can take a look at the code that was generated. I kept the page design simple for a reason: so I could see if the resulting code was also simple. A page like this would use a minimal amount of handcoding and should be fairly easy to sort through whether you can write code or not.

The good news is that Muse exports HTML and CSS, so thankfully the Flash only idea died with Project Rome. Predictably, the resulting code is extremely div heavy. Using the default navigation menu, each link uses a list item and not one, but two divs.


For the most part, the classes have straightforward names applied, but the ID names are useless and vague (example: “u154-4″). Overall though, it’s far from the worst WYSIWYG output I’ve seen. I can still easily read through it and see the structure. It’s certainly fluffed up, but only enough to make a coder roll his/her eyes instead of an abomination that will make him scold your very existence.

So Is It Worth It?

In the title of this article I promised to tell you whether or not Muse is worth the $15 per month. This question is difficult to answer simply because I question who the product is for. If you plan on building sites for a living, this isn’t the way to go. If you simply want to run your own little site, having a monthly fee simply to own the software isn’t exactly a thrilling prospect.

Bottom line: Muse is worth the money… in the short run. In the first few months, you’ll have a great piece of software with very little expense. However, using the subscription model, after two years, you’ll have paid around $360 for Muse. In my opinion, this pushes the upper limit of what the software is genuinely worth at this point. This may change as updates come, but if there’s no significant improvement, it simply doesn’t seem worth the expense in the long run when RapidWeaver is $80 and Flux is less than $150 (both Mac only options unfortunately).

How Adobe Could Make It Better

It’s interesting that I state that RapidWeaver might be a better way to go. With its rigid template-driven structure, RapidWeaver is far from anything that you would use to build a site from scratch. However, Rapidweaver has a rich third party plugin market capable of pushing it to greatness far beyond the default rigidity. With Blocks and Stacks, Rapidweaver becomes an impressive freeform site builder.

This gives me an idea for how Muse could be made a lot better with very little effort. Adobe should take a page from the RapidWeaver book and open up a marketplace where users can provide plugins. This way users decide what’s missing and how it should be integrated. If I want to use Muse to build responsive web pages, I’d simply download a plugin that would add the missing functionality. Granted, I’d prefer for Adobe to just understand the web design industry and build a tool that fits the market better, but in lieu of this option I’d take a RapidWeaver-like plugin market.

What Do You Think?

Now that you’ve seen my take on Muse, I’d love to hear yours. Do you think Adobe has finally nailed the idea of codeless web design or are they still treading water, pushing out products that aren’t moving the industry forward?

More importantly, how can Adobe refocus their efforts and create a product that you’d gladly shell out $15 a month to use?

Comments & Discussion


  • Natalia Ventre

    The sitemap and the master pages are interesting features, the new site dialogue could be better, but at least lets you generate a custom grid. I think Muse is good for beginners or wannabe designers.

    For professional web designers, it’s totally useless, because it generates a static website, how are going to sell that to a client?

    Dreamweaver includes some kind of jQuery theme editor, if Adobe makes a visual WordPress theme editor, that would be more useful than Muse.

  • Matt Saunders

    All this does it harm the profession. The industry has worked hard over the past decade to actually become a profession, that is, not just something that businesses take a DIY approach to (though many still do). As you stated in the article – who is it aimed at? Web design should be left to somebody who understands the concept, and as such should be coded up by hand.

    Conversely, if I was handed that to work with, I’d find myself rebuilding it anyway – have you SEEN the class names it generates?!

  • Prashant

    What if there is a software that could make print designs and web designs automatically? By DESIGN i actually mean design:like drag and drop some buttons and use a pre-built color palate and create design automatically!
    Just imagine the design that would be created!
    Thus, We need Designers to create GOOD DESIGN and so we also need FRONT END DEVELOPERS to create GOOD CODES!
    But if you still think we can create amazing designs automatically with some software & create amazing SEO Friendly, Accessible codes through readymade process, You are definitely amateur(No Offence )!
    Adobe shd start investing in creating products that would help the industry and not degrade it by creating such products.

  • John Stevens

    As a “real” webdesigner, and looking at the code, websites create with Muse is a horror. But am I negative about it? No!

    I see a potential in this for using it for Prototyping or a quick sketch. Not really tried it out yet, but on the first glance it could might does the job. What do you think?

    • Steeve Ha

      Yep. Adobe Web Prototype.

  • Dante

    I don’t understand why they would do this to us?

  • B.J.

    I think it’s strange that while iWeb is gone for a while right now there still hasn’t been a company that have done the job at building the next iWeb.

    All people i hear talking about those simple and easy to use ‘building websites’ tools tell me nothing has come close to iWeb.
    iWeb is simpel en works like MS. Word or Pages but everything else is out of dated at this time. Adobe Muse has the interface of Photoshop something most people don’t understand because they work with layers.

    Layers is a great feature but not everybody can see this logic if you’re not into computer stuff.

    I really hope for Adobe this will be a success and i don’t see Muse being a problem for Pro developers but this price is very strange and a bit expansive for the people who have to use Muse.

    Other side, with all the growing success of platforms like WordPress i really don’t see anybody else make something that can touch those numbers. WordPress is for both sides, Beginners who have to deal with all the free and premium themes and Pro’s who can build whatever they want. I think thats the best match for both sides into one product.

    Bummer my 30 days playing with Muse are almost over i wish i could test a little bit more.

  • Jason

    I know it’s a bit late to the commenting party, but here’s my $0.02. Back in the day, many DTP applications (even Adobe’s) had a tendency to spit out really crappy PostScript. Every RIP had different nuances, and what output fine on one device would choke on another.

    As a print professional, it was worth my time to be able to read PostScript because I had to do it every day. It was the only way to figure out why things wouldn’t render properly.

    15 years later, files almost never choke on output. Every RIP behaves pretty much the same. PostScript errors are very few and far between. I can’t remember the last time I had to manually read PostScript.

    The same thing is going to happen to HTML. One of these days, nobody’s going to have to be able to read it. Yes, I know, print vs. web is not exactly the same. That’s not the point. The point is that eventually the tools will mature just as the ones for print did.

    • Steeve Ha

      I’ve been thinking the exact same thing… Give it a year or two and history will be made for a product like Muse.

  • Robin

    I like the concept of Muse and I like what it does and the way I can work with it but its aims seem confused. Most responses are from web professionals who have a lot of problems with it – I suppose reasonably so – whereas I’m not a web or print professional and was lured to Muse as a DIY application. I could never afford a web designer for my ‘hobby’. But at what cost now the beta is over. It makes no sense to me as a business model for Adobe, so I’d like a response to this from them. I’ll work with Muse until I find an alternative and I’m grateful to everyone who has suggested alternatives.

  • Marty

    I’m going to be straight up – I really like Muse so far. It’s a little rough around the edges in terms of usability for a complete coding newb like myself. But thats who I hope they are aiming for. I couldn’t give a rats thingy about the quality of the code – I’m coming from iWeb, so surely it has to be better than that?

    I tried RapidWeaver and found it a complete unintuitive pig of a thing – even after using some plugins I couldn’t get what I wanted.

    So on to SandVox – Yuck. Another template driven pig. I’m not interested in templates. I want to make my own thing. I want to drag a picture onto the page and put it where I want it thanks very much. I really don’t enjoy the restrictiveness of templates – “You will put you logo HERE and it will only be THIS BIG” – Come on! Thats what I loved about iWeb. It let me do what I wanted (mostly) in this regard. I could choose a completely blank page and make my own menu (sure it was VERY simple text with hyperlinks to the other pages but what the hey it friggen worked…) and put my text and images wherever the hell I wanted. It still does!

    I don’t understand (probably because I don’t know a skerrick of HTML or CSS) why people have such an issue with Muse – it seems they only have issues with the code it produces and that its not for “Professional web designers”, and that it can’t handle too many pages – the list goes on. My problems with the other products out there are numerous to say the least. I don’t want a damn blog. I don’t want stuff leaping all over the page. All I want is what I have said, plus the ability to quickly put together and update pages for small businesses.

    I’m glad that Adobe has done something like this for people like myself. I’m buggered if I’m going to pay a designer/developer hundreds and hundreds of dollars for something I have no control over and don’t understand.

    My only hope is that Muse becomes a one off purchase. I too don’t like the subscription model – but then hey I paid a subscription for a certain online game for over 5 years, as well as paid for the software/expansion packs. And what do I have at the end of it? Nothing but memories.

    I think give it some time and Muse could develop into quite a nice little package for the small business owner who wants to put themselves on the web instead of just the yellow pages – with the flexibility to be able to put on screen what is in their minds and not someone elses.

    • Marsha

      Thank you, Marty.

      I’d love to see the site you’ve built with Muse.

      Your comments and experience are appreciated.

    • Jessie

      Very helpful, Marty. I have similar thoughts about this.

  • Marty

    Sorry, one more thing – but to me this situation makes me think of the demise of art directors and finished artists who argued until they were blue in the face that computers could never replace the quality of something that was done by hand…

  • Tina

    ditto Marty : )

  • Ben

    To me Muse is a bit like the autofocus lens revolution for the 35mm camera. It’s still going come down to the “batter and not the bat.” However, with Muse I don’t see much greatness in it’s code. Individual CSS pages for every webpage? I don’t like that and it just creates more editing complexity over fewer css pages. The id and class names aren’t friendly to use either as Joshua points out. I don’t like that it constricts you to static when responsive is clearly a better way to go nowadays and for the future. I like many of the suggestions that Joshua makes, I agree with them and I now know Muse very well. I found little quirks like with the master pages—they aren’t so master afterall, some things won’t apply and you only figure this out after using it. I think it’s very good for mockups or for those who want and need only a static site and don’t know how to code. There are many cool features but I believe the developers didn’t see how strong responsive design was coming on?

  • Jesse

    I can’t believe the lack of a good WYSIWYG web editor! Everybody acts like it was a given that Apple should dump iWeb, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why Apple stopped development on it – it was by far the easiest and best looking of Rapidweaver, Sandvox, etc., and the only real problem it had was sometimes the URLs were a bit messed up.

    It’s so obvious that there’s a substantial market for a good clean simple WYSIWYG editor. I’ve been searching and waiting for maybe two years – since the demise of iWeb – for someone to come out with something good, and all that’s come out is this substandard Adobe mistake called Muse. Is everybody blind? Muse betas started out great – because you knew they were just betas. But now they’re trying to sell this clunky, sort-of ugly, very limited excuse for an iWeb replacement for an exorbitant amount of money on a monthly subscription? Squarespace looks a hell of a lot better and costs about the same.

    It’s weird because Illustrator has long been my favorite program. I love it. It seems like Adobe just picked a designer and said “Make an iWeb replacement,” and then just abandoned her (I think it’s a chick). It has none of the finesse or beauty of Illusrator, Photoshop, InDesign. It feels like a bizarre wormhole back into the 90s PC/Windoze nightmare, and there’s no way in hell I’m paying a monthly subscription for something so inadequate.

  • AntoxaGray

    15$/month and it produces horrible code? Please no.

    • Nicholas

      That’s cause you care about code. The people this is aimed at do NOT.

      There’s a lot of arrogance here from the responses. It’s like you’re all saying “The common man should not be allowed to design his own websites”. Not everybody has $3000 to pay someone to design their sites. That’s a lot of money for a small business.

  • Diane

    I think Muse can be used to make really nice websites. If I buy a theme from someone like how do I make sure everything is seo friendly?

  • Shotan

    Great article. many thanks as you just saved me some cash!!! I agree Muse looks like a weak product in that it can only satisfy a very limited amateur market. I don’t even see the benefit of mocking up with it…. yet another piece of software to clutter up the server? I’ll be sticking with “real” packages that address the current and future needs for RD etc.

  • M.Adey

    Will it rank? Does it improve the UX. Am I able to pass less time on design and more on testing conversion, cause, you know what? For my self, and my clients, Website aren’t about coding, they are mostly about ROI. My main concern is, all those divs in the source code, will it perform the same as clean and structured hand code when Google robots will index my sites. Will I still be able to rank first in search engins!

  • Brynster

    I’m torn. Use ID every day so using Muse feels right. I can put together a decent site in DW but coding is not my expertise and it usually takes more time than it should (when you don’t ‘do’ sites on a continual basis you always end up refreshing what you should know by heart). When ID was first released it was clunky, but years later I wouldn’t do without it. Hopefully Muse continues along that same path.


    obviously like your web site however you have to test the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I to find it very bothersome to inform the reality on the other hand I will surely come back again.

  • Marsha

    This is one of the smartest discussions I have seen for a product I am considering investing in. Thank you.

    Quick Question:

    For a writer/photographer/designer, with no interest in coding, who has gotten along pretty good with iweb, blogger and Google Sites, what do you suggest?

    I am leaning towards WordPress. I’ve even bought a couple of books. Like Marty (above) I don’t like the look of templates. Unfortunately, with WordPress, once you choose a theme, unless you’re a pro, there’s no tampering with it, with the exception of plug-ins.

    Is WordPress the way to go for the non-professional website builder who wants the freedom and flexibility of updating and managing a professional looking site?

    Thanks a million.

  • jeff

    Concrete5 is easy to use. Best part…OpenSource, and is easy to use for the non html or css expert like myself. Check it out

    Like WordPress or Drupal ….you can download themes but you can easily edit the themes to your desire.

  • Joseph

    I like where Muse is going, but it has a long way yet to go. You can’t just completely ignore code if you want to build a decent and functional website.

    More responsive design features built-in would be appreciated.

  • Pearl

    Thanks for this – it’s great to see the comments from other people on the same journey as me; building your own website and wanting to get into the writing and design elements without having to spend days and days on Adobe Dreamweaver tutorials (one day was enough) – more importantly I love the Plan view which I feel is going to really benefit my visitors as compared to the flat navigation on iWeb.

    One thing that’s holding me back is creating my blog in here – plus transferring everything over (ulp! but I figured this is a good way to do a site re-edit and overhaul) but I’m sure I’ll figure it out.

    Funnily enough I used to manage PowerPoint presentations in the City and had endless discussions with designers/users; designers hated PowerPoint, and users kept just chucking stuff on the page so it didn’t get picked up the by the template, and I had to keep fixing it, but…

    …much as I would have loved to have had a team of PowerPoint professionals making sure everything was formatted correctly, even in a multimillion pound company there just wasn’t the budget.

    At least when I didn’t have the time to help people they could put together a half decent pitch with the templates I’d created.

    Like all these packages, even PowerPoint, the important thing is to balance style and content and remember that design is there to serve the user – if I can use Muse to create “an immersive user experience” I’ll be a very happy camper. (Of course I may be back swearing at it later!)

  • matt

    After working with Muse for a few weeks I will list the pros and cons coming from a professional designer and developer (last of a dying breed). We need to take a step back as coders and embrace new technology that allows for precise machine coding that allows for rapid prototyping, but also allows us to use this code in our final project. If this can be done properly and support JS, AJAX, PHP, etc., we will see a revolution in design. Think the invention of the cotton gin to mechanically separate the cotton from the seed. Think the invention of the loom. Mechanization over hand built has many advantages if done properly. Muse is almost there but falls short in a few areas (big areas, as of now). So, code snobs, as much as I enjoy dealing with clean, intelligent designs, face the facts that mechanization is the future.

    What the end user wants is not necessarily what the developer wants. Clients want functionality, a nice UI, nice effects (thanks MIT for JQuery), and a low price tag. A developer wants code that is easy to follow and designed intelligently. If the developer can get over his/her obsession with hand coding and move on to machine coding options it will open up a world of cost and time savings which you can pass on to your customer and probably get more jobs. Will the end user ever know you used a program to machine code? Probably not. As long as your page does what you say it will, is responsive, is mobile/tablet ready, and looks nice they will be happy. So, why did I decide NOT to use Muse? Read on.

    Cons first:
    – buggy: things just don’t work the way they should. Sometimes pages will display improperly. This isn’t a huge deal as you can usually get around it easily with some minor tweaking without touching the code.

    – div styling with javascript: This is the biggest problem I see. Muse imports its own JS files to style page content. This means incompatability. Because of this you cannot import your own jQuery files to use on your page. You are limited in using Muse’s built in widgets. If you try to import your own JS file, it not work with Muse’s built in JS file. You can remove the imported Muse JS file at the bottom of the body HTML, but then the rest of the page styling breaks. You must go either way with this, and if you choose to import your own JS source file, there is no reason to use Muse in the first place because you will not be able to style the page.

    -Unsupported on mobile: Muse claims to prroduce HTML5 and CSS3 compliant code, which is mostly true. However, during talks with Adobe I found that they claim that they never state Muse produces mobile compatible code. Certain things don’t work on Muse (such as the fit div to browser window functionality). This is extremely easy to style with hand-code (width: 100%, essentially) but Muse fails to deliver and has no workaround currently for this bug because once again, page is styled using JS.

    Limited widgets: Ok, so no big deal if we cant use our own custom JS source files, as long as Muse offers something to use instead that looks equally attractive. Well, it doesn’t. Muse is extremely limited in number of widgets as of now. I’m sure the library will grow but as of now its very weak.

    div on top of div on top of div: It can be hard to read through the code if you want to get into the html/ css to edit anything manually. It is ugly, but not the worst ive seen from this type of program. It definitely will be slightly less responsive than a hand code design. which leads to my next point.

    No image sprites: If page load time is a priority and you have a lot of images, you may want to use sprites. Muse doesn’t support these.

    Ok, so the Pros?

    -Fast prototyping: you can produce pages that will mimic the design of a final product pretty quickly.

    – Good for beginners, bad also bad for learning: It will be easy for a beginner to get into the program and produce something that would take a long time to learn on their own. But, the code produced will be harder to follow than a hand coded website. Hand coding is definitely the way to go to understand how to effectively code a page. Muse likes to use a LOT of divs and separate css pages and classes. When all is said and done though, if you don’t care about custom Javascript or want to push Muse past what it can do now, it is effective at producing a simple page with some nice features.

    Overall I think Muse has a lot of promise. I think a few updates from now it will feature a lot of new elements and they will fix most of the bugs. If they can get past the roadblocks that are keeping muse from producing the rich content that hand-coding offers they will have hit the nail on the head.

    Developers need to get over their hate for machine coding. Maybe the class names (like div style=”u3424″) make no sense, but remember that its a machine. It doesn’t know if your div is a quote or body or featured product. Deal with it. If you know how to read code you can easily follow what is happening, as ugly as it may be.

    If Adobe would fix these small bugs and offer more when it comes to jquery and custom javascript it would be my go to for producing commercial pages. As for now though I’ll stick to doing it by hand.

  • Staci

    I am looking at the option of building my own site with Muse, or using a template through 1 & 1. The UI of Muse is fairly easy since I work with CS5 quite often. I can understand the basics of reading code enough to add padding and text to my company’s current site. If I was to purchase MUSE to build a site and have it hosted on Adobe’s cloud, would I be able to edit it without paying for a monthly subscription? Or, should I just go with the template and hosted webpage through 1 & 1 for $20/mo?

  • cold brew coffee filter bag

    Hi mates, fastidious paragraph and fastidious arguments commented here, I am genuinely enjoying by these.


About the Author