New release of GUI Design Studio

29 May 2009 - 5:46am
5 years ago
20 replies
525 reads
Chris Steele
2009

Just thought that you would like to know that we've released a new
version of GUI Design Studio
(http://www.carettasoftware.com/guidesignstudio/) with lots of new
features.
Take a look at the release about it:
http://www.carettasoftware.com/press/release-2009-05.html
Also we offer a 30 day free trial, so if it sounds of interest, you
can check it out at no cost.
Thanks!

Comments

29 May 2009 - 6:26am
dirtandrust
2008

No offense, but your app doesn't seem to do anything Powerpoint
doesn't do? And the Olive XP style for screenshots? A bit Fugly.
It's all arrows.

What sets this app apart? What makes it remarkable?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

29 May 2009 - 8:37pm
Dave Wood
2009

Looks like it does for GUI design what Publisher does for Graphic
Design, makes amateurs feel like they are playing professionals. Lots
of other perfectly good ways to achieving the same thing already out
there. I still prefer using combinations of
PhotoShop/Illustrator/Flash/Wireframe. Doesn't get my vote I'm
afraid.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

30 May 2009 - 11:33am
Joshua Muskovitz
2008

Ouch, that's pretty harsh.

I look at it the other way -- The primary skill of GUI design
*isn't* supposed to be the ability to paint lots and lots of
individual pixels. GUI design in photoshop? That's like using PS for
word processing. (Honestly -- it is driving me nuts that people equate
the ability to paint pixels with the ability to *design* things.)

Like everyone else here, I'm commenting solely based on what the
site says and not based on actual use, but it seems like a nice
simple tool for mocking up applications that at least follow the
standard Windows look and feel. I know I could have used something
like this when we were wireframing new design elements.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

30 May 2009 - 11:50am
Scott McDaniel
2007

While I'm not enchanted by the design, there was a place for Publisher
and if we go by that comparison, there ~could~ be a similar place for GUI
Design Studio.

It bears further examination if someone's interested in this product, but
really...when I was editing newsletters in college, Publisher made my day,
and I had no illusions of doing Graphic Design (or ''playing professional''),
even if I was doing graphic design.

Scott

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Dave Wood <ixda at bazaar.me.uk> wrote:
> Looks like it does for GUI design what Publisher does for Graphic
> Design, makes amateurs feel like they are playing professionals. Lots
> of other perfectly good ways to achieving the same thing already out
> there. I still prefer using combinations of
> PhotoShop/Illustrator/Flash/Wireframe. Doesn't get my vote I'm
> afraid.

30 May 2009 - 2:21pm
David Drucker
2008

I agree. Plus the fact that it's Windows-only rules it out for me.
Don't they realize that Mac users employ GUI design tools as well (and
probably in disproportionate numbers)?

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Dave Wood <ixda at bazaar.me.uk> wrote:
> Looks like it does for GUI design what Publisher does for Graphic
> Design, makes amateurs feel like they are playing professionals. Lots
> of other perfectly good ways to achieving the same thing already out
> there. I still prefer using combinations of
> PhotoShop/Illustrator/Flash/Wireframe. Doesn't get my vote I'm
> afraid.

30 May 2009 - 3:00pm
Joshua Muskovitz
2008

> Don't they realize that Mac users employ GUI design tools as well
(and probably in disproportionate numbers)?

I'm sorry, but I just can't let this comment stand.

What exactly is the problem of choosing the single largest market and
building a product to address it? It doesn't support linux either, or
3270 display terminals for that matter.

I find the comments on this thread to be absurdly elitist. Less than
a week ago, we were discussing how pencil and paper are a fine medium
for wireframing. But a simple app that looks like it lets you throw
together ideas quickly and easily, and transport them in small,
effective packages is crap? What exactly is the problem here?

Is there some rule that professionals must restrict themselves to
"blessed" tools? What about those of us who think those tools suck?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

30 May 2009 - 4:04pm
David Drucker
2008

It's hardly elitist to say that a software company needs to address
the population that they are selling to. Macs may make up 10% of the
browsing population, but they probably are nearing 50% of the design
world (where for a long time, they held over that number).

But even if they are less than those numbers, Designers usually also
have good taste, so therefore they don't base their decisions of what
tools to use solely on 'the largest market'. So, call me/us elitist.
Frankly, in this context, that's a compliment.

Seriously, name-calling is not helpful here. From what I saw, the
software looked pretty ugly to me. The clumsy tabbed Project panel was
a classic example of bad Windows software design (putting everything
into tree outlines at the left of the screen because that's the way
File Manager did so in Win 3.1). The fact that it looks like a
programmers IDE makes me suspect that the product was not developed by
designers (even if it is for them).

Worse still, the documents it appeared to produce looked even more
tasteless and ugly. The Banking Application example suffered from poor
design choices all over the place (badly designed tables, an unclear
affordance for the collapsed panel, etc.).

I suspect that this is really a package for programmers who have been
forced to do the Design work a designer would do. That's why it's for
Windows only, and that's why the software itself is designed like a
programming environment. That's why some of us look at it and get a
bit nauseous.

> Don't they realize that Mac users employ GUI design tools as well
(and probably in disproportionate numbers)?

I'm sorry, but I just can't let this comment stand.

What exactly is the problem of choosing the single largest market and
building a product to address it? It doesn't support linux either, or
3270 display terminals for that matter.

I find the comments on this thread to be absurdly elitist. Less than
a week ago, we were discussing how pencil and paper are a fine medium
for wireframing. But a simple app that looks like it lets you throw
together ideas quickly and easily, and transport them in small,
effective packages is crap? What exactly is the problem here?

Is there some rule that professionals must restrict themselves to
"blessed" tools? What about those of us who think those tools suck?

30 May 2009 - 4:31pm
Joshua Muskovitz
2008

> But even if they are less than those numbers, Designers usually also
have good taste, so therefore they don't base their decisions of what
tools to use solely on 'the largest market'.

Is your complaint that it doesn't run on OSX or that it doesn't
mock up OSX apps?

If it is the former, the idea of a designer unwilling to deign to
*use* Windows while designing *for* Windows strikes me as elitist.
Besides -- wouldn't this run on Windows on a Mac?

If it is the latter, then the simple economic argument (90/10) makes
perfect sense. They are in the business of selling software, and it
makes sense for them to target the largest potential market.
*Particularly* since Macophiles seem to poo-poo it so badly. If they
did have a Mac version, you still wouldn't buy it, so why even point
it out?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

30 May 2009 - 4:36pm
Thomas Davies
2008

To be honest, I'd like to see the usability testing that 3rd party Mac
developers do, because I'm fairly sure it is not that much! I'm a Mac
user, and many applications 'look' nice, but don't necessarily behave
nicely. Mac developers either design their own UIs (Which is the same
as Windows' programmers designing UIs. Just owning a Mac doesn't
automatically give us taste) or hire an 'Interface Designer' to do the
work. However, on many well known Mac 'Interface Designer' websites, I
never see any information concerning usability testing or interaction
design, so it appears that they are merely designing the interface in
Photoshop, making sure it just looks pretty!

Also, a lot of the top iPhone applications have been developed and
designed by Mac software houses, and they are some of the most
appalling pieces of software ever. Heck, some can't even handle a
phone call interruption?! It's a fricking phone, and software can't
handle interruptions properly!

On 30 May 2009, at 22:04, David Drucker wrote:

> It's hardly elitist to say that a software company needs to address
> the population that they are selling to. Macs may make up 10% of the
> browsing population, but they probably are nearing 50% of the design
> world (where for a long time, they held over that number).
>
> But even if they are less than those numbers, Designers usually also
> have good taste, so therefore they don't base their decisions of
> what tools to use solely on 'the largest market'. So, call me/us
> elitist. Frankly, in this context, that's a compliment.
>
> Seriously, name-calling is not helpful here. From what I saw, the
> software looked pretty ugly to me. The clumsy tabbed Project panel
> was a classic example of bad Windows software design (putting
> everything into tree outlines at the left of the screen because
> that's the way File Manager did so in Win 3.1). The fact that it
> looks like a programmers IDE makes me suspect that the product was
> not developed by designers (even if it is for them).
>
> Worse still, the documents it appeared to produce looked even more
> tasteless and ugly. The Banking Application example suffered from
> poor design choices all over the place (badly designed tables, an
> unclear affordance for the collapsed panel, etc.).
>
> I suspect that this is really a package for programmers who have
> been forced to do the Design work a designer would do. That's why
> it's for Windows only, and that's why the software itself is
> designed like a programming environment. That's why some of us look
> at it and get a bit nauseous.
>
>
>> Don't they realize that Mac users employ GUI design tools as well
> (and probably in disproportionate numbers)?
>
> I'm sorry, but I just can't let this comment stand.
>
> What exactly is the problem of choosing the single largest market and
> building a product to address it? It doesn't support linux either, or
> 3270 display terminals for that matter.
>
> I find the comments on this thread to be absurdly elitist. Less than
> a week ago, we were discussing how pencil and paper are a fine medium
> for wireframing. But a simple app that looks like it lets you throw
> together ideas quickly and easily, and transport them in small,
> effective packages is crap? What exactly is the problem here?
>
> Is there some rule that professionals must restrict themselves to
> "blessed" tools? What about those of us who think those tools suck?
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

30 May 2009 - 7:08pm
David Drucker
2008

>> But even if they are less than those numbers, Designers usually also
> have good taste, so therefore they don't base their decisions of what
> tools to use solely on 'the largest market'.
>
> Is your complaint that it doesn't run on OSX or that it doesn't
> mock up OSX apps?

No, my main complaint is that it's ugly, poorly designed software. The
fact that it doesn't run on OSX is another knock against it, and for
me, the final nail in the coffin. Mocking up OSX apps wouldn't hurt,
since they supposedly support different 'themes' within Windows
(although admittedly, there is a bit more to it than that).

>
> If it is the former, the idea of a designer unwilling to deign to
> *use* Windows while designing *for* Windows strikes me as elitist.
> Besides -- wouldn't this run on Windows on a Mac?
>

Again with the elitist name-calling. (Remember, I'm _proud_ to be an
elitist, just like people who know good wine or cars consider
themselves to be elitists, but somehow when it comes to software and
US politics, it seems that elitism is thought of as a 'bad' thing).
At any rate, I would hope that one uses the best tools for the job.
Remember that some of the examples they show are for web software,
which (should) run on either- and for that reason it would be more
important to able to switch between Mac and Windows, as well as IE and
Firefox widget sets in order to check out some details of designs
before an app goes live. As for 'blessed tools', I use Fireworks,
Omnigraffle (which is Mac only), or whatever tools are required to
produce a particular file format (which is in some cases, Visio,
which I despise, not because it's on Windows, but because it is just
really hard to use and often required only because a company doesn't
know of any alternatives, which was the case when I did some work for
a local branch of IBM). I also run Parallels, or use a PC, which for
me is a last resort, since it is unpleasant and cuts my productivity
(which I tell the client, and if they insist, they are then paying for
it in the extra hours).

> If it is the latter, then the simple economic argument (90/10) makes
> perfect sense. They are in the business of selling software, and it
> makes sense for them to target the largest potential market.
> *Particularly* since Macophiles seem to poo-poo it so badly. If they
> did have a Mac version, you still wouldn't buy it, so why even point
> it out?

As for targeting 90/10, its also worth mentioning that leaving money
on the table (if you can manage it) is always a bad idea, especially
if the cost is incremental. Not to mention that they get bad press
every time a Mac user comes across it; There's nothing more annoying
than a 'you're not worth the effort' sign. Mac users are not only
elitist (good thing), but tend to be early adopters and pass the word
on. Plus they typically don't need as much support resources. Ask any
software developer that has decided to support multiple platforms.
It's true that there are a few Mac-only software houses (Omni Group
comes to mind), but they are very small companies with few resources,
and they've purposely decided to address a small part of the software
market to specialize in it, not simply ignore it.

Again, Mac vs. PC arguments aside, it's just plain ugly software, and
the proof of that seems to be that the examples they provide (and one
would think that you'd want to show off the very best examples of what
the software can produce) are ugly and clumsy as well. As for Mac
users poo-pooing it more than Windows users, I'm not sure about that,
but I guess keeping it away from the 'elitists' is an option. I just
doubt that they will be very successful in the long run with
designers, and in the end, that's what matters (unless, as I said,
it's really a tool to let programmers do ugly design work).

31 May 2009 - 2:47pm
Santiago Bustelo
2010

My two pence on the "elitist" and "Mac vs. PC" issues that arose
on this thread:

Anyone who thinks that choosing MacOS vs. Windows is "just a matter
of taste", or that market share is more important that Fitt's Law,
should stay away from Interaction Design. Or any UX field for that
matter.

--

Santiago Bustelo, Icograma
Buenos Aires, Argentina

// IxDA BA es el primer grupo local en castellano.
// Te esperamos! www.ixda.com.ar

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

31 May 2009 - 4:23pm
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

>
> Ouch, that's pretty harsh.
>

I agree.

That said, a single GUI Studio license costs $499. For that price, it better
do my dishes.

-r-

31 May 2009 - 4:33pm
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

>
> What exactly is the problem of choosing the single largest market and
> building a product to address it?

In the past 2-3 years, I've met extremely few designers using Windows. I'm
not saying there aren't loads more out there but worst-case, it's quite
debatable whether or not Windows is dominant in the design industry. I see
Macs everywhere. I'm not even sure I personally know more than a handful of
people who use Windows machines.

Of course, I do tend to hang out with elitists.

-r-

31 May 2009 - 4:41pm
Joshua Muskovitz
2008

> That said, a single GUI Studio license costs $499. For that price,
it better do my dishes.

On this point, I completely agree. A price tag of $100-$150 would be
much more appropriate.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

31 May 2009 - 4:43pm
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

To clarify the issue of elitism:
1. An "elitist" is someone who believes in rule by an elite group
2. The "elite" are people enjoying superior intellectual or social or
economic status

I'm not sure that saying Macs are better means you are an elitist. But I'm
pretty sure that being a user experience professional who says Macs are
better means you're elite.

:)

-r-

31 May 2009 - 5:49pm
David Drucker
2008

> To be honest, I'd like to see the usability testing that 3rd party
> Mac developers do, because I'm fairly sure it is not that much! I'm
> a Mac user, and many applications 'look' nice, but don't necessarily
> behave nicely. Mac developers either design their own UIs (Which is
> the same as Windows' programmers designing UIs. Just owning a Mac
> doesn't automatically give us taste) or hire an 'Interface Designer'
> to do the work. However, on many well known Mac 'Interface Designer'
> websites, I never see any information concerning usability testing
> or interaction design, so it appears that they are merely designing
> the interface in Photoshop, making sure it just looks pretty!
>

That's a really good point. There are some Mac Apps that are 'pretty'
but definitely need some UI work. Just because one is using Mac
Widgets and Window styles doesn't make you a good UI designer. It
would be interesting to see if the same app, with nearly identical
widgets on either platform, would be easier to use on either. There
are plenty of examples of these, and usually a 'port' of a UI from one
to the other is a bit of a fish out of water (I'm thinking of that
somewhat notorious version of Microsoft Word for the Mac that was more
or less that). However, I can't remember a Windows user complaining of
a Mac product that had been ported to Windows being 'too much like a
Mac product'. I suppose that Safari is the closest thing I can come up
with, since Apple even ported the non-standard font rendering, which
some people don't like.

> Also, a lot of the top iPhone applications have been developed and
> designed by Mac software houses, and they are some of the most
> appalling pieces of software ever. Heck, some can't even handle a
> phone call interruption?! It's a fricking phone, and software can't
> handle interruptions properly!

I know what you mean. Good UIs for iPhone apps (just like good desktop
software apps) depend on developers having good examples. At last
year's WWDC, Apple would let developers schedule a meeting with their
iPhone UI group to critique their software (and I'll bet they are
doing it this year, too). Some developers took advantage of it, but
since there are so many apps these days, the vast majority of iPhone
developers (regardless of their desktop orientation) didn't have that
chance. Apple has posted a Human Interface Guidelines (http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/MobileHIG/index.html
) but it can't cover all of the issues that game brings up, at least
specifically (and there are a lot of games out there)

1 Jun 2009 - 7:38am
pyces
2007

Actually, as someone who has to spend a lot of time manually creating
extensive user flows and application and site maps in Visio (and then
continually revise them throughout the course of the product lifecycle,
since they are used by our testing team) then to see it done with
drag-and-drop from a menu item to a new screen or from option buttons to
a new screen so quickly and huge masters being able to be dropped (Visio
only seems to allow a certain level of complexity for stencils and I
haven't been able to figure out what that level is yet!), I thought that
the application looked like a nice bridging of the massive gap between
Visio and irise, which even with a CS degree (and an MS in Human Factors
in Info Design), I find very difficult to use even just to create simple
prototypes as the interface is so kludgy, let alone trying to use the
more complex features! And while irise will cost you huge amounts of
money (chances are, most people don't use most of what they're paying
for), GUI Design Studio seemed pretty reasonably priced.
Again, just from the video (haven't had time to try out the free trial
yet, but I will), I thought that GUI Design Studio looked pretty easy to
use and would definitely address one of my needs.

Thanks for sending it out, Thomas!

Courtney

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Thomas Davies
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 5:36 PM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] New release of GUI Design Studio

To be honest, I'd like to see the usability testing that 3rd party Mac
developers do, because I'm fairly sure it is not that much! I'm a Mac
user, and many applications 'look' nice, but don't necessarily behave
nicely. Mac developers either design their own UIs (Which is the same
as Windows' programmers designing UIs. Just owning a Mac doesn't
automatically give us taste) or hire an 'Interface Designer' to do the
work. However, on many well known Mac 'Interface Designer' websites, I
never see any information concerning usability testing or interaction
design, so it appears that they are merely designing the interface in
Photoshop, making sure it just looks pretty!

Also, a lot of the top iPhone applications have been developed and
designed by Mac software houses, and they are some of the most
appalling pieces of software ever. Heck, some can't even handle a
phone call interruption?! It's a fricking phone, and software can't
handle interruptions properly!

On 30 May 2009, at 22:04, David Drucker wrote:

> It's hardly elitist to say that a software company needs to address
> the population that they are selling to. Macs may make up 10% of the
> browsing population, but they probably are nearing 50% of the design
> world (where for a long time, they held over that number).
>
> But even if they are less than those numbers, Designers usually also
> have good taste, so therefore they don't base their decisions of
> what tools to use solely on 'the largest market'. So, call me/us
> elitist. Frankly, in this context, that's a compliment.
>
> Seriously, name-calling is not helpful here. From what I saw, the
> software looked pretty ugly to me. The clumsy tabbed Project panel
> was a classic example of bad Windows software design (putting
> everything into tree outlines at the left of the screen because
> that's the way File Manager did so in Win 3.1). The fact that it
> looks like a programmers IDE makes me suspect that the product was
> not developed by designers (even if it is for them).
>
> Worse still, the documents it appeared to produce looked even more
> tasteless and ugly. The Banking Application example suffered from
> poor design choices all over the place (badly designed tables, an
> unclear affordance for the collapsed panel, etc.).
>
> I suspect that this is really a package for programmers who have
> been forced to do the Design work a designer would do. That's why
> it's for Windows only, and that's why the software itself is
> designed like a programming environment. That's why some of us look
> at it and get a bit nauseous.
>
>
>> Don't they realize that Mac users employ GUI design tools as well
> (and probably in disproportionate numbers)?
>
> I'm sorry, but I just can't let this comment stand.
>
> What exactly is the problem of choosing the single largest market and
> building a product to address it? It doesn't support linux either, or
> 3270 display terminals for that matter.
>
> I find the comments on this thread to be absurdly elitist. Less than
> a week ago, we were discussing how pencil and paper are a fine medium
> for wireframing. But a simple app that looks like it lets you throw
> together ideas quickly and easily, and transport them in small,
> effective packages is crap? What exactly is the problem here?
>
> Is there some rule that professionals must restrict themselves to
> "blessed" tools? What about those of us who think those tools suck?
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

5 Jun 2009 - 9:05am
Jonathan Attias
2009

No offense, but your app doesn't seem to do anything Powerpoint
doesn't do? And the Olive XP style for screenshots? A bit Fugly.
It's all arrows.

What sets this app apart? What makes it remarkable?

No offence taken!

Although you can use PowerPoint to design UIs, and I've seen it
done, it's an inappropriate tool for the job. That's not surprising
as it was designed for an entirely different purpose. If you create
your own set of graphical UI widgets, you could use them in a
PowerPoint slide and even have clicks on items take you to specific
slides to simulate workflow but that's about as far as it goes.

Even Visio, with a set of UI stencils, is not intended for
interactive user interface design so it's limited and inadequate for
that purpose even though it's used a lot in the absense of a more
suitable tool.

Not only does our app provide a good set of UI elements but it lets
you connect pages, screens and panels together in more ways than just
jumping between them. Parts of a design can be precisely positioned
and components (masters) can vbe reused throughout a project.

Of course, GUI Design Studio doesn't replace your graphics design
tool. If you're creating an application (Web or desktop) that needs
fancy graphics then you'll still want to use Photoshop, AI or some
other specialised tool for that. But then you can bring those images
into GUI Design Studio to lay them out, add other UI elements,
overlay text and link everything together to turn your designs into
an interactive prototype.

You can even use whiteboard photos or scanned paper sketches and make
those interactive if you like.

The examples and some of the screenshots definitely need updating.
The choice of Olive XP was fairly arbitrary. It makes a change from
Blue and Vista wasn't released when most of these shots were taken.
We'll be putting up more screenshots and examples as soon as we get
the chance.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

5 Jun 2009 - 9:06am
Jonathan Attias
2009

As for the app being "ugly", well we'll take that clearly on the
chin! It's certainly a bit grey and could be made to look a lot
prettier. The app has evolved from its initial concept 6 years ago
(v1 was released in 2005) so, it's true, the UI could do with a
revamp.

But, at the same time, it's compact and functional. When you're
designing a UI, especially for the desktop, you need as much design
screen real-estate as you can get and that's what the small toolbar
and tabbed interface gives you.

The clumsy tabbed Project panel was a classic example of bad Windows
software design (putting everything into tree outlines at the left of
the screen because that's the way File Manager did so in Win 3.1).

I've never yet come across a better UI paradigm for presenting
hierarchical file information than a file tree. They even appear on
the Mac, I beleive.

The Windows/Mac debate is interesting. I don't want you to think
that we don't have a Mac version because we don't think Mac users
are worth targeting. Far from it. We'd like to support Mac software
design (and Linux/UINX for that matter) and producing a set of Mac
widgets is on the list, it's just not at the top of the list right
now.

A cross-platform version of the tool is another matter entirely
though. The options for cross-platform development tools are fairly
limited and were even more so 6 years ago. Simply porting an
application from one platform to another is not at all easy. There
are some emerging technologies that we're looking at but no clear
winner yet. If we're going to redevelop GUI Design Studio using
cross-platform tools, we need to be sure we're backing the right
horse before we undertake this.

Macs may make up 10% of the browsing population, but they probably
are nearing 50% of the design world (where for a long time, they held
over that number).

Our Web stats show less that 5% of visitors using Macs but, whether
it's 5% or 10%, I'm interested to know how many designers are using
Macs to design user interfaces for Windows desktop applications, which
do still make up the vast majority of desktop business applications
(obviously, Macs are used a lot for platform-independent graphics and
Web designs).

Jonathan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42372

6 Jun 2009 - 8:46am
Preston McCauley
2009

There are so many tools like this out on the market now. I've tried lots of them and still I prefer and get better results using paper at least for the first 2-3 iterations of a design.

I've tried, foreui, balsamq, and a couple of Adobe flex based prototyping tools.

Syndicate content Get the feed