Switching apps/GUIs ( was RE: Adobe takes over M acromedia)

19 Apr 2005 - 7:36am
9 years ago
8 replies
353 reads
Reese, Dean
2005

Dave,

I would like to understand the switch. Was this because of $$$ or another reason?

>Regards
>Dean Reese
Global Architecture
>Alcoa Global Business Services
>201 Isabella Street
>5W15
>Pittsburgh, PA 15212
>
>Office: 412-553-4888
>Cell: 412-951-0768
>
>"Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;
>Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
>So ritual enthralls generation after generation."
>Tao Te Ching; 38 Ritual
>

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of David Heller
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:28 AM
To: 'IxDG Discussion'
Subject: Switching apps/GUIs ( was RE: [ID Discuss] Adobe takes over Macromedia)

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Switching is an interesting discussion.

The question I would ask anyone making a switch is, "did they always have
the choice of returning?"

I have "forced" my team to all use fireworks instead of photoshop for screen
GUI design (low leve/high fidelity). The reasons are many and not really
worth going into in this thread.

One of my designers was quite the photoshop person and initially had a hard
time w/ the switch, but b/c she had "no choice" she learned fireworks quite
quickly.

How many of us have the opportunity to be "forced" into a switch w/o a
fallback? That is the big diff to me in behavior.

AND I totally agree with Jared that especially in these professional level
tools it is really hard to be a master of both. You will always have a
favorite if both (more than 1) are available and thus be better in it than
the other.

-- dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesi
> gners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interac
> tiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Donna Fritzsche
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:49 AM
> To: Jared M. Spool; andrei at designbyfire.com
> Cc: IxDG Discussion
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Adobe takes over Macromedia
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant
> quoted material.]
>
> >
> >Having studied how designers learn and use their tools (and how
> >other folks, like programmers learn and use theirs), I can tell you
> >that there is a huge loyalty to learning tools. A programmer
> >investing in Emacs will find everything else to be much harder, not
> >because it actually is harder, but because of the investment they've
> >made and the mastery achieved.
> >
>
> I think there is some truth to your statement (and I love emacs!),
> but I learned Freehand after Illustrator. In this case, I think
> there is some legitimate difference in mental models, approach, etc.
> Which I think also explains why Todd didn' t take to it and I did
> (for instance,)
>
> Donna
> _______________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/
>

_______________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/

Comments

19 Apr 2005 - 8:44am
Dave Malouf
2005

On 4/19/05 8:36 AM, "Reese, Dean" <Dean.Reese at alcoa.com> wrote:

> I would like to understand the switch. Was this because of $$$ or another
> reason?

First, I apologize for not trimming my last post ...

Despite my better judgment, and fear of a vendor/tool war I will try to
explain my thinking as I think our choice of "tools" both as end-user and
manager are very important.

Few things:
1. As a manager, licensing costs are ALWAYS an issue. So if I'm going to
compare what I get for how much from whom for what I need Studio MX 2004
wins hands down b/c well, it has Flash MX and well Adobe Creative Suite
doesn't (or should I say didn't) AND even w/ Flash MX Studio MX comes in
cheaper. (that's even w/ the professional version of Flash). On the flip
side I can see a manager who builds their spec's on InDesign and would want
that license MORE than the Flash license. I am a huge fan of prototyping in
Flash and want my team to be able to dabble in RIAs so it won over the
possible use of InDesign as a document creating tool.

2. Interoperability is a key concern of mine and while Photoshop can read
PNG files, it doesn't support the Fireworks layers and while Fireworks can
read Photoshop files, it doesn't support all there is in that format either.
So for interoperability's sake I felt I had to make a choice, any choice.

This issue is important b/c of what I call the management requirement of
"get hit by a bus". Yes, the outputs for documentation can be done in a
ubiquitous format, but if designer X gets hit by a bus, and designer Y has
to take over, the two designers need to use the same tools. Of course we can
make this less melodramatic and more real by saying when Designer X goes on
vacation or gets their wisdom teeth taken out, Designer Y can more easily
take over, and be less likely to ruin everything before designer X returns.

3. Fireworks is better at GUI design b/c that is what it was designed to do.
Fireworks is not a photo-editing tool that people have figured out how to
make use of for other reasons. It is a GUI design tool. It's mix of both
vector and raster based tools makes it really an idea tool for what I see as
the type of work we do. I don't even want to get into the more gadgety side
of things like its library and style palettes.

4. When we work in similar tools it is easier to collaborate and cooperate
and mentor/apprentice each other on tools. Takes away a level of
distraction.

Ok, I'll stick to those. Of course I'm sure there are a ton of reasons to
counter everything I just said, and someone might think the world of
PhotoShop or think that you can do all that in Illustrator or whatever. I
think I make a good case for: 1. Choosing the Macromedia Platform over
Adobe's (as a total platform; which is important from a licensing/cost
perspective); 2. That it is important for a team to use the same tools. So 1
+ 2 = fireworks. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I just darn like Macromedia
better as I see them as a company that does interactivity. But that is me
falling for the brand. ;) ... Oh! And I love Dreamweaver over GoLive too!

-- dave

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org
dave at ixdg.org
dave at synapticburn.com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

19 Apr 2005 - 12:46pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:44 AM, David Heller wrote:

> 3. Fireworks is better at GUI design b/c that is what it was designed
> to do.
> Fireworks is not a photo-editing tool that people have figured out how
> to
> make use of for other reasons. It is a GUI design tool. It's mix of
> both
> vector and raster based tools makes it really an idea tool for what I
> see as
> the type of work we do. I don't even want to get into the more gadgety
> side
> of things like its library and style palettes.

Oh wow. Fireworks is anything but a GUI design tool. I have no idea how
you can make that claim. Fireworks is an cool advancement on the
concept Canvas tried to accomplish so long ago and didn't get very far
with.

And FWIW, Photoshop started fundamentally as a pixel-editing tool that
grew into what it does around photos and other creative tasks.
(Remember one of its first strengths was to translate file formats.)
Pure pixel pushing is what is required to do GUI screen editing in my
book. Fireworks' object and layering model constantly get in the way of
that, so like I said, I'm not sure how you can make this claim that
Fireworks is a better GUI screen design tool.

And hey, you opened your mouth in this regard, so either put your foot
in it, or step up and make your case. 8^)

> Of course I'm sure there are a ton of reasons to
> counter everything I just said, and someone might think the world of
> PhotoShop or think that you can do all that in Illustrator or
> whatever. I
> think I make a good case for:

It's "Photoshop" not "PhotoShop."

> Oh! And I love Dreamweaver over GoLive too!

Well, now we know you're sick in the head.
.
Andrei

19 Apr 2005 - 1:41pm
Dave Malouf
2005

>
> And hey, you opened your mouth in this regard, so either put your foot
> in it, or step up and make your case. 8^)

Stepping up to plate as directed:

On 4/19/05 1:46 PM, "Andrei Herasimchuk" <andrei at involutionstudios.com>
wrote:

> Oh wow. Fireworks is anything but a GUI design tool. I have no idea how
> you can make that claim. Fireworks is an cool advancement on the
> concept Canvas tried to accomplish so long ago and didn't get very far
> with.
>
> And FWIW, Photoshop started fundamentally as a pixel-editing tool that
> grew into what it does around photos and other creative tasks.
> (Remember one of its first strengths was to translate file formats.)
> Pure pixel pushing is what is required to do GUI screen editing in my
> book. Fireworks' object and layering model constantly get in the way of
> that, so like I said, I'm not sure how you can make this claim that
> Fireworks is a better GUI screen design tool.

Uh! So the issue is going to fall on taste, b/c your biggest complaint is
what I love about it. It isn't perfect, but the fact that text, and vector
drawings are objects in their own "layer" that don't need to be in a
specific layer is what I LOVE about fireworks and why I think it is much
better than photoshop. I feel I have too much to manage in Photoshop and
that it requires the use of layers where Fireworks doesn't.

Next ... GUI Design tool ... I mean, it is totally process oriented. Nothing
more. Input pixels output HTML ... Good HTML at that.

Again, don't you think Andrei, that you might be a tad bioased, since you
breathed Photoshop for so long that maybe your design model and mental model
are well a bit too overlaid. I started on Photoshop through 4 and then as
soon as Fireworks 3 came out I was hooked!!! It was everything I ever wanted
in a graphic tool as a UI designer and they have only improved upon it. It
reacted the way I expected it to. No more, and maybe a little less. I do
think that subfolders would be beneficial, but otherwise, it is fine.

As for specifically a GUI drawing tool, it's single integration with
animation (frames) and the canvas makes for a juicy way to share components
across frames easily and tell a story (as an animation should). No I don't
actually output to aniGIF but I do use the frames to create a flow (mixed
with layers) for when I present. Don't have to output to bitmap and then
import into powerpoint like I would with Photoshop (and the integration w/
ImageReady [the fact that it is a separate app alone says this] is not where
I need it to be.)

Again, look at the WHOLE picture, and not just the parts. Fireworks by
itself would never be a complete sell: Fireworks, Flash and Dreamweaver is a
complete package that I can't imagine living w/o.

>> Oh! And I love Dreamweaver over GoLive too!
>
> Well, now we know you're sick in the head.
<ok, was that REALLY necessary?>

As for the Dreamweaver vs. GoLive ... Hmm? Contribute ... That possibility
alone makes Dreamweaver better than GoLive. I actually have the makings of a
CMS right there.

But as a former Allaire fan w/ Homesite, Dreamweaver is the perfect mix of
file/site management and HTML coding environment from my perspective.

Finally, this is all opinion and the really sad part is that Adobe is going
to ruin this all for people, b/c they just reduced our options.

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org
dave at ixdg.org
dave at synapticburn.com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

19 Apr 2005 - 2:18pm
Wendy Fischer
2004

Frankly, who does use GoLive?

Even when I worked on the GoLive UI at my brief stint at Adobe I still preferred Dreamweaver as my prototyping tool of choice for HTML pages. I thought that it was much easier to use and suited my workflow for creating prototypes. I've used Dreamweaver since my grad school days and prefer it.

-Wendy

>> Oh! And I love Dreamweaver over GoLive too!
>
> Well, now we know you're sick in the head.

As for the Dreamweaver vs. GoLive ... Hmm? Contribute ... That possibility
alone makes Dreamweaver better than GoLive. I actually have the makings of a
CMS right there.

19 Apr 2005 - 2:52pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

> Frankly, who does use GoLive?

Well, I started using GoLive back when it was GoLive Cyberstudio, before
Adobe acquired it, and before there was such a thing as Dreamweaver. It was
quite a step up from Adobe Pagemill. I still use it, for all of the reasons
Jared gave. I've been interested in learning Dreamweaver, as I've heard and
read that it is a better product, but haven't had the need yet. GoLive has
been able to do everything I need it to.

Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.690.2360 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

The World is not set up to facilitate the best
any more than it is set up to facilitate the worst.
It doesn't depend on brilliance or innovation
because if it did, the system would be unpredictable.
It requires averages and predictables.

So, good deeds and brilliant ideas go against the
grain of the social contract almost by definition.
They will be challenged and will require
enormous effort to succeed.

Most fail.
- Michael McDonough

***********************************************************************
Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email and document(s) attached are for the exclusive use of the addressee and contains confidential, privileged and non-disclosable information. If the recipient of this email is not the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this email or its contents in any way.
***********************************************************************

19 Apr 2005 - 2:25pm
Paul Millner
2005

I'm new to the list (and to this field in general) but I'm kind of
surprised to see this kind of debate here.

It seems to me that it's one thing to talk about what a company had
in mind when they developed a tool, or to compare a feature list, but
when you start talking about what a tool is "for" and which one is
"better" for a task, you really start making some assumptions about
the user, their goals, and the context, let alone personal preferences
(namely, that they all match up with yours).

Just a thought.

-Paul

>
> _______________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/
>

19 Apr 2005 - 3:17pm
Tadej Maligoj
2004

> I'm new to the list (and to this field in general) but I'm kind of
> surprised to see this kind of debate here.

I call this religious war, because it is fought by firm belivers ... ;+)

Most UI designers are computer tool users, too. Like it or not,
everybody has its preferences and from that assumptions, what the
ideal tool should look like.

I am not a power user of any tool (I have no need). In my experience,
switching between similar tools is quite easy (more language you know,
easier you learn another one). Sometimes I even force myself to
switch, just to broaden my own experience (stand up on master's
shoulder ;+).

Tadej

--
_______________________________
Tadej Maligoj, Information Architect
e1: tadej.maligoj at gmail.com
e2: studio at maligoj.com
m: 031 306 986
w: www.maligoj.com

19 Apr 2005 - 4:14pm
Dave Malouf
2005

On 4/19/05 3:25 PM, "Paul Millner" <paul.millner at gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that it's one thing to talk about what a company had
> in mind when they developed a tool, or to compare a feature list, but
> when you start talking about what a tool is "for" and which one is
> "better" for a task, you really start making some assumptions about
> the user, their goals, and the context, let alone personal preferences
> (namely, that they all match up with yours).

Hi Paul,

The value here is for some people who are NOT settled on a single tool, or
like me had to as a manager make some decisions. Even if it is the presence
of a religious debate there are some musings to be gained from the warfare:
choice of weapons, cost/benefit ratio, deployment, assembly of different
units (read related tools).

On another note, I think every once in a while it is nice to let the list
blow up a bit. We are a community after all, and well, we have some
emotional needs as well. Having a bit of fun "arguing" about the superficial
isn't always a bad thing from that perspective.

The problem is that it leaves people like yourself confused, and when people
like Michael have a real question about charting and tables it is hard for
them to get heard above the noise.

This will die down, just like in 2 weeks we won't be seeing stuff about the
New Pope in the news (like someone said, it is a religious war).

I'd also like to say that when a merger like this happens, people are
getting a bit scared (I know I am) that their favorite tool is going
disappear or worse, CHANGE! So these discussions are a community shrink
session.

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org
dave at ixdg.org
dave at synapticburn.com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

Syndicate content Get the feed