11–20 of 24 posts
I haven't quite managed to work Photoshop into my workflow, but Macaw looks promising because it puts CSS into an UI.
So personally I consider using it for outputting my ideas and for showing different layouts, but then later coding it down myself.
Does this argument work for illustration as well? Do you prefer to write SVG using a text editor instead of using Illustrator?
I agree. In some ways, tools like Macaw do promote laziness. You could compare it to the slicing tool in Photoshop that web designers used to use in the late 90s. However, both design and frontend development are becoming more specialized roles--especially for large web applications. A designer may be proficient in CSS/HTML but it may not be her forte. She may spend most of her time in design software creating wirefr…
I do agree that Macaw could be great for prototyping, but I'm adamant that it will be the death of quality code and websites if designers begin to misuse it.
I agree. In some ways, tools like Macaw do promote laziness. You could compare it to the slicing tool in Photoshop that web designers used to use in the late 90s. However, both design and frontend development are becoming more specialized roles--especially for large web applications. A designer may be proficient in CSS/HTML but it may not be her forte. She may spend most of her time in design software creating wirefr…
I do agree that Macaw could be great for prototyping, but I'm adamant that it will be the death of quality code and websites if designers begin to misuse it.
a) Why not use something to speed up designing and getting are products out there? You do realise that's the point of tools, and the way they evolve - we build better things that help us work faster and smarter. Otherwise we'd still be satisfied using the first version of Photoshop and coding in Notepad.
b) You're not in a position to say what designers should and shouldn't do.
Does this argument work for illustration as well? Do you prefer to write SVG using a text editor instead of using Illustrator?
But after watching Bret Victors great Talk about The Future Of Programming (https://vimeo.com/71278954) I don't think you're 100% right.
Right at the moment I also prefer hand written code over that generated code by some Adobe tool. But as Bret Victor puts it in the talk, I think it would be shame if we create applications in 20 to 40 years in the same way we do today.
Or to put it into another way, who really knows what programming is? Is programming something you do when you put characters into a text editor or is it something you do when you click something together in a tool like Macaw?
I don't think we should wear blinkers but instead should be open for new ways of thinking and approaching stuff. In the end, as long as computers do the stuff we want them to do, I don't really care about how its done anymore.
Just my 2 cents.
Well, a few weeks ago I would have agreed to your opinion. But after watching Bret Victors great Talk about The Future Of Programming ( https://vimeo.com/71278954 ) I don't think you're 100% right. Right at the moment I also prefer hand written code over that generated code by some Adobe tool. But as Bret Victor puts it in the talk, I think it would be shame if we create applications in 20 to 40 years in the same way…
Devin's post and attitude are part of the problem and why development is still utterly stuck in writing-lines-of-text in an editor mode. As if that's some canonical 'best way' to produce software.
Suggest Devin goes to Bret's site and reads some of his essays about tools. Software engineering is currently being massively held back (primarily in terms of efficiency) by the reluctance to build out and support tools to abstract creation further away from text editors. IMO.