11–20 of 52 posts
Sometimes one works better than the other for a project's specific needs. And vice versa. What we are needing to get past is pixel-perfect design, however.
So some folks like doing it one way, others like doing it another. Both groups think their way is better, and can give arguments in their favour. In reality, the right decision comes down to the project goals, the deadlines, the budget, the resources, the staff, and many other factors. This whole 'debate' has about as much depth as "should I put ketchup or barbecue sauce on my chips?".
More on this (from a programming perspective): http://vimeo.com/54042336
In the yesteryears "graphic" designers designed pixel perfect designs in Photoshop and expected web designers to convert these to xhtml/css.
It was a royal pain in the ass. I have been on both ends of this.
But things are very different now, the old definition of "PSD to HTML" has died or rather evolved.
I still create the first drafts of the desktop design in Photoshop, its simply easier to do when you'd like to try various designs. But hand code it from there. No more splicing etc.
This process also makes it easier for me to visualize the code structure for mobile first(in my mind).
> Adobe is trying to overcome Photoshop’s limitations for modern web design. So Adobe has realized that PSD to HTML workflow is dying and tries to develop tools for the modern web workflow to stay relevant. I don't get how this argument supports author's assessment. On the other hand external services like xhtmlized are a great way to push a website out of the door when you're an agency rooted in marketing/visual des…
Do you somehow think that because the PSD to HTML process starts with a PSD file that the output is necessarily going to be a) fixed dimensions and b) lots of images? If so, I have some news for you...
http://snugug.github.io/designing-the-modern-web/#/
Frankly those slides are nothing but a series of buzzwords and catch phrases - why even both to publish it, if any useful content is lost without the author adding content verbally. (S)He did add content verbally, right?
So some folks like doing it one way, others like doing it another. Both groups think their way is better, and can give arguments in their favour. In reality, the right decision comes down to the project goals, the deadlines, the budget, the resources, the staff, and many other factors. This whole 'debate' has about as much depth as "should I put ketchup or barbecue sauce on my chips?".
Although typical all-in-one design/developers might prefer mocking-up and developing in straight HTML/CSS, there will always be a large audience that prefers visual tools. The opportunity is there for other companies to fill this need--Sketch.app comes to mind. Frameworks such as Bootstrap, Foundation, Skeleton, etc. also fill some of the demand.
Responsive design is still new to many and designers will still use Photoshop for quite a while.
I believe that more or less sums up the sensationalist headlines.