21–30 of 52 posts
Look, designers can stick to making the website look amazing in photoshop, but let the engineers actually tell you what's possible or not using simple, responsive practices. Don't expect pixel perfect, do expect lean websites built to last.
Thankfully, I am not the one usually sitting in those meetings.
> 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…
The argument is that having a dedicated design stage before converting to templates/app/etc is still valid. Just because that button in the PSD is a rasterized gradient, doesn't mean the resulting page will have an image - but it does mean the developers writing the HTML CSS and JS have a solid design to work from, that the client has already approved. Do you somehow think that because the PSD to HTML process starts…
Now the workflow slowly evolves and Photoshop mock-ups are still part of it, but what the client accepts is the visual style, mood, UX, content strategy etc. The design team provides style guides, graphical assets, some key components. The UX team may provide a clickable prototype or just sketches of individual pages. Front-end devs build HTML/CSS components, then individual page templates which are usually integrated with server-side logic and filled with content. Everyone can be involved at any stage so it's not a typical waterfall process, rather combining the expertise of different professionals to deliver the best product.
What is needed I think is some sort of visual design tool, maybe not full WYSIWYG which respects and understands template languages rather than bulldozing everything.
"PSD to HTML is dead" panders well to developers. But it doesn't make it true. Let's dig a little deeper into why a developer may want to believe that the incredible toolset contained within Photoshop is completely useless and unnecessary: The inability to use Photoshop.
No one is slicing and cropping a PSD into images anymore. If there are still some who believe that, you need to spend some time talking to designers and front-end web developers. There's really no excuse for this misinformation.
I'm not arguing for Photoshop here. I'm arguing for a design reference point – something that has been created by a (web/UI) designer, for the purposes of reference. It can be a piece of paper, Photoshop, etc. Photoshop makes it easy to manipulate a design. That's it – the central reason for using Photoshop. Moving divs around, adjusting CSS or erasing pencil off a piece of paper is never going to be as efficient as clicking on a layer and moving, resizing it, etc. That's just the reality of why Photoshop is used. This "debate" is reckless abandonment of logic, or simply passive-aggressive anti-design irreverence.
When a front-end/UI developer has a reference for their layouts, it allows them to skip over "where does this go?" and get to their actual job. Some developers are agile enough to extrapolate other form factors based on how the design is structured. Some developers need a desktop, mobile, and tablet design to reference. At the end of the day, no one is slicing images. I am just trying to understand what the actual argument is.
I can only assume that most would agree that an architectural design is essential for constructing a building. Are we really arguing that we don't need a solid foundation to start building from?
If your business depends on Adobe's competence you may want to have a contingency plan.
Look, designers can stick to making the website look amazing in photoshop, but let the engineers actually tell you what's possible or not using simple, responsive practices. Don't expect pixel perfect, do expect lean websites built to last.
It is always fun to discuss with customers that expect pixel perfect designs, to the point that they actually measure them it all browsers specified on the contract. Thankfully, I am not the one usually sitting in those meetings.
Ideally pixel perfect is replaced with "looks perfect" and designer works closely with coder to achieve perfect look on various devices and resolutions. But I don't think coder should make assumptions how the coded design can differentiate from the original design (unless they have very good aesthetics feeling).