Fireworks still suits me best for prototyping and slicing. I'd rather give my money to Pixelmator or an indie though.
Somebody could make a fortune building an OS X app that supports legacy layered PSDs and PNGs.
Life Without Photoshop
51–60 of 70 posts
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#52Context is important. A no-Photoshop approach makes sense for Quora since their product is text-heavy. For a product that requires, say, rich data visualizations like Google Analytics, some design ideas need to be mocked in a graphics package (Googlers often use Fireworks instead of Photoshop) first, then prototyped in code. Context is also important in terms of what stage of the development process the designer is a…
I never understood why people are buying proprietary, expensive stuff like Photoshop just for mock-ups. First of all, vector graphics tools like Inkscape are a lot better suited for that task. Second, even if you don't like vector graphics, there are great Free Software projects like Gimp and Krita that deserve our attention and our support.
>> Second, even if you don't like vector graphics, there are great Free Software projects like Gimp and Krita that deserve our attention and our support.
I'm not sure that I follow here. Why do they deserve our support? (Not to say that they don't deserve support, but thats a rather imposing claim without support)
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#53Fireworks still suits me best for prototyping and slicing. I'd rather give my money to Pixelmator or an indie though. Somebody could make a fortune building an OS X app that supports legacy layered PSDs and PNGs.
The irony though would be that they would probably use either Photoshop or Fireworks to do the app.
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#54Plug: I'm building a web-based mockup tool called jMockups [1], which my long term goal is to supplant Photoshop as the high fidelity mockup tool of choice. If you have qualms with Photoshop and can entertain the possibility of a better tool coming along, I'd really, really, really love to hear your thoughts on jMockups, what I can do to improve it, and how it can become a tool so phenomenal that it wouldn't make sen…
Sounds great, just signed up to try it. Two questions:
1. What's with the "j"? Makes it sound like it was written in Java...
2. Any thoughts of turning the website converter bookmarklet into a Chrome extension? Would be cleaner and seem more secure for users.
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems intriguing. How would you compare/contrast with Balsamiq?
Balsamiq is for designing low fidelity mockups (wireframes) whereas jMockups is for designing high fidelity (pixel perfect) mockups. It makes more sense to compare jMockups to Photoshop than Balsamiq. That being said, I can pretty effortlessly pivot from focusing on high fidelity to low fidelity. Right now I'm considering adding a toggle button that lets you switch back and forth, but am not sure if I want to go down…
I've played with jMockups demo and as a Balsamiq user I can say that one of its best features is "low fidelity", specifically lines that look hand drawn and comic sans font. That combo is what I consider most important in mockups: when you give that to a client, it's very clear that it's not a product, it's a mockup.
If you can make that kind of low fidelity, I think you would have very good mockup tool. Of course, seeing what you have right now, I can understand your thinking in pursuing high fidelity route.
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#56Plug: I'm building a web-based mockup tool called jMockups [1], which my long term goal is to supplant Photoshop as the high fidelity mockup tool of choice. If you have qualms with Photoshop and can entertain the possibility of a better tool coming along, I'd really, really, really love to hear your thoughts on jMockups, what I can do to improve it, and how it can become a tool so phenomenal that it wouldn't make sen…
Sounds great, just signed up to try it. Two questions: 1. What's with the "j"? Makes it sound like it was written in Java... 2. Any thoughts of turning the website converter bookmarklet into a Chrome extension? Would be cleaner and seem more secure for users.
1. "j" is for JavaScript. Think jQuery.
2. No need -- the bookmarklet is easier to install and works cross browser. I'd bet that most people competent enough to install a Chrome extension can also install a bookmarklet. Also, seem more secure != more secure.
Appreciate the feedback. Let me know what else I can do to make it better.
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Balsamiq is for designing low fidelity mockups (wireframes) whereas jMockups is for designing high fidelity (pixel perfect) mockups. It makes more sense to compare jMockups to Photoshop than Balsamiq. That being said, I can pretty effortlessly pivot from focusing on high fidelity to low fidelity. Right now I'm considering adding a toggle button that lets you switch back and forth, but am not sure if I want to go down…
I've played with jMockups demo and as a Balsamiq user I can say that one of its best features is "low fidelity", specifically lines that look hand drawn and comic sans font. That combo is what I consider most important in mockups: when you give that to a client, it's very clear that it's not a product, it's a mockup. If you can make that kind of low fidelity, I think you would have very good mockup tool. Of course, s…
Thanks for checking it out.
Can you elaborate on your last sentence? Of course, seeing what you have right now, I can understand your thinking in pursuing high fidelity route.
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds great, just signed up to try it. Two questions: 1. What's with the "j"? Makes it sound like it was written in Java... 2. Any thoughts of turning the website converter bookmarklet into a Chrome extension? Would be cleaner and seem more secure for users.
1. "j" is for JavaScript. Think jQuery. 2. No need -- the bookmarklet is easier to install and works cross browser. I'd bet that most people competent enough to install a Chrome extension can also install a bookmarklet. Also, seem more secure != more secure. Appreciate the feedback. Let me know what else I can do to make it better.
Could I make it a Chrome extension? :P Could be official or unofficial, I have my bookmark bar hidden so an extension would fit better with my workflow.
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like every "I didn't use Photoshop" article is always showing off a site that... looks like the designer didn't use Photoshop. As a designer who's in Photoshop all day long, knowing when a layout necessitates using Photoshop or not is second-nature to me now. I'll just stop using it and hop over to my text editor and start writing HTML & CSS. And for sufficiently sparse layouts, I'll just not use Photoshop a…
I think there is an alternative to using Photoshop - especially if you use a Linux based OS. I've often heard of people stating that GIMP is a valid alternative - I'd argue it isn't. GIMP is fine for performing a lot of everyday editing functions - but it's lacking in quite a few key areas (most notably CMYK support). I think as an alternative, rather than having Photoshop - which could be conceptually viewed as an '…
Why does CMYK matter for websites? Are they printed that often?
Re: Life Without Photoshop
#60Context is important. A no-Photoshop approach makes sense for Quora since their product is text-heavy. For a product that requires, say, rich data visualizations like Google Analytics, some design ideas need to be mocked in a graphics package (Googlers often use Fireworks instead of Photoshop) first, then prototyped in code. Context is also important in terms of what stage of the development process the designer is a…
I never understood why people are buying proprietary, expensive stuff like Photoshop just for mock-ups. First of all, vector graphics tools like Inkscape are a lot better suited for that task. Second, even if you don't like vector graphics, there are great Free Software projects like Gimp and Krita that deserve our attention and our support.
> I never understood why people are buying proprietary, expensive stuff like Photoshop just for mock-ups.
When I was younger, I couldn't imagine why people would spend hundreds on Creative Suite, MS Office, etc. I could just use GIMP, Inkscape, OpenOffice, etc. for free, and stick it to the man.
Now, I run a business, and I think anyone who uses substandard tools to save a few hundred bucks is crazy. I also think anyone who really believes that the freebie tools I mentioned are even close to the standard of the professional tools I mentioned is crazy. The cost of these professional tools is relatively small compared to the money they save through increased efficiency alone, but in many cases they get much better results that would justify the cost anyway.
(I could list a numerous objective, widely applicable reasons in each case, and I have done so in other forums on several occasions, but this probably isn't the place. I'm just trying to explain why people do the things you asked about.)