Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life Without Photoshop

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#61

Post by derefr »

bane wrote: post #33
jasonfried wrote: post #18

Along the same lines, here's why I skip Photoshop when working on designs at 37signals: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1061-why-we-skip-photoshop

Laugh if you will, but I've found sketching out mockups in PowerPoint to work surprisingly well and about as fast (or faster) than paper since I don't have to redraw the whole thing after too many changes are made. And to your point: You can’t click a Photoshop mockup. This is probably the number one reason we skip static mockups. They aren’t real. Paper isn’t real either, but paper doesn’t have that expectation. A P…

I find it odd that people think the web killed HyperCard, when its descendants have been part of every office suite for the last 20 years in the form of scriptable presentation software. You can even make games in Powerpoint if you're willing to kill a few braincells using VBA.

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#62

Post by zaidf »

talbina wrote: post #31

I'm definitely going to be in the minority here, but I start with Excel. Here's why: - It's free - I have a perfect grid system - I can color in anything with borders and gradients also - I can format the text with spacing - Margin and padding properties are done using cell spacing properties - You can add pictures anywhere - I can easily copy the entire worksheet and paste it into Paint

Paint?

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#63

Post by vog »

shaggyfrog wrote: post #48
threepointone wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 for inkscape. I love it. -1 for the horrid experience inkscape is on the mac. Great on windows though.

Somedays I think Inkscape on the Mac is only slightly better than having to hand-code my data with a hex editor.

Although your statement is apparently a joke, there's some unexpected truth in it:

You don't even need a hex editor – SVG is an XML format, so a simple text editor will do perfectly fine! This means that in case of some Inkscape issues, you can always fine-tune the vector graphics "by hand".

This also means that generating vector graphics is as easy as generating HTML code in a web application. You don't need any imaging library for that. (For the old-school hackers: yes, this is also possible with Postscript, i.e. EPS) Then, you can use Inkscape to preview the picture and to make some final changes by hand, if desired. (Here, things get tricky if you use EPS instead)

Also, any modern browser understands SVG, so you don't have to do any image conversion. Heck, you don't even need an tag! Just put the SVG code directly into your (X)HTML document.

tl;dr: SVG is really cool, and Inkscape uses it natively.

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#64

Post by vog »

bane wrote: post #33
jasonfried wrote: post #18

Along the same lines, here's why I skip Photoshop when working on designs at 37signals: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1061-why-we-skip-photoshop

Laugh if you will, but I've found sketching out mockups in PowerPoint to work surprisingly well and about as fast (or faster) than paper since I don't have to redraw the whole thing after too many changes are made. And to your point: You can’t click a Photoshop mockup. This is probably the number one reason we skip static mockups. They aren’t real. Paper isn’t real either, but paper doesn’t have that expectation. A P…

What you describe here is mostly that Powerpoint allows you to do vector graphics (as opposed to raster graphics).

"Real" vector graphics tools like OpenOffice Draw or Inkscape may be even better suited.

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#65

Post by vog »

nswanberg wrote: post #37
bane wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laugh if you will, but I've found sketching out mockups in PowerPoint to work surprisingly well and about as fast (or faster) than paper since I don't have to redraw the whole thing after too many changes are made. And to your point: You can’t click a Photoshop mockup. This is probably the number one reason we skip static mockups. They aren’t real. Paper isn’t real either, but paper doesn’t have that expectation. A P…

That's a clever idea, and if it works for you, great. In fact I think it's a much better use than PowerPoint's intended purpose of crushing your soul bullet point by bullet point: http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/sld001.htm It looks like you can sort of do this in Google Presentation too, though you have to figure out the URL to link to other slides.

That's why I'm always using LaTeX-Beamer for presentations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamer_%28LaTeX%29

If you aren't already familiar with LaTeX, it takes some time to get into it. But it's definitely worth the effort! I know a lot of people who, once they started to use LaTeX-Beamer, never touched Powerpoint again.

To get a feeling of what LaTeX-Beamer is all about, you might want to have a look at the following tutorial (PDF):

http://www.tug.org/pracjourn/2005-4/mertz/mertz.pdf

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#66

Post by selectnull »

matt1 wrote: post #57
selectnull wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I meant to say I agree with you saying doing one thing well might be a better choice for your product.

I liked what I saw in jMockups, I like how it works, and it's pretty fast. But I wouldn't use it as a tool to create mockups that I have to present to a client (that doesn't mean somebody else has the same kinds of clients or same needs as me), for the reasons it looks too real. Like I said, Balsamiq's greatest feature is that mockups look "hand drawn", what you called "low fidelity", one might call it almost childish.

You said jMockups and Balsamiq are less comparable than jMockups and Photoshop. I agree. So maybe you shouldn't pivot from focusing on high fidelity to low fidelity but excel in what you already do.

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#67

Post by bane »

derefr wrote: post #61
bane wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laugh if you will, but I've found sketching out mockups in PowerPoint to work surprisingly well and about as fast (or faster) than paper since I don't have to redraw the whole thing after too many changes are made. And to your point: You can’t click a Photoshop mockup. This is probably the number one reason we skip static mockups. They aren’t real. Paper isn’t real either, but paper doesn’t have that expectation. A P…

I find it odd that people think the web killed HyperCard, when its descendants have been part of every office suite for the last 20 years in the form of scriptable presentation software. You can even make games in Powerpoint if you're willing to kill a few braincells using VBA.

That HyperCard hasn't been resurrected is a crime against humanity. Absolutely brilliant piece of software.

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#68

Post by bane »

vog wrote: post #64
bane wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laugh if you will, but I've found sketching out mockups in PowerPoint to work surprisingly well and about as fast (or faster) than paper since I don't have to redraw the whole thing after too many changes are made. And to your point: You can’t click a Photoshop mockup. This is probably the number one reason we skip static mockups. They aren’t real. Paper isn’t real either, but paper doesn’t have that expectation. A P…

What you describe here is mostly that Powerpoint allows you to do vector graphics (as opposed to raster graphics). "Real" vector graphics tools like OpenOffice Draw or Inkscape may be even better suited.

You make a valid point. But I've found that while dedicated vector tools are designed to make high fidelity artwork, their workflows are just not as quick for just putting down stuff on the page quickly.

Case in point, I hammered out 37 slides a few weeks ago in about 2 hours that captured a rough site layout, and a simulated workflow via internal hyperlinks. Maybe it's my unfamiliarity with the better vector tools, but I doubt that I could sit down in the morning and hash out a working sketch of a site before a working lunch meeting the same day in Inkscape. (though I'd definitely want to create some of the art assets in those tools for the final design).

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#69

Post by vog »

bane wrote: post #68
vog wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you describe here is mostly that Powerpoint allows you to do vector graphics (as opposed to raster graphics). "Real" vector graphics tools like OpenOffice Draw or Inkscape may be even better suited.

You make a valid point. But I've found that while dedicated vector tools are designed to make high fidelity artwork, their workflows are just not as quick for just putting down stuff on the page quickly. Case in point, I hammered out 37 slides a few weeks ago in about 2 hours that captured a rough site layout, and a simulated workflow via internal hyperlinks. Maybe it's my unfamiliarity with the better vector tools,…

> vector tools are designed to make high fidelity artwork

This might be a valid point against Inkscape, but not against OpenOffice Draw.

Re: Life Without Photoshop

#70

Post by matt1 »

selectnull wrote: post #66
matt1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I meant to say I agree with you saying doing one thing well might be a better choice for your product. I liked what I saw in jMockups, I like how it works, and it's pretty fast. But I wouldn't use it as a tool to create mockups that I have to present to a client (that doesn't mean somebody else has the same kinds of clients or same needs as me), for the reasons it looks too real. Like I said, Balsamiq's greatest feat…

Appreciate it -- thanks :)
Post reply on HN