A good ol’ rant by Vasilis on our design tools for the web.
I found myself needing to open some old Photoshop files recently, but I haven’t had Photoshop installed on my computer for years (not since Adobe moved to the Mafia pricing model). It turns out there’s an online recreation of Photoshop!
I remember when this was literally the example people would give for the limitations of the web: “Well, you can’t build something like Photoshop in the browser…”
Brendan describes the software he’s using to get away from Adobe’s mafia business model.
How mucking about in HTML and CSS can lead to some happy accidents.
‘Sfunny, people often mention the constraints and limitations of “designing in the browser”, but don’t recognise that every tool—including Sketch and Photoshop—comes with constraints and limitations. It’s just that those are constraints and limitations that we’ve internalised; we no longer even realise they’re there.
I’ve thought often of how our design and prototyping tools for the web are often not of the web. Tools like Photoshop and Sketch and Invision create approximations but need to walk the line between being a tool to build native apps and to build web apps. They do well in their ability to quickly validate designs but do little to validate technical approach.
If only our digital social networks were to exhibit this kind of faded grandeur when they no longer exist.
I giggled at quite of few of these mashups.
An important clarification from Stephen:
You don’t actually design in the browser
When I speak of designing in the browser, I mean creating browser-based design mockups/comps (I use the terms interchangeably), as opposed to static comps (like the PSDs we’re all used to). So it’s not the design. It’s the visualization of the design—the one you present to stakeholders.
Personally, I think it’s as crazy to start in the browser as it is to start with Photoshop—both have worldviews and constraints that will affect your thinking. Start with paper.
A history lesson and a love letter to the early web, taking in HTML, Photoshop, and the web standards movement.
Those were long years, the years of drop-shadows. Everything was jumping just slightly off the screen. For a stretch it seemed that drop-shadows and thin vertical columns of text would define the web. That was before we learned that the web is really a medium to display slideshows, as many slideshows as possible, with banner ads.
A nice summation by Dan of when it makes sense to use a graphic design tool like Photoshop and when it makes sense to use a web browser.
I really like Dan’s take on using Photoshop (or Fireworks) as part of today’s web design process. The problem is not with the tool; the problem is with the expectations set by showing comps to clients.
By default, presenting a full comp says to your client, “This is how everyone will see your site.” In our multi-device world, we’re quickly moving towards, “This is how some people will see your site,” but we’re not doing a great job of communicating that.
The Old Aesthetic.
This seems like an eminently sensible thing to do when building responsive sites: ditch mock-ups entirely. The reasons and the workflow outlined here make a lot of sense.
I want to go to there!
This is what Photoshop is for. Be sure to watch the slideshow.
Mark talks about the tools web designers use and the tools web designers want. The upshot: use whatever you’re most comfortable with.
An incredibly realistic Photoshop simulator built in the browser—it feels exactly like using the desktop version.
Funny but creepy. Freepy.
Where men meets moustaches meets hair meets moustaches meets hair meets MOUSTAIR.
I know this is probably inappropriate (comedy is tragedy plus time) but I am getting quiet a giggle out of this. I know, I know: too soon.
Cruel in a subtle sort of way: re-posting slightly tweaked Facebook photos of one poor guy.