3 ms·
I get what you're saying, and I kinda half agree. I think it's less about the choice of tool, and more about designers who know what's possible in HTML/CSS/JS.
by 542458 10y ago
I get what you're saying, and I kinda half agree. I think it's less about the choice of tool, and more about designers who know what's possible in HTML/CSS/JS. I think that HTML mockups are valuable (especially for reusing components and experimenting with interactivity and responsiveness), but Photoshop and Illustrator provide speed of experimentation that HTML/CSS is miles away from. Blocking out layouts and text in illustrator is mechanically trivial, and requires little planning - with HTML I need to actually plan out how my flexboxes and HTML structures are going to work out, and that just slows down experimentation and iteration.
Personally, I start in Illustrator, then move into HTML as the designs solidify. My Illustrator mockups are nearly identical to my HTML because I understand the limitations I'm working with (or psuedo limitations, since you can do most anything with SVG - but it might be a pain in the ass).
- avitzurel 10y ago> I think it's less about the choice of tool, and more about designers who know what's possible in HTML/CSS/JS This! Most designers who don't code (that I met) have no idea about this. I worked with dozens of companies as a consultant and this kept being a problem. Especially where there is a client in the middle that receives the designs before the implementation.
- rzzzt 10y agoMacaw bridged this gap nicely in my opinion: http://macaw.co/ http://macaw.co/ The downside of using it instead of PS or Illustrator is that you don't have the actual drawing tools at hand.
- 542458 10y agoWell, there's one additional (and huge) downside: Macaw was officially end of life as of January 2016 (acquired by invision), and won't be updated anymore.