3 ms·
100% agree with what you said, I use it for all my graphic design, UX design and sometimes I also stretch it to do for print graphics (yeah, for print it ends w
by nnq 14y ago
100% agree with what you said, I use it for all my graphic design, UX design and sometimes I also stretch it to do for print graphics (yeah, for print it ends with and import to PS and export to pdf).
...but it's also buggy as hell! If you're a FW user, take PS or Illustrator for a spin and it will seem wind-fast and rock-solid in comparison. The FW codebase may be in need of a complete rewrite or hardcore refactoring considering how brittle the software feels and maybe Adobe doesn't want to have talented coders working on this, especially since PS is being slowly improved with webdev friendly features. But I really hope they change their mind ...FW is the only design tool with an UI that fits my workflow and bends around my mind instead of requiring my mind to bend around its quirks
- quink 14y agoIn many ways it feels like the number one change Adobe did to Fireworks is to make it slower, for no discernible reason. And Fireworks is quite buggy in some details, and it being a completely different codebase didn't help. I agree that AI and PS are much better in terms of stability and codebase and support, but they still feel like you're using an electric toothbrush to paint a wall. For print graphics, it's LaTeX for me. It's not an entirely sane choice. Either that or very high resolution Fireworks, trying to deal with HTML5 (and bending that into a PDF with horrific results) or just giving up and using Word. Or Illustrator, for that matter, which is the sane choice. But Illustrator sits in an awkward gap and InDesign isn't much better either in that regard. There's a market out there for a non-WYSIWYG application for print design.