This content has been marked as final. Show 6 replies
Paevo Kelley wrote:
> I have just purchased Fireworks for the express purpose of creating DW
> templates more quickly than I am able in PS. However, I have unfortunately
> learned by perusing the DW forum that FW creates unusable html and is best
> avoided (at least via slicing).
Just like PS, It creates usable HTML, but not necessarily good HTML.
There are no graphics programs that create good HTML unless you know
enough about HTML to write it yourself.
That having been said, I have a few questions.
> Is the insert Fireworks html command in DW also to be avoided?
It works just fine to insert FW HTML. It doesn't change the Fireworks
Or does it clean
> up the code before inserting?
You have to know how to create clean code to begin with.
It appears the much-vaunted menu creation in FW
> does not function whatsoever in DW: why, then, do they vaunt it?
You are expecting it to do something it wasn't designed for.
Owing to FW's
> dual bitmap and vector modes, is designing a template quicker than in PS?
We have no idea what you mean by designing a template. Are you talking
about the images or the markup? They are two different things. Images
for a web page can be created much faster in Fireworks than in Photoshop.
Linda Rathgeber [PVII] *Adobe Community Expert-Fireworks*
Fireworks Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/fireworks/
CSS Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/css/
Very few people that use Fireworks professionally use any of the code it produces. Fireworks is a graphics program, just like Photoshop.
By template I mean a design template. I am simply curious why Adobe took the step to introduce into DWCS3 a command to insert HTML from an application that is apparently notorious for this precise purpose. Alternatively, should FW be used solely as a design template workhorse? I find that in PS I fall into a black hole of endless experimentation; I'd like a simpler more direct way to create graphics (incidentally, has the IE PNG compatibility thing ever been worked out?). At any rate, I suppose I'm stuck with it now...
Paevo Kelley wrote:
> By template I mean a design template. I am simply curious why Adobe took the
> step to introduce into DWCS3 a command to insert HTML from an application that
> is apparently notorious for this precise purpose. Alternatively, should FW be
> used solely as a design template workhorse? I find that in PS I fall into a
> black hole of endless experimentation; I'd like a simpler more direct way to
> create graphics (incidentally, has the IE PNG compatibility thing ever been
> worked out?). At any rate, I suppose I'm stuck with it now...
Adobe didn't introduce the command; it's been there since the early days
of FW and DW, when table-based designs were more SOP than they are now.
If you do not have a sense of what you want to create, you will fall
into that same hole, simply because FW is even easier (IMO) to work with
than PS when creating web mock ups, especially when dealing with vectors.
With a plan in my head (or a lousy hand drawn rendition) I can build a
concept in FW in a very short time. By using pages, I can build a
graphical click thru for client approval easily and quickly as well.
Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community Expert:.
Extending Knowledge, Daily
CommunityMX - Free Resources:
.:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:.
Paevo Kelley -
That endless experimentation blackhole you speak of with using Photoshop is exactly why I transitioned from Ps to Fw and fell in love with Fireworks. Get in, get the job done and get out. If you can make it to one of my informal Fireworks Jam Sessions I'll help answer your questions real time with demos. You can find the link to the jam session on my blog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/amusselman
Thanks, all--looks like I made the right decision to purchase Fireworks!!