20 Replies Latest reply on May 21, 2008 4:57 AM by

    Fireworks worth learning?

    gordonwd Level 1
      Background: I maintain a number of sites currently using DW8. An organization whose site I work on is willing to buy my upgrade to CS3, and probably pop for an upgrade to the basic full CS3 suite instead of just DW if I asked them to. The difference in price is $799 vs. $199 and I don't want to waste their money if the full suite is not of use to me.

      The new (to me) software in the suite is Flash and Fireworks. Flash might be fun to play with, but I would have to be sure that I'd get some use out of both Flash and Fireworks to justify the extra $600 cost. I currently use PhotoImpact as my do-all graphics program, both for manipulating photos and for web graphics such as rollover buttons and banners. I assume that this is what Fireworks is used for in CS3, but is it worth the learning curve to switch?

      One other advantage that I can see in Fireworks is its support in various DW extensions. For example, there are some extensions out there for creating slideshows on DW pages, but that only work by using Fireworks' integrated facilities for photo manipulation.

      I also use CorelDraw for vector work, although I do that so infrequently that I have to relearn it every time I open it. Does Fireworks support vector graphics at least as well as the basic CorelDraw functionality, and can CorelDraw files be opened in Fireworks?

      There were also comments in another thread here about Fireworks possibly being discontinued, presumably because of overlap with other Adobe products, but I'll try not to think about that right now...
        • 1. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
          Level 7
          gordonwd wrote:

          > The new (to me) software in the suite is Flash and Fireworks. Flash might be
          > fun to play with, but I would have to be sure that I'd get some use out of both
          > Flash and Fireworks to justify the extra $600 cost. I currently use PhotoImpact
          > as my do-all graphics program, both for manipulating photos and for web
          > graphics such as rollover buttons and banners. I assume that this is what
          > Fireworks is used for in CS3, but is it worth the learning curve to switch?

          Definitely. Once you've learned Fireworks, you'll wonder how you ever
          managed without it.

          > I also use CorelDraw for vector work, although I do that so infrequently that
          > I have to relearn it every time I open it. Does Fireworks support vector
          > graphics at least as well as the basic CorelDraw functionality, and can
          > CorelDraw files be opened in Fireworks?

          They cannot unless you export them from Corel Draw in legacy Illustrator
          format. But sine Fireworks is vector based, I predict that you'll learn
          it very quickly and use it as a replacement for Corel Draw for Web
          graphics.

          > There were also comments in another thread here about Fireworks possibly being
          > discontinued,

          It must be a very old thread. Adobe has no plans to discontinue the
          development of Fireworks. There is no overlap, since Fireworks in
          Adobe's only product specifically created for designing Web graphics.

          --
          Linda Rathgeber [PVII] *Adobe Community Expert-Fireworks*
          --------------------------------------------------------------
          http://www.projectseven.com
          Fireworks Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/fireworks/
          CSS Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/css/
          http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/
          --------------------------------------------------------------
          • 2. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
            Paevo Kelley Level 2
            The Flash and Fireworks guis are very similar, which makes using them in tandem quite intuitive and efficient; so much so, that I have relegated Photoshop to photo manipulation prior to use in FW (which is actually how things ought to work, when you think about it)...
            • 3. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
              Level 7
              gordonwd wrote:
              > Background: I maintain a number of sites currently using DW8. An organization
              > whose site I work on is willing to buy my upgrade to CS3, and probably pop for
              > an upgrade to the basic full CS3 suite instead of just DW if I asked them to.
              > The difference in price is $799 vs. $199 and I don't want to waste their money
              > if the full suite is not of use to me.
              >
              > The new (to me) software in the suite is Flash and Fireworks. Flash might be
              > fun to play with, but I would have to be sure that I'd get some use out of both
              > Flash and Fireworks to justify the extra $600 cost. I currently use PhotoImpact
              > as my do-all graphics program, both for manipulating photos and for web
              > graphics such as rollover buttons and banners. I assume that this is what
              > Fireworks is used for in CS3, but is it worth the learning curve to switch?
              >
              > One other advantage that I can see in Fireworks is its support in various DW
              > extensions. For example, there are some extensions out there for creating
              > slideshows on DW pages, but that only work by using Fireworks' integrated
              > facilities for photo manipulation.
              >
              > I also use CorelDraw for vector work, although I do that so infrequently that
              > I have to relearn it every time I open it. Does Fireworks support vector
              > graphics at least as well as the basic CorelDraw functionality, and can
              > CorelDraw files be opened in Fireworks?
              >
              > There were also comments in another thread here about Fireworks possibly being
              > discontinued, presumably because of overlap with other Adobe products, but I'll
              > try not to think about that right now...
              >
              What Linda said, x2

              Fireworks is THE tool for working with web and screen graphics, IMO. I
              can build design fast and easily and get interactive concept proofs to a
              client in record time, which speed up the entire workflow. I've never
              used PhotoImpact so I can't speak to the learning curve there, but I do
              use Photoshop quite a bit for hi res imaging, and I manage to flip
              between both without any real difficulty.

              The nice thing about FW is you've got both vector and bitmap tools in
              one place, and I find that extremely helpful. Learn one app and do both
              things there.

              --
              Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community Expert:.
              http://www.communityMX.com/
              CommunityMX - Free Resources:
              http://www.communitymx.com/free.cfm
              ---
              .:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:.
              Adobe Community Expert
              http://tinyurl.com/2a7dyp
              ---
              See my work on Flickr
              http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_babbage/
              • 4. Fireworks worth learning?
                SiamJai Level 2
                Hi Gordon,

                I recommend reading this excellent article aptly titled "Why Choose Fireworks?".

                This highly detailed review shows you how Fireworks can help in your day-to-day work better than other graphics programs, by highlighting the core strengths and advantages of Fireworks over other graphic editors currently on the market. Some discussed examples include:

                - integrated workflow
                - flexibility and editability
                - Live effects
                - precise numeric feedback
                - pixel-accurate rendering
                - extensibility
                - high-quality output
                - efficient optimization workflow

                I hope that this article will help you making an informed decision.


                ~~~~
                SiamJai
                http://design.thaiwonders.com - Innovative Fireworks & Game Art Community
                • 5. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                  Level 7
                  On Wed, 14 May 2008, SiamJai wrote

                  >Hi Gordon,
                  >
                  > I recommend reading
                  > http://www.adobe.com/devnet/fireworks/articles/why_fireworks.html aptly titled
                  >"Why Choose Fireworks?".
                  >

                  But note that there are some incorrect statements in that article:

                  "Bitmap images, on the other hand, are comprised of pixels or square
                  "dots"
                  Pixels aren't square dots.

                  "If a bitmap image is enlarged, the pixels in the original only get
                  bigger"
                  No they don't. Pixel size is fixed by the physical construction of the
                  display.

                  "When you work in Fireworks creating objects and editing images, the
                  program renders your graphic to a pixel grid set at the typical web
                  graphics resolution of 72 pixels per inch (ppi)."
                  No it doesn't. Graphics are rendered to a grid determined by the video
                  resolution. The value of 72 has nothing to do with it.

                  "This means that even vector objects, which are usually
                  resolution-independent, will be rendered to that pixel grid."
                  Every graphic, no matter whether created as a vector or a raster image,
                  is rendered to a pixel grid because _everything_ you see on a screen is
                  a bitmap.

                  "Another extension developer, Senocular, has created a Transform Panel
                  extension for Fireworks that does offer the ability to set the size and
                  location of objects down to subpixel accuracy (two decimal places)."
                  This implies that one can move a point on screen by a fraction ( one
                  hundredth) of a pixel - you can't. LCD displays have three subpixels
                  but manipulating these is done at a lower level than a graphics
                  application. CRT screens do not have subpixels. What's being
                  misunderstood here is the resolution provided by graphics co-ordinate
                  systems.

                  --
                  Richard Mason
                  http://www.emdpi.com
                  • 6. Fireworks worth learning?
                    SiamJai Level 2
                    quote:

                    Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
                    On Wed, 14 May 2008, SiamJai wrote

                    >Hi Gordon,
                    >
                    > I recommend reading
                    > http://www.adobe.com/devnet/fireworks/articles/why_fireworks.html aptly titled
                    >"Why Choose Fireworks?".
                    >

                    But note that there are some incorrect statements in that article:

                    "Bitmap images, on the other hand, are comprised of pixels or square
                    "dots"
                    Pixels aren't square dots.

                    "If a bitmap image is enlarged, the pixels in the original only get
                    bigger"
                    No they don't. Pixel size is fixed by the physical construction of the
                    display.

                    "When you work in Fireworks creating objects and editing images, the
                    program renders your graphic to a pixel grid set at the typical web
                    graphics resolution of 72 pixels per inch (ppi)."
                    No it doesn't. Graphics are rendered to a grid determined by the video
                    resolution. The value of 72 has nothing to do with it.

                    "This means that even vector objects, which are usually
                    resolution-independent, will be rendered to that pixel grid."
                    Every graphic, no matter whether created as a vector or a raster image,
                    is rendered to a pixel grid because _everything_ you see on a screen is
                    a bitmap.

                    "Another extension developer, Senocular, has created a Transform Panel
                    extension for Fireworks that does offer the ability to set the size and
                    location of objects down to subpixel accuracy (two decimal places)."
                    This implies that one can move a point on screen by a fraction ( one
                    hundredth) of a pixel - you can't. LCD displays have three subpixels
                    but manipulating these is done at a lower level than a graphics
                    application. CRT screens do not have subpixels. What's being
                    misunderstood here is the resolution provided by graphics co-ordinate
                    systems.

                    --
                    Richard Mason
                    http://www.emdpi.com



                    Thanks for pointing those out, Richard. May I remind you, however, that this is a support forum and the purpose of this topic is to help Gordon make an informed decision whether Fireworks is the right tool for his job. Now, maybe you are right about the article corrections, but the nature of pixels, sub-pixels and monitor resolutions vs. graphics coordinate systems don't answer any of the original poster's requests.

                    It's valuable feedback regardless, and as such, I suggest that you make use of the Send Feedback link on the first page of the article. I'm sure that Stéphane, the author of the piece, will appreciate that.
                    • 7. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                      Level 7
                      On Wed, 14 May 2008, SiamJai wrote

                      > Thanks for pointing those out, Richard. May I remind you, however,
                      >that the purpose of this topic is to help Gordon make an informed
                      >decision whether Fireworks is the right tool for his job.

                      Accepting good information as a basis for making a decision doesn't
                      automatically imply one should accept bad information along with it.

                      >Now, maybe you are right about the article corrections,
                      Maybe? :-)

                      >but none of the above points have anything to do specifically with
                      >Fireworks.
                      It would logically follow then that those statements should not have
                      been in a Fireworks article.

                      > It's valuable feedback regardless, and as such, I suggest that you
                      >make use of the
                      > http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=brc_tutorial_feedb
                      >ack
                      link on the first page of the article. I'm sure that St?phane,
                      >the author of the piece, will appreciate that.
                      >
                      Ha! Irony

                      --
                      Richard Mason
                      http://www.emdpi.com
                      • 8. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                        Level 7
                        > Accepting good information as a basis for making a decision doesn't
                        > automatically imply one should accept bad information along with it.

                        True providing that correcting the bad information has a bearing on the
                        question being asked.

                        In this case, did it really matter?

                        --
                        Regards

                        John Waller

                        • 9. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                          ironmang2g
                          Ya its worth learning, specially when you deal with web graphics
                          • 10. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                            Level 7
                            On Thu, 15 May 2008, John Waller wrote

                            >> Accepting good information as a basis for making a decision doesn't
                            >>automatically imply one should accept bad information along with it.
                            >
                            >True providing that correcting the bad information has a bearing on the
                            >question being asked.
                            >
                            >In this case, did it really matter?
                            >
                            Does understanding how basic computer graphics work when using
                            Fireworks, or understanding how HTML and CSS work when using
                            Dreamweaver, really matter?

                            --
                            Richard Mason
                            http://www.emdpi.com
                            • 11. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                              Level 7
                              You're deliberately missing the main point here.

                              Have a nice day.

                              --
                              Regards

                              John Waller
                              • 12. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                                Level 7
                                On Fri, 16 May 2008, John Waller wrote

                                >
                                >Have a nice day.
                                >

                                Thank you. Very civil of you :-)

                                --
                                Richard Mason
                                http://www.emdpi.com
                                • 13. Fireworks worth learning?
                                  abeall Level 3
                                  Hi Richard,

                                  I couldn't help but follow the link in your signature:
                                  http://www.emdpi.com

                                  Very interesting, worth a read for anyone here. I agree with you that there is a lot of misunderstanding in particular about what DPI means and [maybe more importantly] doesn't mean when it comes to screen graphics.

                                  Are you familiar with Fireworks at all? Your website shows you have an interest in 'em' and 'dpi' but your post seems to create some confusion about Fireworks. Without questioning your intent, here are a few thoughts:

                                  > "Bitmap images, on the other hand, are comprised of pixels or square
                                  > "dots"
                                  > Pixels aren't square dots.

                                  Bitmaps are made up of pixels, which are almost always rendered as 'square "dots"'.

                                  > "If a bitmap image is enlarged, the pixels in the original only get
                                  > bigger"
                                  > No they don't. Pixel size is fixed by the physical construction of the
                                  > display.

                                  When you enlarge a bitmap it does effectively enlarge the pixels. It resamples the bitmap and adds new pixels interpolated from the original pixel data, but what you see is basically the original pixels "enlarged" resulting in a grainy/blocky image. This is important to know about the nature of bitmap editing.

                                  > "When you work in Fireworks creating objects and editing images, the
                                  > program renders your graphic to a pixel grid set at the typical web
                                  > graphics resolution of 72 pixels per inch (ppi)."
                                  > No it doesn't. Graphics are rendered to a grid determined by the video
                                  > resolution. The value of 72 has nothing to do with it.

                                  Indeed, 72 dpi has almost nothing to do with it, and it isn't important either way. What is important is that Fireworks' rendering engine is built specifically for screen output, and one of the benefits of this goal is that the canvas always shows you a preview of the final pixels at any zoom level, giving you the most accurate preview possible of what it will look like on the final distribution medium; the screen. This is fairly unique to Fireworks.

                                  > "This means that even vector objects, which are usually
                                  > resolution-independent, will be rendered to that pixel grid."
                                  > Every graphic, no matter whether created as a vector or a raster image,
                                  > is rendered to a pixel grid because _everything_ you see on a screen is
                                  > a bitmap.

                                  Vector objects are pixel/resolution-independent, they are made up of mathematical curve data, not pixel data. When they are rendered as graphics on your screen, of course they are rendered to pixels, but what's important is that Fireworks will render them showing the same screen-pixel preview as everything else, meaning that even when you zoom in close you see a preview of the final screen sized pixels. This is worth mentioning because most vector editing applications don't do this, resulting in a much different level of detail when you zoom in close, making it hard to tell how it will look when you zoom back out to screen size. The important thing to understand about vectors in Fireworks is that you can enlarge them, unlike bitmaps, and the curve data is used to re-render new pixels smoothly at the screen pixel size, resulting in no graininess/blockiness at any size.

                                  > "Another extension developer, Senocular, has created a Transform Panel
                                  > extension for Fireworks that does offer the ability to set the size and
                                  > location of objects down to subpixel accuracy (two decimal places)."
                                  > This implies that one can move a point on screen by a fraction ( one
                                  > hundredth) of a pixel - you can't. LCD displays have three subpixels
                                  > but manipulating these is done at a lower level than a graphics
                                  > application. CRT screens do not have subpixels. What's being
                                  > misunderstood here is the resolution provided by graphics co-ordinate
                                  > systems.

                                  You misunderstood the definition of "subpixel" in this case. The Transform panel allows you to position objects at decimal coordinates, for instance to a value of "1.5" -- since the Fireworks coordinate system represents final output pixels, you are putting the object exactly between pixel 1 and pixel 2, which could logically be called at a "subpixel" position. This is important because if you use Fireworks you will know there is no built in way to move any object to a decimal coordinate, yet the position of an object can have a dramatically different pxiel output depending on where on the coordinate system it is, even to a decimal position. It has nothing to do with a display's single color subpixels.
                                  • 14. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                                    Level 7
                                    On Sat, 17 May 2008, abeall wrote

                                    >
                                    > Bitmaps are made up of pixels, which are almost always rendered as 'square
                                    >"dots"'.
                                    >
                                    No, they are not.
                                    http://www.meko.co.uk/shadowmask.shtml
                                    How do you think it possible that in a shadow mask CRT three electron
                                    beams striking a triangular arrangement of phosphor dots renders an
                                    illuminated area that is square?
                                    On my page http://www.emdpi.com/squarepixels.html I explain why people
                                    think pixels are square. It's an illusion.

                                    > When you enlarge a bitmap it does effectively enlarge the pixels. It
                                    >resamples
                                    >the bitmap and adds new pixels interpolated from the original pixel data, but
                                    >what you see is basically the original pixels "enlarged" resulting in a
                                    >grainy/blocky image.
                                    >
                                    Adding pixels to an image doesn't, in any normal use of the English
                                    language, mean increasing the size (enlargement) of the original pixels.

                                    > Vector objects are pixel/resolution-independent, they are made up of
                                    >mathematical curve data, not pixel data.
                                    >
                                    They are actually made up code to call Operating System (API) functions
                                    that handle the mathematics. I am familiar with vector drawing, and
                                    vectors are not 'particular' to Firefox or any other graphics program.
                                    TrueType uses vectors to scale fonts.
                                    >
                                    > You misunderstood the definition of "subpixel" in this case.
                                    Perhaps somebody who wondered what 'subpixel accuracy' was would Google
                                    'subpixel' and these would be the first two results.
                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering
                                    http://www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm
                                    Who's out of step? Redefining the meaning of a term does no service to
                                    readers who take what they read at face value.

                                    --
                                    Richard Mason
                                    http://www.emdpi.com
                                    • 15. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                                      pixlor Level 4
                                      Richard, while you're talking about the physical pixels on a monitor (and your remarks are correct), everyone else is talking about the logical pixels used to record color information in an image as displayed by Fireworks (and their remarks are also correct).

                                      The context is important. If I'm talking about a logical, image pixel as displayed in Fireworks, it makes perfect sense to say it's square because that's how it is represented in the program. If I set my magnification up to 1600%, I'll see rows of squares. Pixels. Image pixels.

                                      If I was still using my old take NEC shadow mask monitor, a took a magnifying glass to these rows of square, logical pixels, I would, indeed, see the triplets of oval, physical pixels that made up that monitor's system.

                                      For using Fireworks, or any other graphics program, what's more important is understanding how you can (or can't) define colors for the image and how the program displays the information.

                                      What other people are discussing is the Fireworks display of image pixels, including the way that, unlike other vector programs, it will show the screen-aliased result, even if you zoom in.


                                      • 16. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                                        Level 7
                                        On Sun, 18 May 2008, pixlor wrote

                                        >Richard, while you're talking about the physical pixels on a monitor (and your
                                        >remarks are correct), everyone else is talking about the logical pixels
                                        >used to
                                        >record color information in an image as displayed by Fireworks (and
                                        >their remarks are also correct).
                                        >
                                        Logical pixels?? Had to do a Google search on that.

                                        Wikipedia seemed to think it's the non-native resolution of an LCD
                                        screen while another reference said they are the RGB values in a
                                        graphics file, which is what I assume you mean by "recording color
                                        information in an image".
                                        How any of that relates to what "everyone else" has said, I have no
                                        idea.

                                        > The context is important. If I'm talking about a logical, image pixel as
                                        >displayed in Fireworks,
                                        Please define _exactly_ what you mean by a 'logical pixel' and how this
                                        "as displayed in Fireworks" is different to any other program that
                                        displays graphics

                                        > it makes perfect sense to say it's square because
                                        >that's how it is represented in the program.
                                        One can say that a program represents pixels as squares but that's not
                                        the same thing as saying they _are_ squares, something which a lot of
                                        people mistakenly believe, including the guru authors of a Fireworks
                                        book recently recommended in this newsgroup.

                                        >If I set my magnification up to
                                        >1600%, I'll see rows of squares. Pixels. Image pixels.
                                        Of course you do and on this page <www.emdpi.com/squarepixels.html> I
                                        explain why. In Fireworks create a 1px x 1px canvas and then magnify
                                        1600%. The magnified canvas is now 16px x 16px. Go to 6400% , the
                                        magnified canvas will be 64px x 64px. and that single canvas pixel is
                                        now represented by 4096 pixels. You can't see an individual pixel so
                                        when you zoom the pixels are replicated because it's digital zoom and
                                        not optical zoom. Because pixels can't be other than on the screen cell
                                        grid then they appear to be square _because_ they are close together on
                                        a grid. It doesn't matter what the actual physical shape of a single
                                        illuminated pixel is, square, oblong, round, hexagonal, whatever,
                                        because the zoomed result will _always_ be square.
                                        >
                                        > If I was still using my old take NEC shadow mask monitor, a took a magnifying
                                        >glass to these rows of square, logical pixels, I would, indeed, see the
                                        >triplets of oval, physical pixels that made up that monitor's system.
                                        I don't think you would because the electron beams are not like coherent
                                        laser beams but spread out such that they not only illuminate the
                                        specific phosphor dots aimed at but, to a degree, adjacent dots as well.
                                        I think 'blob' is a truer description of what you would see.

                                        --
                                        Richard Mason
                                        http://www.emdpi.com
                                        • 17. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                                          abeall Level 3
                                          Hi Richard,

                                          > >
                                          > > Bitmaps are made up of pixels, which are almost always rendered as 'square
                                          > >"dots"'.
                                          > >
                                          > No, they are not.

                                          Yes, they are. ;)
                                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap#Pixel_storage
                                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel
                                          "Pixels are normally arranged in a regular 2-dimensional grid, and are often represented using dots or squares."

                                          > Adding pixels to an image doesn't, in any normal use of the English
                                          > language, mean increasing the size (enlargement) of the original pixels.
                                          Visually speaking that is exactly what happens, which is the important part to understand when using Fireworks.

                                          > They are actually made up code to call Operating System (API) functions
                                          > that handle the mathematics. I am familiar with vector drawing, and
                                          > vectors are not 'particular' to Firefox or any other graphics program.
                                          > TrueType uses vectors to scale fonts.
                                          FireFox? Wait, you are aware this is a discussion forum about Adobe Fireworks, right? People slip their tongue between FireFox and Fireworks so maybe that's all, but since you didn't respond to my question about "are you familiar with Fireworks" I just want to make sure. :) Are you familiar with Fireworks?

                                          > Perhaps somebody who wondered what 'subpixel accuracy' was would Google
                                          > 'subpixel' and these would be the first two results.
                                          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering
                                          > http://www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm
                                          > Who's out of step? Redefining the meaning of a term does no service to
                                          > readers who take what they read at face value.

                                          Come on bro, the article is not redefining terms here. In the context using a word like "subpixel" is clearly meaning between two pixels on Fireworks' pixel grid, which is perfectly logical. I'm not accusing you of being "out of step" I'm just trying to explain Fireworks here, as it appeared you misunderstood the article.

                                          Do you have an interest in Fireworks? Your knowledge and help about Fireworks is welcome here. Beyond that, it's just not helpful to take good information about Fireworks and get as far off topic as we have on displays and low level OS APIs. If you want to talk about those things I have to ask you to take it to an appropriate forum out of respect for keeping the OP's discussion on topic. :)
                                          • 18. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                                            pixlor Level 4
                                            quote:

                                            Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
                                            On Sun, 18 May 2008, pixlor wrote
                                            >Richard, while you're talking about the physical pixels on a monitor (and your
                                            >remarks are correct), everyone else is talking about the logical pixels
                                            >used to
                                            >record color information in an image as displayed by Fireworks (and
                                            >their remarks are also correct).
                                            >
                                            Logical pixels?? Had to do a Google search on that.



                                            *chuckles* Okay, Richard. If you have to resort to a Google search to understand me, rather than put in any kind of good faith effort yourself, it's only because you don't want to understand me.

                                            Oh well! No skin off my nose!

                                            Have a nice day!

                                            (I know I will! The sun is shining...all over my pixels!)
                                            • 19. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                                              Level 7
                                              On Sun, 18 May 2008, pixlor wrote

                                              > Logical pixels?? Had to do a Google search on that.
                                              >

                                              >
                                              > *chuckles* Okay, Richard. If you have to resort to a Google search to
                                              >understand me, rather than put in any kind of good faith effort
                                              >yourself, it's only because you don't want to understand me.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              You didn't define 'logical pixel' so I did a Google search to find the
                                              meaning of that term because I had never heard it before - and came up
                                              with two different meanings. What is there to understand?

                                              > Have a nice day!

                                              Thank you. Very civil of you :-)

                                              --
                                              Richard Mason
                                              http://www.emdpi.com
                                              • 20. Re: Fireworks worth learning?
                                                Definitely you will learn fireworks when you try it
                                                no need to research a lot about it as its very friendly