This content has been marked as final. Show 7 replies
Remember, you are using graphics editors to create your GRAPHICS. You would
create the website in Dreamweaver.
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
"chrisb345" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Hey, I was going over what works best when designing a website, I am all
> out of ideas. Is it best to create a website in fireworks or photoshop?
> Hey, I was going over what works best when designing a website, I am all out of ideas. Is it best to create a website in fireworks or photoshop?
I often start with a piece of paper and a pencil and work out how I want
the page to look. I then use Dreamweaver to construct the layout without
the graphics, then use Fireworks to create the graphics that fit in the
boxes. Its then a fun game of going backwards and forwards until the
design looks good.
IBM had a nifty series of articles a long time ago....
1) Who are your users and why are they coming to your site? (What technologies can/do they use?)
2) What do they want to find or do. Make a list of the steps they would take to do these tasks.
3) From #2, analyze and write all the bits and pieces of what you need to provide for your users (information objects) on cards or Post-Its.
4) Organize your cards/Post-Its into logical sections - this is your navigation as well as your folder structure..
5) Build a wireframe of your site - no graphics or CSS, using a text editor or Web development tool, as appropriate.. Test it logically.
6) NOW, make it look nice with CSS and graphics. Ideas can be sketched in hardcopy or electronically, whichever works best for you. Make images in whatever program is appropriate to the task. For prototyping, Fireworks is great. For assembling and slicing-and-dicing imagery, Fireworks is great.
I use FW for the functional graphics (background gradients, navigation buttons/menus, footers, etc.) and PS for banner graphics and other more "artsy" stuff, for which it is much better suited than FW (and for which there are literally MILLIONS of resources). Conversely, FW will give you more control over gradients and other complex shadings for buttons because it is vector-based as well (many styles are prefab)... This makes it more suitable for working with FL. I've never understood the either/or argument for either app...
Originally posted by: Paevo Kelley
I use FW for the functional graphics (background gradients, navigation buttons/menus, footers, etc.) and PS for banner graphics and other more "artsy" stuff, for which it is much better suited than FW
That's an opinion. During all these years in design, I have yet to see any PS-made stuff that cannot be recreated or made better with the creative use of FW. Thus, even now, PS CS4 is collecting dust on my harddrive, waiting for the time when I actually find some use for it... that's my opinion. ;-)
I just haven't seen the kinds of resources out there for FW as there are for PS (brushes, patterns, etc.). Also, you surely will admit that any creative use of photography needs PS...
Originally posted by: Paevo Kelley
I just haven't seen the kinds of resources out there for FW as there are for PS (brushes, patterns, etc.).
I agree that there seem to be more resources for Photoshop than there are for Fireworks. But, while a wider range of choices is certainly helpful, "more" doesn't equal "better". And when it comes down to quality stuff, both are equally well-fitted, in my opinion. I don't think there is even a single designer who actually makes use of all the resources for either of those programs. ;-)
I don't believe that Fireworks is at any disadvantage when it comes to raster editing. Not in the time of quality cross-platform plugins that bring powerful raster-editing options into both apps.
As far as I'm concerned, the only true limitations are those that can be listed in a spec sheet (ie. completely objective). Like the lack of CMYK and color profiling, which make FW a poor choice for many professional printing tasks. If the original question was about which one to use for printing jobs, I'd be the first to recommend Photoshop. :-)