3 Replies Latest reply on Oct 21, 2009 8:40 AM by pixlor

    Fireworks Workflow: Illustrator > Fireworks > Dreamweaver?

    thomasbricker Level 1

      Im new to Fireworks.

      Used to use ImageReady, years ago.

       

      Im just trying to get straight on what the workflow should be when you use Fireworks with the rest of the CS4 Suite.

       

      Say if I start out with a layout in Illustrator.

      Looks like you can open that Illustrator file into Fireworks (if it doesnt contain bitmaps)

      Once you have set up the fireworks file the way you want it, is that file then opened into Dreamweaver and further configured for web usage?

      Or does one have to export and then open the resultant html file in Dreamweaver and configure from there.

      Or can you skip Dreamweaver entirely and build a site without DW. (doubt it)

      Does Fireworks round trip with Dreamweaver?

      Does Firework's coding for say a rolllover, carry over to DW? (I would imagine so)

       

      Where do I find the best explanation of the preferred workflow method with all the CS4 apps to create website content?

        • 1. Re: Fireworks Workflow: Illustrator > Fireworks > Dreamweaver?
          pixlor Level 4

          Use each application for what it is best suited for.

           

          Illustrator is great for drawing. Fireworks is great for Web layout and Web graphics production. Dreamweaver is great for HTML and CSS coding.

           

          Fireworks can open Illustrator files...with come caveats. Personally, I only import Illustrator graphics into Fireworks if they are something more involved than Fireworks can do, for example, complex shapes or text with alternate glyphs in OpenType fonts.

           

          If you just need a quick prototype, then Fireworks code is good enough. Fireworks is a Web graphics and prototyping application. It is not a WYSIWYG Web page layout program. If you are going to build code and you have Dreamweaver, you are better off building code in Dreamweaver, as Dreamweaver's code is more robust.

           

          Also, unless you set it up very carefully, the code Fireworks exports is really ugly and difficult to maintain. In the long run, you save yourself frustration and effort if you use Fireworks for graphics production only and Dreamweaver for coding.

          • 2. Re: Fireworks Workflow: Illustrator > Fireworks > Dreamweaver?
            thomasbricker Level 1

            Well I wish Fireworks was a WYSIWYG website creator.

            Or that Dreamweaver was more WYSIWYG than it is.

            I find DW needlessly obtuse. (Compared with just about every other app that Adobe makes)

            (This is the part where all the web coders out there pipe in a give me a lecture on the true nature of web design and how web design isnt for the faint of heart or people who dont like coding)

            Also DW has its origins from Macromedia. They always had a different vibe about their products.

             

            Oh well, just "blue" skying here...

            Maybe some day Adobe will actually make a WYSIWYG website creator and the world will be a better place.

            (Or maybe Apple will. : ) )

             

            Fireworks does seem pretty powerful and it can create web pages.

            It's just what you do with them once they are created that remains a bit of a grey area...

            • 3. Re: Fireworks Workflow: Illustrator > Fireworks > Dreamweaver?
              pixlor Level 4

              You can have a WYSIWYG editor for print and PDFs, because the intended final output will formats are pretty nicely locked down.

               

              With the Web, your final output has to be markup language and, sometimes, code that is interpreted and rendered by a browser. Oh dear. Did I say "a browser?" Silly me...multiple browsers, each with their own capabilities and quirks about how they do things.

               

              Yes, there are WYSIWYG Web editors out there (even DW in design mode), but you can only do the most basic stuff with them or risk your markup and code being bloated, wonky, horrid, malformed, and badly-rendered.