1 person found this helpful
Select the Zoom tool and draw a marquee around the are you want to zoom in to.
Thank you Jim for your reply.
I kindly appreciate your advice, but it is only hlaf way to be practicaly perfect solution, isn't it?
The fact is that the FW is not so perfect as PS. It is not so wisely programmed and designed asi AI or PS.
It laks some essential features in opposite to the other sw packages.
FW is a great program, but for its unfamiliar interface and logic, for PS users and designers, is still on the edge of their attention.
In some day Adobe must do radical rethinking of his ugly kid!
For us (designers) i hope it will be sooner than later.
The question is still unanswered. The Q. was "Why"
anyhow, thx Jim
The fact is Fireworks is not Photoshop. Or Illustrator. If it was, it would be pointless to have all three applications.
I'm not a Fireworks engineer, so I don't have an answer to "why." The zoom feature has been this way since the Macromedia days and I'm guessing there hasn't been enough outcry from customers for Adobe to invest time and money into changing it.
If this is important to your workflow, submit it to the wishlist, it may be addressed in future versions.
>>"It laks some essential features in opposite to the other sw packages."<<
And it has many essential prototyping features that are lacking in other applications, such as pages, symbols, styles, states, web objects, etc . . .
1) Fireworks opens Photoshop files to a pretty high level of fidelity - not perfect but not terrible, either. Photoshop can't even understand a Fireworks PNG file; it will flatten the file if you try to open it.
2) Fireworks (or maybe the Fireworks designer) is far more accurate in terms of pixel placement. I've opened Photoshop web mockups. Between struggling with Layer visibility (not everyone uses the Layer Comp feature, sadly), to working with overly complex assets, to having to check all interface elements for accurate sizing and alignment, I'm spending/wasting valuable time just "fixing' things. Don't get me wrong; I love Photoshop. I use PS a lot - for high res digital imaging and retouching, creating amazing panoramas, printing my work. I also use Lightroom. All these products have their strengths and weaknesses.
3) I had a PSD file sent to me once (well, more than once) - web site mock up of a form. ONE checkbox required seven or eight layers. And there were multiple unique check boxes in this mockup. Fun times, I'll tell ya. A form field took at least four layers. BITMAP layers.
In Fireworks, I just drop in a checkbox or form field symbol. I'm done. I can change its state, size and label from one panel, or drill into the symbol to make global changes.
4) I've seen basic interface buttons made out of multiple, flat, bitmap layers. Results I can replicate or improve on using a single vector object, and a custom - or even prebuilt - style. And it all remains editable!
If you're happier with Photoshop, if you feel you work faster/better/cheaper with Photoshop, then stick with it. The worst thing you can do is try to learn a different application (and FW is different) while on a deadline.
But if you decide to invest the time to learn Fireworks and get comfortable with its workflow (just like you had to do at some point when you first cracked open Photoshop) I think you will see how much faster you can work. It doesn't mean you're ditching PS.
One more example:
In my Fireworks class last night, we had a Photoshop mock up that had three layer comps. All I can do in PS is change the layer comps and maybe save jpeg files of each comp for client review. Or take those jpegs and then open Dreamweaver, insert them into html pages, add an image map for navigation, then upload the the final results.
We opened the PSD in Fireworks, rebuilt one image mask (Fireworks CS4 doesn't work well with clipping paths) for the home page of this micro site.
Then we imported the other two layer comps into brand new pages in the same Fireworks document
Then we added hotspots to the navigation on the first page, linked the hotspots to the other pages, and then SHARED the hotspots to each page in the design so that we had consistent, easy to maintain interactive elements that could be edited on any page in the design.
Lastly we exported this mockup as an interactive HTML prototype.
20 students (primarily Photoshop and Illustrator users), and we did all this in under 45 minutes. On my own, I could do this in less than half the time. We never left Fireworks. The only thing left to do was to upload the prototype for client review, and maybe tweak the layout in Dreamweaver. For prototyping purposes, that would have taken maybe another 10 minutes.
If I wanted to make the mock up really flexible, I could spend a bit of time creating a Master page for all the common elements (including navigation) . The as I add new pages, the base layout is already present. I can change the entire look of the mockup just by editing one page, and altering the background elements, or add additional navigation.
And over time, I'm sure that - where feasible - Fireworks will continue to gain more UI consistency with the other Suite applications. Let me tell you, though, things are already a heck of a lot more consistent than they were when Fireworks was a Macromedia product.
a lot of writing!
Simply .... YES, u'v right!
I was thinking about my question once more and the reason, which i was after, is in the fact, that the fw - same as Flash, was initialy produced by Macromedia (the beaten rival to Adobe), hence the engine worked completly differently. Adobe is probably refactoring the FW engine but, by my opinion, FW is not the mainstream nor flash ship for Adobe marketing leaders.
Thank you Jim again, for your time and effort to answer my (silly?) Q.
You're quite welcome.