The Hickensian
1.10.09 A big-assed post about Fireworks
114 commentsThis is a post about Fireworks. Not about Photoshop, Illustrator and which is ‘best’. This is about a frustrated love hate relationship.
I love Fireworks.
It’s been my tool of choice for a rather long time. In the previous year of working for Opera, I’ve used it more than any other app. Whether I’ve been working on interactive wireframes, UI mockups, icons or final production artwork, Fireworks is the one that I go to.
When people ask why I don’t use Illustrator or Photoshop I sometimes find it hard to articulate precisely why. Illustrator is undoubtedly best for print/high-res illustrations and logos, while Photoshop is the first choice for manipulating photos, especially for print. Each have some tools from the other, but neither is intended for creating screen graphics with vector and bitmap tools in the way that Fireworks is.
It loves pixels. Photoshop and Illustrator only ‘do’ pixels when they’re coerced, and by golly do they take persuasion sometimes. For example, in Illustrator, why does a 1 pixel stroke on a pixel perfect box, placed on pixel perfect co-ordinates have sub-pixels on the top edge? Why do I have to make the stroke 0.9px instead of 1px just to get a crisp 1px edge?
This is surely the most basic of things to get right? Photoshop can do vectors and some of what Fireworks can – it just makes it harder to do it.
What’s so great about Fireworks…
Pixel-snapping vector tools aside, it’s most useful feature (that still isn’t present in anything else I’ve tried) is multiple Pages and States. Why have 45 separate files for a set of icons, when I can have one file that will export to 45 individual files? Let’s say all these icons have the same background, like a typical OS X toolbar button, and you notice a glitch. To update all those files would be tedious, but because it’s in Fireworks on a shared layer (or Master Page) one update is all that is needed. Master Pages in particular come in handy with site designs, as each page can be a different size and canvas colour.
Here’s a sample working file of Opera Unite icons:
It contains five different pages (one for each pixel resolution) and 10 icons per page, each on a different ‘state’. 50 icons, one file, one export. I’ve attempted replicating this functionality with layers, layer comps and multiple artboards, but they don’t come close.
Every time I’ve worked on wireframes and mockups, I’ve felt blessed that I’ve got symbols. Anyone that’s used Flash will know what a symbol library is, but for those that haven’t, think of them like this: Reusable content. Take the example of a form button in a site design. I can create a button symbol, specify how that graphic can be resized (with 9 slice guides), and place it anywhere in my document. Again, updating and editing is a do-once, update every instance affair.
It’s not all roses though.
I also hate Fireworks.
With a growing passion. With each update we get more tools and features that I care nothing for – Adobe Air, Bridge and Flex integration and CSS export. Worst of all it’s become remarkably unstable, particularly under Snow Leopard. It crashes, even when you don’t look at it funny.
I use it because it’s the best there is, but there are a lot of holes that need filling for me:
- Auto-activating fonts. Whether this is down to Adobe or the developers of Font Managers I’m not sure. To get a newly activated font to show up, you need to restart Fireworks
- Export to Illustrator. Yes, this option exists, but it ignores gradients, transparency effects, and just about everything but the paths themselves. When I know that the artwork will be needed beyond screen use, I work in Illustrator from the outset, but there isn’t always that fore-warning.
- Placing items outside the canvas. A pasteboard area to place surplus artwork would make life a lot easier, and stop the ‘resizing the canvas cuts overlapping artwork’ pain.
- It’s taken to CS4 to get palettes that scroll with a scrollwheel, and even now, they don’t ALL do it
- In CS4, when using the ‘application frame’ you need to click inside the active document before commands like zoom work, otherwise it does nothing.
I really could go on, but there are also more general problems with the Adobe Creative suite:
- Expensive – not two ways about it, it costs a few bob, and it often feels like better performance/bug fixes have to be paid for. I upgraded to CS3, solely to have a suite that worked properly on an Intel Mac. It now feels like those CS2 days are here again with Snow Leopard.
- Bloated in feel: both with sluggish performance and barrel loads of features you never use. This can of course be entirely psychological.
- Keyboard shortcuts deviate from the OS X standard, and from each other. Command-H should always Hide the application, Command-1 should always show the the document at 100%.
- Installation: To reinstall CS4 recently took an hour, during which it also wants to take a big smelly dump in your Applications folder: Adobe Media Player, Adobe Drive, Adobe Bridge, Version Cue… STOP! Also – why make me close all my browsers?
- Licensing/activation process. I know this is an anti-piracy measure, but it actually makes a cracked version more appealing.
- Updating: Do I need to say anything here? It’s a dark land far, far away from the ease of Sparkle, where even the updater needs to update itself.
- Then there are those glitches with artefacts which have been creeping into Fireworks of late too. Blobs of pixels that aren’t really there, but show up because the screen hasn’t been redrawn correctly. Cumulative wasted hours trying to get rid of artwork that is a phantom.
Compare these gripes with an app like Opacity. It downloads quickly, you open it and it asks you if you want to place it inside the Applications folder – done! That’s installation. As for updating, it self-updates and lets you know what’s been changed. The least amount of friction, and you’re left with the feeling of being in control of what you’ve installed.
Now, at this point, I need to confess that I’m the worlds worst beta tester. I’ve been on Fireworks beta programmes before, but haven’t had much time to give feedback or bug reports. So it’s a bit rich of me to be whining on my blog when this is all feedback that should’ve been submitted.
The problem is, after submitting the 20th crash report of the day, I’ve lost faith that anyone ever sees them or acts upon them. Overall, it feels like Fireworks is at the point of no return – no hope of it ever being fixed or improved, only that it will get more bloated, buggy, non-native and expensive. A stable version will no doubt come, but we will have to pay for it in the form of CS5. Maybe it’s not the Fireworks team that’s the problem here, maybe it’s higher up at Adobe? Maybe it’s just my setup? I can’t tell.
The bottom line is: Fireworks was my favourite, cherished tool, and it’s unreliability and issues mean my daily workflow is badly disrupted.
So, my thoughts turn to competitors. I’m not the only one, others are fed up with Fireworks and are looking for something to use instead. John Gruber, using the analogy of Filemaker’s Bento app, hits the nail on the head:
Adobe shouldn’t scrap its existing software any more than FileMaker Inc. should scrap FileMaker. But where’s Adobe’s “Bento” for bitmap and vector image editing for the Mac? The Bentos in this space are coming from indie developers with apps like Acorn, Pixelmator, Lineform, and Opacity.”
For such a long time, there haven’t been any alternatives. Various apps have been born that compete with other Adobe Suite apps, like Lineform and VectorDesigner with Illustrator, and Pixelmator and Acorn with Photoshop. Nothing for Fireworks, and yet the need for screen graphics is surely growing daily? Not only with websites, but desktop software and mobile apps.
In the meantime, Twitter clients have become ten a penny and Omnigraffle has matured to become a truly great tool for multi-page wireframes.
Recently however, three potential alternative apps have surfaced: Drawit, Acorn 2 and Opacity. I’m going to be putting these apps through their paces, to see if they can be potential alternatives. That’s for another time though, as this post has gone on long enough!
However, initial trials are showing Opacity as the most thoroughly feature-filled contender, but with Acorn sporting undoubtedly the most thoughtful interface. Acorn also has the advantage in that it’s developer, Gus Mueller, is actively seeking feedback on how it can be more of a Fireworks competitor. Drawit also has a pleasing UI, but with some issues on rendering.
I’ll report back on these when I can!
Recent Posts
26.01.10 The Handbag has been raised!
22.01.10 Guide to the Internet (2000)
20.01.10 Designer, not a construction worker
19.01.10 Why you can never work 'full time'
16.01.10 Dream Report: Look at the Hygiene!
Or Full Archives
The Hickensian is the journal of Hicksdesign, a creative partnership of Jon & Leigh Hicks. Read more about us.
Journal RSS Feed
Find us on:
playlist
Elsewhere
Hickr | RSS
Contact
Hicksdesign
Island House
Lower High Street
Burford
Oxfordshire, UK
OX18 4RR
+44 (0)7917 391 536
Download vCardI am currently working full-time with Opera, and not taking on any new projects
Comments | RSS
∞ Matthew Kempster said 132 days ago:
Fireworks is my tool of choice for everything.
Thanks for getting this point across Jon
∞ Phill Stilton With Crusty Bread said 132 days ago:
Superb post Mr Hicks. I have felt the same way for a few years. I’ve been using Fireworks since it’s very, very early days way back in the early 000’s
With every release it gets clunkier and clunkier yet I can’t let go. It provides all the functionality I need in an very accessible fashion, unlike Photoshop – you can’t simply click an object in Photoshop and have it select it like you can with Fireworks for instance.
It’s about time Adobe took a long hard look at this app. On the PC there is an app called Xara Extreme which is the fastest vector / bitmap editor I’ve seen. It’s supposedly in development for Mac and Linux too. But when it gets released is anyone’s guess.
Fingers crossed that CS5 addresses all the issues with CS4 and it gets a speed bump and goes on a diet.
∞ Matthew Kempster said 132 days ago:
@Phill Stilton With Crusty Bread
I actually use Fireworks MX 2004 though :{
A lot more reliable than the newer versions
∞ Nic Marson said 132 days ago:
Since the Macromedia days I’ve loved Fireworks. Not having it for a job makes me feel dizzy and disoriented. The font thing does bug me but the canvas thing kills me. Fireworks has glitches, yes, do I still love it, yes. I am looking forward to your review on the alternatives.
∞ Leonard Challis said 132 days ago:
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this post. I have been using Fireworks since roughly Macromedia Fireworks 3. Yes, Photoshop is an incredible piece of software, but for working on web stuff it’s currently unbeaten.
I had to smile at a few of your grips with Fireworks. The amount of times I’ve had to reload Fireworks to get a font to work… it’s nice to know I’m not the only one! And your comments on later versions of Fireworks coming complete with new bugs rings true also. I’m pretty sure I could select points on a path and move them with my arrow keys, or shift and arrow keys. Now, for some reason it wants to deselect those points after I’ve moved them. Where has the text editor gone? Was there something wrong with it? I think in CS3 it had the option but it was greyed out — now I just don’t see it.
If they went back a few steps, and fixed the things that made us love Fireworks and seriously considered some of the other things that we could quite happily do in Photoshop or Illustrator, I’m sure it would improve the product ten-fold. But then maybe that’s where the problem is? It’s such an expensive piece of software, someone may choose between Photoshop and Fireworks, meaning they want to cram more features in both to appeal to a wider market. I disagree with this, but can understand it.
I’m going to closely watch your thoughts on the other programs; you’ve obviously come up with some great work over the years, so it’s nice to be able to take opinion from someone trusted in the industry. Thanks for the excellent post.
∞ Andy Clarkes Fluffer said 132 days ago:
God, on and on and on. Not just on your blog but on Twitter and anywhere else you care to air your smelly old-skool blanket. Jon, just accept you need to switch to using a combination of Photoshop and Illustrator and stop plowing this lonely furrow. Everyone else manages just fine this way. But wait, oh no, we’re not ‘web celebrities’! Catch hold of yourself and get with the program please. Love and kisses…
∞ Erwin Heiser said 132 days ago:
A spot-on critique of the current state of FW: there are some things it does very well (unfortunately crashing is also one of them) and some things it does excruciatingly wrong. Shortcuts, font issues, unneeded or unwanted features (CSS export? please I roll my own code).
Using CS4, at times I feel like a beta tester. If you look at what the tiny developer team of an app like Pixelmator turns out, Adobe should hang its head in shame. What Adobe needs right now is competition, and lots of it.
Great post!
∞ Aaron Bazinet said 132 days ago:
@Phill Stilton Photoshop has a way to select just by clicking the object. With the selection tool active, in the control panel top left, there’s a checkbox for Auto-Select, which has a drop-down menu that you can pick either group or layer. As long as there’s a visible pixel, it’ll select that layer/group.
Nice post Jon. Do keep us posted on what you think of those competing apps. Hopefully Adobe will release some updates that will fix the major bugs.
∞ Paul Lloyd said 131 days ago:
Of course you’re not alone in this frustration, in fact I spend most days filling the air with swear words directed solely at Fireworks.
I took a position that I wouldn’t upgrade to CS4 and stick with CS3 because even that version felt like a downgraded experience from the one it replaced. Given the issues with CS4, especially under Snow Leopard (the version of the suite that’s actually meant to offer 10.6 support) it looks like I made the right move. Again, I’m unlikely to upgrade to CS5 should this trend continue, and so I find myself increasingly encouraged to look for alternatives.
There is something seriously wrong when we are found paying more money (and double the US retail price if you live in the UK) for less stable software, with yet more features we don’t need, and practically no aftersales support. I think the heart of this lies with the companies culture (meaning it will be hard to change), it is no longer a software company but a marketing company—the ‘CS Suite’ strategy is proof of that.
There is a huge opportunity for an independent mac software developer to build a competitor (indeed I look forward to your review of those you mentioned) and I hope one of them will come close enough to unseating Adobe from the throne it no longer has the right to inherit. I just worry that should this happen, Adobe will come knocking, offering to purchase the successful indie or hire the developer. I would strongly encourage the answer to be ‘no’, as acquisitions by Adobe have the uncanny knack of sounding the death knell of any decent software company.
∞ Chad Kaufman said 131 days ago:
I think some of the comments above hint to the root of the problem. We have been using it since MACROMEDIA Fireworks. And it still feels very much a part of a different suite altogether. While newer versions of CS, although at times seem to have little in terms of changes, slowly reveal their superior enhancements from the previous version. The improvements for the other programs in the Adobe suite seem to take three steps forward, while Fireworks seems to take one step forward every iteration.
∞ Erik said 131 days ago:
I’ll give you another reason why Fireworks sucks like its -99; try adding some multi-byte text like Japanese to you design and you get the bloody input strip of the dark ages. Still not fixed in CS4.
Try importing an AI-file? internal error. They said it’s fixed in CS4, but it isn’t, we tried on three different Macs.
I think someone at Adobe took “coding monkeys” a bit too literal. It has to be monkeys, I’m sure.
∞ Daniel said 131 days ago:
Great article.
I have tried to use Fireworks many times and like you Jon loved the simplicity, but I got really frustrated with the crashes as well as most of the things you mentioned.
So I moved to PS and found it can work almost as well as fireworks, especially if you make use of smart objects and layer comps.
Pages in FW is fantastic but you can use Layer Comps in PS to function in much the same way.
You can now design quite a large site using only one PSD, and separate each page into a layer comp. Layer comps can be exported to files or a single PDF etc.
I use smart objects for those areas of the site that remain the same eg. header, footer, background. If you ever need to change something open the smart object make the change and Boom it is changed globally.
I’m not here to say PS is better than FW but I have managed to make it behave a little like FW and it seems to crash a lot less. I do miss the excellent vector options FW offers as PS’s shape tool is nowhere near as powerful.
∞ Matthew Smith said 131 days ago:
With as many hours invested into learning photoshop, and continually learning more about using the vector shape tool it provides, I’m happy considering your list of “wish Fireworks did this”.
I will WHOLEHEARTEDLY join you in raising the banner to ask for something better in this arena. I’d like to see something that was used styles and rendered text more similarly to browsers, and that had beer flowing out of its ports… oh wait, that last part may be too much to ask.
Anyhow. Good post on the subject. Very Big-Assed indeed.
∞ Lennie said 131 days ago:
You are definitly not the only person considering getting a cracked version. Their are for example gamers, that buy the game, but only installed a cracked version, because the real game is such a mess to deal with.
∞ Jason Rhodes said 131 days ago:
Does anyone else have a problem with selecting fonts in Fireworks? When I click on the font drop down, it defaults at the top of the list instead of at the most recent selected font.
Every once in a while it will work if I hold CMD or OPTION, but it’s not consistent and I have no idea why. (I use CS3.)
∞ texec said 131 days ago:
This works in Photoshop (but not in Premiere for example), so Adobe has to fix this.
∞ Hunter Nield said 131 days ago:
Wow… Jon you hit the nail on the head with the ups and downs of FW. It’s got some brilliant tools for web designers but it let down by instability and really poor polish. Some times it feels like Adobe is just throwing something out to appease the web crowd.
I’ve always wished one of the new upstart image apps would create a version purely for the web. Not just a ‘save to web’ but a decent set of tools for building layouts, pages, states, vectors, etc. FW does a lot of things right but it sometimes feels as though the web features are just tacked on. It could be so much more. Perhaps a rethink is in order (the Coda for the design side of things??).
Lets hope Acorn, Opacity or Drawit can come up with the goods.
∞ wally said 131 days ago:
I am at the stage where I was thinking of trying out Fireworks to help with the design of the next web site i’m working on. I have never Used PS or FW for the page design. After reading about the bugginess of FW i have rethought my plans. I add my voice to those hoping that another app comes along to replace FW. Not having invested any time in learning FW I would rather try something new and snappier.
PS I run CS4 now. But I will not be upgrading any more. Enough $ is enough $. Kicking the Adobe habit.
∞ Alberto Calvo said 131 days ago:
I agree with you, Jon. Fireworks features and workflow are currently unbeateable, but its quirks (all CS4 suffers this, so please don’t tell me about Ps) and its interface could be really improved. The addition of the Adobe text rendering just make me cry on the new version.
So… we’re a lot of people wanting a Mac software that:
- Uses a PNG format that is readable by every machine without having any extra software and which is also lightweight, uses vector stuff primarily and that easy, has that fantastic way of applying gradients, has symbols and permits to edit them that easy, has pages, thinks in OBJECTS and not layers (which allows you to select them easy as click), makes editing and positioning each object that easy (numerical editing&positioning, has nested filters, has some great slice & exporting tools, has drag&drop into the canvas… etc…
BUT:
- Uses native text rendering or even better, simulates browser and system text rendering, has a better UI (Mac native and better designed), has a Grid system integrated tool, uses native web property rendering like border-radius, box-shadow, text-shadow, etc, so the exporting will be easier… etc…
Yep, I’d definitely pay for that.
∞ Mark Jackson said 131 days ago:
I loved Fireworks when it was Macromedia.
I loved Freehand when it was Macromedia.
I’m not so in love anymore.
∞ Gregory Van Looy said 131 days ago:
I’m currently doing some “research” to help me decide to buy the Adobe CS4 Web suite or to buy some indie apps (Coda, Opacity,…). This post made me doubt even more because of the hick-ups in Snow Leopard…
damn life is hard ;)
∞ Mark McCorkell said 131 days ago:
I love Fireworks for web graphics too. But there is one thing I’m not sure you mentioned there that bugs me… the “round” corners in the rounded boxes in Fireworks CS4 aren’t really as round as they should be – definitely not as crisp and round as the round corners in Illustrator or Photoshop!
The round box corners do look a bit more squashed in Fireworks! :-(
Does this bug anyone else or is this just me??
∞ Luke L said 131 days ago:
I’ve been using Fireworks for as long as I’ve been designing websites and it’s been downhill ever since the acquisition by Adobe, it’s as if they want to let it rollover and die, adding childish features such as CSS export. Previous versions on Windows (8 and CS3 I remember) were much more stable so when moving to Mac I thought I’d borked something while installing but no, it’s just like Flash, a poor copy on Mac.
Adobe really need to buck their ideas or else people will migrate to the “next-best” app as soon as possible.
∞ Clive Walker said 131 days ago:
I agree with most of your points but my experience of Fireworks is that it has never crashed. Of course, I am on a completely different platform [Windows, yikes] and this does not help you in the slightest. Just saying that’s all.
∞ dik said 131 days ago:
I’m looking at Panic to save the day… http://www.panic.com/
∞ Jonathan Barrett said 131 days ago:
Fireworks is the Quark XPress of the web developer generation: first to market, a huge, ingrained following, muscle-memory loyalty and a featureset that simply isn’t replicated anywhere else.
It’s prime for an InDesign-style coup.
Please, somebody, anybody, build a Fireworks replacement that follows the same workflow.
Jon: I can’t wait for your head-to-head, as I know you’re going to look at workflow, not just feature bullets.
I’ve tried the others, briefly, but we all just need to get work done, and right now, Fireworks does that. It kicks you in the nuts, but it gets your work done.
I hope at least one of the competitors has the “kick me in the nuts” feature disabled by default.
∞ Matt Wilcox said 131 days ago:
Since Adobe acquired Macromedia, the reliability and pleasantness of all the application in the Suit have dropped, consistently, on every new release. That acquisition is the worst thing that happened to Adobe, and to designers.
You can’t reliably copy from Fireworks to Photoshop. That’s pretty basic. No Adobe application works properly with Spaces. That’s pretty basic. The UI in all of the CS4 apps is frankly appalling from a quality perspective (just look at Adobe UI Gripes) and just as bad from a user perspective – it’s ugly and un-intuitive.
And yet, time after time, Adobe don’t seem to learn the lesson of an ever louder group of core customers complaining. Sure John Nack tries, a lot, but in the end the Adobe higher-ups push new features very few people want, convoluted and horrid install processes, DRM, nasty uninstall processes, countless un-wanted bundled applications, and terribly badly executed “shine” instead of concentrating on making an application that doesn’t disrupt user expectation, and doesn’t crash every ten minutes.
Adobe need to start again with a fresh code base. Same as OSX did. I don’t mind a plethora of ditched functionality if we actually get applications that work properly.
They did it for Lightroom – and Lightroom is the only Adobe application I actually enjoy using anymore. The rest cause me to swear profusely every day. Even Flash player.
I’ll say it again, Adobe need to make applications that don’t continually disrupt user expectation. They aren’t doing that.
∞ Dave Foy said 131 days ago:
This is the reason I’ve stuck with Fireworks 8 all this time, and even THAT isn’t as stable as previous versions.
Time for a sweeping change. Great post Jon.
∞ Kev Adamson said 131 days ago:
Good post.
I’m also a lover of Fireworks for all things “web layout”. I’m currently on CS3 for Windows, but have CS4 ready and waiting to go (but too scared to install because of all the horror stories I’m hearing on twitter!)
There is a strange text bug on my version, where words often jump to next line for no reason. That’s the only “bug” I’ve found for FW CS3 on Windows. I agree with most of your improvements though. They would be very useful.
Question is: is CS4 for Windows as unstable as I’m hearing it is for OSX? Am I right to be hanging fire on the upgrade?
Tatty-bye!
∞ Jhon said 131 days ago:
Found this twitter account: http://twitter.com/fwcs4
∞ Pete B said 131 days ago:
I agree with what you say, and timely too as I’ve spent a lot of time recently thinking about tool choices when I upgrade from CS2 on a PC to a CS?? running on Snow Leopard (CS2 on Bootcamp or Parallels maybe?)
Adobe have become a very annoying company. They charge a mint every 2 years for a bloated software upgrade. They’ve made Flash and Fireworks IDEs unusable. They choose to override OS shortcut conventions…
The problem is the company itself is fat and bloated. They want to compete with Microsoft so they’re trying to get a finger in every pie, but it’s their original customers that are suffering.
∞ alex morris said 131 days ago:
Its hard to put your finger on just why Fireworks is a great app until you start looking at alternatives.
Its flawed. Seriously flawed, at code level and sometimes at UI level, but given the choice of building an interface in a programme designed for retouching spots off models arses or a vector based app with shitty bitmap support I’d always plump for an app that does both well and with the smarts to make the two work seamlessly together.
Layers are an overly convoluted and much abused UI metaphor that cause so much clutter in a document – fireworks object based editing makes so much more sense especially for web where instinctively you design with the box model in your head and stack order is easily mimicked.
Getting hold of a layer in a PSD is painful even with shortcuts and tidy layer groups – and sadly the direct select option doesn’t work without the context of an object being ‘lit’ when active (eg fireworks object box corner handles)
Fireworks could be great again but only through a process of removing all the cruft thats slipped in.
Adobe need to grow some balls and stop leaking common functionality across all their apps.
Let each app do what it does best but let the suite work together so you can move smoothly between apps.
What we really don’t need or want is Outlook for interface design.
∞ Ebi Atawodi said 131 days ago:
Glad to see so many other Fireworks lovers sharing the same frustration. That pasteboard suggestion is my number one request! I still can’t get my head round photoshop, for anything other than photo editing. And illustrator will always remain my number one tool for illustratons. Fireworks just works….well minus all the issues already mentioned. I’ve also made a firm decision to stick with CS3. I think Adobe might be slowly trying to wipe out FW, maybe not consciously but perhaps unconciously. NOOOOO!
Your Nigerian businessmen comment isn’t very nice though Jon!
∞ Stanley Wood said 131 days ago:
Identify a LOT with the words you’ve written.
Beta testing, mis-aligned text, CS4 crashes in Mac and Windows, investing hours and hours trawling the web for answers, getting excited when they add a patch-update, getting disappointed when it does jack-shit.
Like it’s been said, popular trend at the mo’ is PS and AI to balance the demands of web work, when FW works so much more effortlessly. But FW is also missing a few features that you’d need the Suite to compliment (i.e PS and AI), which heralds the idea about there being a big marketing incentive.
Q: do you think there planning to end FW, or merge it into something new, which is why there not fixing all these bugs?
I hope Adobe reads your blog. And I hope they act.
(Another good overview of FW is from @boagworld: 10 Reasons Why I Prefer Fireworks)
∞ Sam said 131 days ago:
To be fair to Abobe, we also do need to bear in mind what a massive, bloated old codebase they must be hacking away at by now. Trying to crowbar functionality from other apps into Fireworks must take some doing so I don’t envy their task.
∞ robb said 131 days ago:
perhaps we should all spam adobe telling them that most of us don’t need those extra features.
now comes the bloatware.
∞ Ian said 131 days ago:
It’s great to see that everyone has the same problem as I do.
When I used to use Window, Fireworks never crashed. Fireworks CS3 is also pretty stable through Wine on Linux. But CS3 and 4 on OS X is absolutely crash-tastic.
Maybe Adobe are, bizarrely, leaving Mac users out to dry.
∞ DanC said 131 days ago:
I’ve always been of the Photoshop/Illustrator band, always been a bit scared of Fireworks, you know how it is, no time to learn but want to increase my skill-set blah blah.
This wee article may well have convinced me that it is time to make time! I’m going to grab the demo version just know and tinker for a while, maybe use it for my next project and make up my mind about it.
Thanks for the inspiration!
∞ Nigerian businessmen ;) said 131 days ago:
Fireworks is the main reason for me to stay with Windows. I am in love with Macs like every designer on this planet… but Fireworks just doesn’t work there. Or at least as it should.
∞ Travis said 131 days ago:
Great post, and I couldn’t agree more about the appalling stability of the CS4 release of Fireworks. Before CS4 was released, I would only ever use Fireworks for visual design work, but CS4’s crashtastic nature made me look at Photoshop more closely.
Now, having used Photoshop exclusively for the last 6 months, I gotta say that I just could’t go back to Fireworks. I find that Photoshop is just so much stronger as an image editor, especially when it comes to masking and layering.
It’s also abundantly clear that Photoshop gets so much more attention when it comes to UI polish (along with Illustrator too). Aside from a few gripes, Photoshop CS4 is pretty rock solid!
One area I wish Adobe would refine in Photoshop though is handling slices. Slices in fireworks are a lot easier to work with, since they are treated as “first-class” objects in the layers palette, not so in Photoshop. ImageReady used to handle slices a little better, but we all know Adobe killed that off, seemingly BECAUSE they bought Macromedia and felt that Fireworks filled that spot.
I am also constantly amazed by some of the ridiculous features that get added to all CS4 products. It really seems that not enough effort goes into making existing features more solid, it’s always about adding more features, some of which you’ve got to question who on earth actually ASKED for them.
∞ David Wilhelm said 131 days ago:
I’m more of an illustrator person, but lately I’ve enjoyed using Inkscape..
http://www.inkscape.org/
∞ Bodog said 131 days ago:
I skipped CS4 entirely after trying it out. I have religiously upgraded every version up until now, but they lost my money on this one.
I agree with Gruber’s take on Adobe for the Mac. For me to stay with them, they need to make these apps for the Mac from the ground up or they’re going to lose to the smaller players.
I’ve been following Pixelmator closely and right now, it’s only the lack of layer effects that’s keeping me away. I’m looking for any excuse to dump the Adobe suite.
∞ Jasonk said 131 days ago:
Thank you for saying this more eloquently than I could ever do. Being a Fireworks web designer in a Photoshop world kinda sets you apart, especially when you have to share design assets… or worse yet, receive a messy unnamed layers Photoshop file from a colleague.
Fireworks is by far the best for what I do. I breath a sigh of relief each time there’s an Adobe suite update that still includes it.
FW CS3 is my app of choice, unless the pending CS5 brings some 64-bit support and stability that seems to be absent in CS4.
∞ Stanley Wood said 131 days ago:
In the meantime, there’s this auto-backup tool to save before the crashes get started:
∞ Sergio Mora said 131 days ago:
My one cent: get used to Photoshop. Trying just to judge all software in terms of your acquired skills with Fireworks reminds me when a lot of people didn’t make the switch to OSX because they thougth OS 9 was simpler and better (it was simlpler but it was worst). I also did learn web design in Fireworks and I did loved it. But when I arrived to a new job most of the staff worked in Photoshop. I found that it was not a software designed for web design, but slowly I begun to learn how it was used by web designers. At the end, Phiotoshop is so precise with pixels that I never missed FW. It’s just a shift between working with vectors to working with precise selections.
I agree that Fireworks DNA is so different and original that it should be THE tool for web designers. But seeing what is done by talented designers with PS just make me think that what is more important is “the pilot” and not the car.
∞ Flo said 131 days ago:
I lost track of the countless times I tried to get friends with Fireworks. Each and every time, always sooner than later, I went back to Photoshop.
Why?
While Fireworks does some things really, really nice, like master pages and symbols, it does other things so INCREDIBLE poorly it’s beyond comprehension.
Some examples:
Smart guides – they are nice when moving objects around, but why are they gone as soon as I start resizing something? Do they think I suddenly don’t want to align my stuff anymore?
Sliders – when changing font size, why do I have to let go of the slider to see an actual change on the type? It’s even more ridiculous with color sliders. I have to close (!) the effin dialog to see the color change happen.
How on earth can anyone design like this? And I don’t even want to touch the endless array of bugs and crashes that come with Fireworks.
No thanks, I’ll stick to Photoshop. (Which warrants its own epic rant, btw.)
∞ Harry Jones said 131 days ago:
Thank you for this post Jon, for articulating the unique power of Fireworks and the frustrating way Adobe is strangling it to death.
Now everyone get behind Opacity, DrawIt and Acorn. Give the developers your feedback and support them through buying the full versions.
With a big enough push we can create a tool that not only equals Fireworks but exceeds it.
∞ Rachael Wyatt said 131 days ago:
I upgraded to CS4 because of the constant crashes in older versions (apart from when it was a Macromedia product) and it’s been a total nightmare – to the point where I’m considering just uninstalling it. The snags when using it with a graphics tablet are driving me to distraction – it might as well have a crappy paperclip pop up and say ‘are you sure you want to select that? really? really sure?’
I don’t know if anyone else is having the same issue but exporting an image from a canvas you’ve resized defaults to the original image (with all the stuff you didn’t want on there) In fact recently I was exporting images with three tabs open and it was exporting a different image from one of the other tabs.
Going to be watching how you get on with alternatives closely…
∞ Nathan said 131 days ago:
Has anyone taken the time to articulate what a web design application would be?
Fireworks is not everything we need. Photoshop isn’t even close. Acorn is a great app, but it still thinks in layers and not objects; we need objects that are layered. We need smart objects to import AI and PSD files without issue. We need masks that can be as complicated as we care to make them. We need filters to not be applied to a layer, but to an object (and to not change the object, but be applied live). We need pages with masters with symbols with 9-slice.
Using png as the native format is not important, just export for goodness sake. Who cares what the native format is, .psd isn’t killing anyone neither would .acrn or .blah.
Acorn’s UI is the best out there, hands down. But without masks, objects, pages, and live filters (ps’s adjustment layers are a good start) it cannot work day to day.
I use PS because I know how to trick it into doing what I want. That’s not good enough.
∞ Les Reynolds said 131 days ago:
I say we ditch Fireworks and start using one of the small guys, even if the functionality isn’t there yet. Lets help them make a Fw competitor.
More thoughts here
∞ Nick Caldwell said 130 days ago:
Here’s one thing (maybe the only thing) I really like about Fireworks: creating 8-bit PNG files with variable transparency. I don’t think there’s a single other tool out there that does that, but it’s hugely important and useful. Oh Acorn Master, take note!
∞ Michel said 130 days ago:
@Jon Hicks:
Thank you for this detailed, fervent article about Fireworks! :-)
I hope Adobe are listening!
Macromedia Fireworks (and now, Adobe Fireworks) is my favourite tool for design for screen/Web. I didn’t yet found the perfect app that can blend so well together bitmap and vector tools in one place, plus with intuitiveness of use never un-matched (Ai or Ps can’t come even close!).
I hope Adobe will take note, and improve Fireworks the way its userbase needs it to be, and will also fix some old bugs waiting for so much time to be fixed!
* * *
@Kev Adamson:
<blockquote>Question is: is CS4 for Windows as unstable as I’m hearing it is for OSX? Am I right to be hanging fire on the upgrade?</blockquote>
I am using Fireworks CS4 daily on Windows XP Pro SP3. I have no complaints with stability! I am not using Pages a lot, though, and that may be the reason why Fw CS4 feels stable for me — or maybe not. Anyway, my personal impression is that Fw CS4 behaves quite well on the Windows platform…
* * *
@Aaron Bazinet:
<blockquote>Photoshop has a way to select just by clicking the object. With the selection tool active, in the control panel top left, there’s a checkbox for Auto-Select, which has a drop-down menu that you can pick either group or layer. As long as there’s a visible pixel, it’ll select that layer/group.</blockquote>
Fireworks is intuitive at selecting and working with objects! Photoshop is the opposite.
In Fireworks, you simply click on the object! In Photoshop… Aha, there’s the “easy” way of achieving a similar level of simplicity by going into long explanations and procedures! ;-) Sorry, this doesn’t work for me…
* * *
@Erik
<blockquote>I think someone at Adobe took “coding monkeys” a bit too literal. It has to be monkeys, I’m sure.</blockquote>
No, there are no coding monkeys in the Fireworks team! That’s an insult to the work the Fireworks team is doing! Adobe management can be blamed, though, for what Fireworks is (and is not) today. The team simply does its work, and it does it the best they can, I am sure of that! :)
* * *
A lot more can be said, probably, but I’ll stop here… I hope Fireworks will continue to develop, and develop well! Because, you know — up to now, there is no alternative on the horizon…
And I can’t do my daily design work without this amazing little graphic design program…
I have hopes for Fw CS5… :)
∞ Christian said 130 days ago:
I seriously cant belive anyone uses FW. As I was reading the article and he was mentioning being able to do things in FW that PS wasn’t “meant” for I found myself saying “PS can do that” over and over.
@Phil Stulton With Crusty Bread “You can’t simply click on an object and have it selected in PS like you can on FW.” Uhhh, yes you can. There is a checkbox at the top (when you have the selection tool active) that you can set to “auto select layer”Seriously people, the only reason to use FW is becase you haven’t taken the time to learn PS. Maybe the reason FW is performs so poorly is becase Adobe is trying to finally kill a useless, odd piece of software; I think you alll should just let it die.
I’m not claiming that PS is a dream-machine, it’s riddled with problems too – and getting worse by the release, but it (along with AI) is far superior to FW as a web design tool.
A topic for a real discussion is alternatives to PS and how to solve it’s problems – not how to solve problems in a useless piece of software that no longer has a solid place in any web designers workflow who is worth their salt.
∞ Jon Hicks said 130 days ago:
Christian – you have no idea. Really.
In some cases, yes Photoshop can replicate some of the functionality, but not all, and when it does it’s x5 more painful.
∞ Michael said 130 days ago:
I find myself in a situation that requires me to use FW to work with the designers in my office. As I was working, I realized that I did something that I did not intend to do, so instead of hitting “Undo” multiple times, I went to the History palette to go back to the point before I made my changes.
I clicked on the step I wanted and nothing happened. WTF? In PS, you click on a step in the History palette, you go to that point. But in FW you have to move a slider to the point you want to go to. It is hard to believe that the UI is so incompatible with Adobe’s legacy products.
This is especially disconcerting considering that Adobe has removed many of the web tools that used to be a part of PS. Things like imagemaps and frame-by-frame animations, for example. So in order to do these things, I have to use FW or some other app.
I’ll admit that FW outputs PNG’s better than PS or ImageReady could ever hope to. Also, FW works so well with Flash that you should never have to create graphics using the clunky tools Flash provides.
But aside from those minor benefits, I’d rather save some money on the Adobe Suite and keep FW and Dreamweaver off my plate.
∞ Kroc Camen said 130 days ago:
“I will WHOLEHEARTEDLY join you in raising the banner to ask for something better in this arena.”
Adobe are really scared now. Not being a user of any Adobe software, Flash Player included, it’s hilarious watching you people suffer. You’re like crack addicts, you just keep coming back for more.
Stop waiting for a competitor to surface magically whilst you keep handing money to Adobe for the next hit and just go cold turkey—no matter how painful it is. If you believe in a product not being to an acceptable level for the money you pay then just do without, grow a spine and show you have principles which are not up for questioning.
I gave up Flash player, and there’s more sites out there using that then there are people using Photoshop.
∞ James Sack said 130 days ago:
Thanks for the post. Well written. It is pretty obvious that the FW team is placed in the dark corner of the basement at Adobe. I work exclusively in FW and have ridden the CS# roller coaster long enough. I’m actively seeking an alternative to Adobe at every turn. Thanks for the recommendations. I will certainly be downloading them and testing.
∞ Matt Kempster said 130 days ago:
In any case, this post is a push in the right direction.
I can’t believe people are dissing Fireworks to such an extent.
Interestingly enough Jon, have you tried downgrading to a Macromedia version? I don’t even bother with Fw CS3/4 and the same goes for other Adobe software.
Thanks for writing this Jon.
∞ patrick foster said 130 days ago:
Well said, really.
∞ David R said 130 days ago:
Right on the money, Jon. I pity all the users designing web interfaces with Photoshop — it’s like early humans saying, we don’t need guns, these rocks work great!
One bit of insight onto Adobe’s developer team: A FW developer, Sarthak Singhal, posted about Snow Leopard compatibility. Of course, dozens of people commented, many trying (and failing) to use CS4 on Snow Leopard. Sarthak added his own comment (http://blogs.adobe.com/sarthak/2009/09/fireworks_and_snow_leopard.html#comment-2097857), pointing to the “Official word” from Fireworks management about Snow Leopard compatibility — which of course is that CS4 works on Snow Leopard, there are no problems, etc. Not unsurprisingly, the official blog post does not accept comments!
∞ Andrey Petrov said 130 days ago:
Here is some good articles that compare Fireworks to Photoshop:
Photoshop vs Fireworks (Digital Web Magazine)
Fireworks Is Better Than Photoshop! Challenge #1
Fireworks or Photoshop?
Save time exporting web images using Fireworks
I’m using Fireworks also for my web works. But CS4 was very frustrating update for me, because of exclusion of system font antialising.
∞ Scott Falkner said 130 days ago:
I disagree with Gruber that Adobe shouldn’t scap their existing programs, and history shows that Adobe would be right to consider it. Would PageMaker CS4 be the dominant page layout program today? Adobe’s past is as littred with corpses as is the Hillary Step. SuperPaint, Persuasion, Intellidraw, Xres, Freehand, PageMaker, ImageReady, GoLive, PageMill, etc.
Illustrator, in particular, is an ancient and convoluted mess. There’s got to be code in there written by programmers that are long retired or even dead. Each upgrade to Illustrator tries to address one or two long complaints, yet does a third-assed job if it. And once the “feature” is in the program, no matter how poorly implemented, it’s unlikely to ever see a fix. Bugs are fixed at a slower rate than they are added, and new bugs are only addressed with the next full (read “paid”) upgrade. Maybe.
Illustrator is doomed. Adobe must eventually scrap it in favour of a leaner and much more intuitive. The biggest stumbling block would be a bulletproof conversion utility needed for all illustrator users upgrading to the new program.
I will love dancing on Illustrator’s grave. It will not be missed.
∞ Enrique Ramírez said 130 days ago:
Am I the only one that feels PSD support on Fireworks is extremely broken? 90% of the PSDs I open on Fireworks look really different from what they should look like (most of the issues are due to the “fill” property on layers, which is different than opacity, and the Photoshop Effects options).
Hopefully Adobe will listen up and fix Fireworks, because in it’s current state it is very, very broken and unappealing. Yet, it’s still better than Photoshop.
∞ don said 130 days ago:
I too love Fireworks from its earliest days. But it appears that Adobe has tried to create one program for two different platforms (Mac and Windows). I really have the sneaking suspicion that deep down in Fireworks’ heart is some sort of Flash virtual machine. The program is just not snappy and responsive enough. There’s a lag between clicking and action. Screen redraws are not immediate. If this is the case, it is a shame, since Microsoft tried the same thing with Word 6.
As for alternatives, Opacity is not bad, but some parts of the interface bug me, like the animated rainbow object handles, just a little too cutesy.
∞ Lars A Gundersen said 130 days ago:
Man, I miss Freehand! AFAICT, it has/had everything you miss about FW.
Illustrator is a pain in comparison. The Beziér tools, the color works, the artboard… everything is worse than in Freehand.
∞ fitzage said 130 days ago:
I agree. I’ve used Fireworks for site mockups for some time, and love it. In my opinion, though, CS4 has been a big improvement over CS3.
Many of the problems that still remain are due to remnants of Macromedia that shouldn’t be there anymore.
The font activation problem also exists in Flash, but seems fine in apps that weren’t originally Macromedia.
∞ Rhyaniwyn said 130 days ago:
Me, when the Adobe/Macromedia merger was announced:
“Oh, great, say goodbye to to Fireworks. With every successive Adobe release it will become more bloated.”
I feel like prophet.
But seriously… I MISS Fireworks. I weaned myself off of it a while back, but every day I use Photoshop/Illustrator I find something to miss about Fireworks.
∞ Mark Alan Thomas said 130 days ago:
Fireworks has “end of life” stamped across its neglected brow. It competes (and doesn’t interact properly) with Photoshop and Illustrator, Adobe’s two flagship products. Adobe’s going to kill Fireworks as sure as they killed GoLive and Freehand, and they won’t even say they’re sorry for it.
∞ Paul Ingraham said 130 days ago:
Rarely have I have been so cruelly disappointed in software than I was by the demo of the current version of FW. It was appalling. It had more bugs than a jungle.
Adobe is will not get any more of my money until they dial up the quality control.
Is this the future? Is it just me, or is computing getting WORSE?
∞ allgood2 said 129 days ago:
I’m with Matthew. I just stopped upgrading FireWorks. I’ve been using FireWorks MX. I believe I have the first Adobe version of FireWorks as well; but I’ve been hating Adobe Updates, and just stopped buying them. All that money for so much disappointment.
I find that FireWorks still works well as my go to tool. Add some shareware speciality tools; and I only need Illustrator and Photoshop a few times per year.
∞ Matt Sephton said 129 days ago:
I’ve never been a Fireworks user but I’m sat here nodding my head to all if this. Freehand users like myself are further along the same road. Adobe killed Freehand at the time of the Macromedia buy-out, yet users continue to struggle on with it as it is arguably better than anything else out there.
I’ve tried Vector Designer, Acorn, Pixelmator, but it’s difficult because they are all young apps that are yet to mature and gain the features we all need to use. My favourite drawing app is ZeusDraw, but the young app problem still holds – the developer has even stated he’s not even interested in trying to draw people away from the big apps as it’s not worth his time.
I still use Xara Xtreme through a Windows Virtual Machine because it’s an amazing app. Possibly even better than Freehand for me. In fact it is the only app I really wish there was a Mac version of. They open sourced it but no Mac developers picked it up.
∞ Ramin said 129 days ago:
I’ve been trying to wean myself off CS4 by doing everything first in Opacity/Acorn2 before heading to the familiar IL/PS world. It’s hard, but a dozen CS4 crashes on Snow Leopard every day helps keep me motivated.
Encouraged by this post I brought up the long-neglected FW. Mucked about for a few minutes. Nothing too intense—a few shapes, patterns, and SFXs. “Warning: Memory too low. Closing.” kee-rash Now I remember why I tossed it the last time I played with it…
The same happened with Dreamweaver. Switched to Coda and CSSEdit. Doubt I’ll ever go back.
They’ll probably get my money for CS5, but it looks more and more like it’ll be the last time…
∞ Ben Darlow said 129 days ago:
Big asses are such a subjective thing. Some love them, others hate them. I’m confused by such ambiguous association in the topic of this post.
However, I will readily agree that Fireworks shares many of the properties of a colony of turd-munching flesh-eating bacteria, as indeed do most of Adobe’s applications since the company no longer gives a flying fig about making software that its customers enjoy using. Such is the position of any monopoly player, and I can only hope that the indie software industry can answer the call for an alternative.
∞ Lachlan McDonald said 129 days ago:
Whilst I’m definitely on the other side of the fence (a fond user of Photoshop and Illustrator) I use Fireworks for quick UI mocks.
One of my biggest gripes is how Fireworks uses the PNG format with metadata to store all of the document information; instead of an independent format. Nothing is more annoying than having a whole bunch of PNG’s, and not knowing which are holding precious Fireworks data, and which are not.
As for your comment regarding Photoshop & Illustrator not doing pixels; you’ll find that you will receive the sub-pixel appearance when the shape is not snapped to an actual pixels. If the position of an object is not a rounded integer, you’re going to get sub-pixels.
∞ Tony Ballinger said 129 days ago:
I’ve been using Fireworks since it’s first release and it had been getting better and better until FW CS4. Fireworks CS4 is so unstable that I’ve had to reinstall Fireworks CS3 along the rest of my installed CS4 Web Suite Premium, just in order to remain productive. Originally I feared that the day Adobe and Macromedia merged signaled the death of Fireworks. Now I’m starting to think that at least that would have been a dignified end to the app, instead of seeing it reduced to the unusably buggy piece of garbage that it is now.
Btw, I still use FW CS3 every day and couldn’t imagine a world without it.
∞ Peter said 129 days ago:
Given the feture set I use regularly, I’d be happy if Adobe just ported the old Macromedia version of Fireworks 4 to Snow Leopard and then just worked on a stable, modern reiteration behind the scenes.
Granted, FW 4 (without the CS) doesn’t do pages, but it DOES all of the other things Jon & others have listed that make Fireworks unique, plus it’s fast and has the coolest splash screen (as can be seen on sites like guidebookgallery.org).
Heck, I could still do productive work in 2011 using a Mac running OS 9, just for the sole reason that machine got Macromedia Fireworks 4 installed…
PS @Don: Yes, you could really say FW CS4 has a Flash VM in it. As far as I know, the whole UI (windows & palettes) of all CS4 products is based on a flash runtime or something like this. I.e. the whole UI (except the document itself?) is a clickable flash movie.
∞ ReachWest said 129 days ago:
I just started using FW about a month ago. I looked at a few indie apps (including DrawIt) before deciding on FW – but none of the light-weight alternatives was even close.
So far I have not had any real problems with crashes – although when quitting, FW seems to think it crashed – as it pops up a crash report window.
Love the “pages” capability and generally find FW very efficient. After reading all these negative comments, I’m a bit concerned / confused.
∞ Michel said 129 days ago:
@Michael:
<blockquote>As I was working, I realized that I did something that I did not intend to do, so instead of hitting “Undo” multiple times, I went to the History palette to go back to the point before I made my changes.
I clicked on the step I wanted and nothing happened. WTF? In PS, you click on a step in the History palette, you go to that point. But in FW you have to move a slider to the point you want to go to. It is hard to believe that the UI is so incompatible with Adobe’s legacy products.</blockquote>
You said ‘WTF’ because you don’t know well the application. Actually, there is a strong reason why you can click on an individual step in the History panel. You can select multiple steps of your choice and then click the ‘Replay’ button in the panel. Fireworks will perform this set of steps. Example: Select a rectangle, add to it a certain Live Effect (or more than one); then create a new shape on the canvas, open the History panel, select the steps you performed on the previous shape, click ‘Replay’ and same set of steps will be performed on the new shape! You can even save a set of steps as a Command, and re-use it later. This is a very powerful feature that Ps doesn’t have! :-)
You can create very complex and powerful commands this way, which can be saved and re-used. Later, they can save you a lot of time. You can rotate an object, change its color, add a stroke, edit it, add effects, resize, and then replay this set of steps on other objects…
So don’t be so fast in explaining how clicking and selecting a step in the Fw History panel is actually a bug… :-)
@Lachlan McDonald:
<blockquote>Whilst I’m definitely on the other side of the fence (a fond user of Photoshop and Illustrator) I use Fireworks for quick UI mocks.
One of my biggest gripes is how Fireworks uses the PNG format with metadata to store all of the document information; instead of an independent format. Nothing is more annoying than having a whole bunch of PNG’s, and not knowing which are holding precious Fireworks data, and which are not.</blockquote>
The PNG is a good format. Example: You can see the thumbnails while searching for a specific image. Not so with .psd or .ai.
As to how to know which PNG file is Fireworks editable, and which one is a simple PNG (flattened): simply add .fw.png to Fireworks files and it will be very easy to differentiate the files! :-) I and a lot of other Fireworks user do this trick…
∞ Mark McCorkell said 129 days ago:
Jeez, this post turned out to be quite intense and still rolling! Despite the die hard Photoshop fans saying it’s a valid replacement for Fireworks, I still think they are two very different products!
∞ Peter B said 129 days ago:
I agree wholeheartedly with the post. Fireworks isn’t perfect and all my designs are done in Photoshop (my designer prefers it, and effects & text rendering in CS3 on Windows are better), but for slicing and export, I export PNGs from Photoshop and do the rest in Fireworks.
Unfortunately none of your alternatives work on Windows, so I’ll have to search elsewhere for the ‘son of Fireworks’. I didn’t enjoy Xara Xtreme, but will give it and Inkscape another go.
@MATT SEPHTON have you tried Deneba Canvas (now known as ACDSee Canvas )? I was most impressed when I used it around version 6/7 in comparison to Illustrator.
∞ William Reynish said 129 days ago:
I have had similar problems with Fireworks – it’s quite annoying to use. I’ve since switched to Apple’s Keynote (I know, sounds strange) for all my UI mockups and work – it’s really nice.
Even though it’s designed as a presentation app, it’s wonderful for designing UIs, for these reasons:
*You can have multiple canvases (slides)
*It renders everything pixel perfect and nicely aligned
*You get OS X’s awesome font rendering and text for free
*Alignment guides and masters are easy to use and work well
*It reads just about any type of image data you can throw at it, vector or bitmap
*Using Magic Move and transitions you can du some really cool UI animation tests a la Core Animation.
*It’s rock solid and is a joy to use
∞ John Cleary said 129 days ago:
Another vote for Keynote here. I have been using it for over a year for all my web gui / ui mockups, and it’s AWESOME. I send it to my CSS guy and he exports high res tiffs for slicing. Adobe? Haven’t given them a red cent for years. Keynote + Pixelmator does everything I could need.
John
∞ Fabrice said 129 days ago:
Auto-activating fonts :
Don’t know about Fireworks but creating a new document in Photoshop, InDesign or Illustrator updates the font list without a restart…
∞ Danae said 129 days ago:
Count me in as another longtime Fireworks user (i’ve been using since Macromedia’s v2 i think) who is also locked in a love/hate relationship. I’ve tried to switch to Photoshop or pretty much anything else quite a few times, but as has been pointed out, nothing quite works the same way Fireworks works. I would love to see a competitor and would happily try it out, as I am quite tired of Fireworks crashing all the time!
∞ Billee D. said 129 days ago:
I have used Fireworks from the very beginning of its existence. Once I got used to the pixel precision you get with Fireworks, Photoshop just seemed too wonky and unreliable for web design. I still use Photoshop for composite graphics and more “artistic” web endeavors like header treatments, but I still use Fireworks for setting up my slices.
I’ve definitely noticed that the Fireworks in CS4 no longer runs as well as it used to. Running Fireworks MX 2004 on Windows via Parallels is faster overall and less likely to crash. I simply don’t understand why Adobe doesn’t revamp the app. I think what happened is that parts of ImageReady were “folded into” Fireworks…and we all know how well ImageReady ran.
Thanks for the read, Jon. I started to think that I was the only one using Fireworks, but I see more talk lately about folks using it. Let’s hope Adobe fixes up this awesome app for CS5.
∞ nubizus said 129 days ago:
Fireworks will be killed soon. Adobe hates it. It distracts attention from “illustrator”. But i will never buy Adobe bloatware.
VM Ware Fusion + xp + Macromedia Fireworks MX4:))))
No problemo.
∞ Jon Hicks said 129 days ago:
@Lachlan : “As for your comment regarding Photoshop & Illustrator not doing pixels; you’ll find that you will receive the sub-pixel appearance when the shape is not snapped to an actual pixels”
I think you’ll find that’s why I deliberately included a screenshot showing that it was snapped to pixels! You won’t see it in normal view though, you need to be on pixel preview.
@Ben Darlow – aww bless.
∞ John said 129 days ago:
I think FW has got better and better myself! I agree it is slower and a bit more crashy, but actually using it, i prefer CS4 to all previous versions.
I think the reason it is so good is because it is intuitive to use and always has been. When i create a new “thing” FW puts it on a new layer, i shouldn’t have to create a new layer like you do in photoshop. This and similar ways FW works are why i love it. I find photoshop simply wrong to use.
Illustrator however is also a dream to use. Grr, i think i just hate photoshop.
∞ brh said 129 days ago:
I like the people who say ‘eh Adobe is clearly giving up on it, just use AI/PS instead…’ Last time I checked, AI & PS were also bloated pieces of crap getting worse with every release. Instead of giving us stability, efficiency, any sort of real functional improvement, we get the brand new remove-the-column-from-the-Roman-architecture-tool! I hate Adobe, I hate what they’ve become. They don’t care about their customers, and I don’t get it. This can’t keep working out for them forever. The bubble must burst someday.
Look at how many people here cling to CS2, CS3 or ancient versions of FW just because they muck everything up so badly! I felt I had to upgrade to CS3 for Intel compatibility, but when CS4 came out with that god-awful UI… No more, Adobe! I’ll cling to CS3 for as long as I can (and it seems like it’s more compatible with 10.6 anyway!)
I truly hope Acorn, DrawIt (or Sketch, their new product), Opacity… I hope one of them is able to steal some thunder one of these days. I’m speaking primarily as an AI user, doing print design and illustration. None of the alternatives cut it for me right now, as none of them seem quite as competent with layer compositing (including masking) & management. Also, none of them support PMS yet, as far as I’m aware – that’s a whole other world of problems. But some day… Some day Adobe has to lose it…
∞ Theresa said 129 days ago:
I’m fed up with Adobe. They have us designers by the cojones, or the female equivalent. I look forward to finding replacements. FW CS4 is the buggiest program I’ve ever used! It crashes continually. It tied my MacPro into such knots I had to uninstall CS3 AND CS4 and reinstall it. Those aren’t billable hours, folks!
It’s supposed to be so awesome about vector files, but if I place a basic Illustrator file in it, that file is now rasterized! I can’t grab any portion of it. I have to create my vector art in FW, and frankly, FW just isn’t that robust. I can also do scads more with my art in Photoshop than FW. Apparently, FW is not big on filters.
I agree with the comment about the bloatware showing up – sheesh, shades of a PC’s install CD. Crap, crap, crap, all over the place. How about if you just install your program and be done with it?
Seems Adobe and Apple get together to discuss how they can force UI changes on its unsuspecting customers and make ‘em like it (I know I’m not the only person to miss the drawer/panel in iCal).
This is my first experience with FW but not with the other members of the Creative Suite. I can tell you, I won’t spend another dime on Adobe unless they make stability a priority. Every minute I spend crashing, relaunching and getting back to where I was is an unbillable minute.
∞ Gary M said 128 days ago:
I miss ImageReady, hate Firerworks
∞ nubizus said 128 days ago:
The war Adobe vs Apple is old.
Adobe products on mac run badly and slower with every release.
Why not build Photoshop for mac with Core image instead with old code from PS 7?
I just done a test.
FW CS4 vs VMWARE Macromedia FW Studio 8.
Same file with 160 layers + symbols and lot of pages.
50% faster opening in Studio 8 on Windows in VMWARE.
Why?
For FW haters:
Fireworks is tool for pixel-perfect designs.
The main advantage is option for raster representation of vector object. It’s not tool for usual web-crap: backgrounds, glow effects, aqua, etc.
Symbols and pages are things that speed up workflow dramatically.
Web design process is more than graphical presentation of content and illustration. Web design is UX+UI+Illustration.
And for that process PS an Illustrator don’t work.
Why use 2 separate tools when in one i can do everything for my needs?
I hate Adobe. Really. Big and stupid company. And always greedy. They will get this bad energy back someday.
And i will watch with pleasure.
∞ Chris Sharp said 128 days ago:
Please let us know which you prefer out of Drawit, Acorn 2 and Opacity.
I was an avid FW user also, but FW CS4 is basically an unusable, steaming pile of shite. And now I can’t reverse to CS3 :/
Great post, exactly my thoughts on FW.
∞ imajes said 128 days ago:
[“Keyboard shortcuts deviate from the OS X standard, and from each other. Command-H should always Hide the application, Command-1 should always show the the document at 100%.”]
I believe Adobe were using Cmd+H long before Apple who [not for the first or last time] decided to ignore how a large part of their user base/other software worked.
Adobe know this is an issue [see John Nack’s blog re this] and are trying to resolve it without annoying those who are irritated with Apple hijacking of a long term Adobe shortcut too. I never use this Mac shortcut, as I see no point in hiding programmes/windows as I simply Cmd+Tab/Cmd+` between them instead, which is much more efficient in my view.
Not to mention things like Cmd/Cntl+Alt+0 for 100% view are cross platform and have been used as long as I can recall [I’ve used PS since v3] and cross platform consistency is also extremely important.
Besides you can re-assign keyboard shortcuts in PS or FW to work however you like. I’ve always altered other progs to match PS as it has a good shortcut setup, which became very good once it became customisable.
And if CS4 runs like a dog on Snow Leopard, why blame Adobe? Leopard was a buggy piece of poo until 10.5.4 in my experience. SL will probably be similar, not to mention CS4 came out more than a year before SL and was started on long, long before SL was even announced.
Using a Mac OS before 3rd or 4th update is likes using Windows before 1st service pack – asking for problems.
On the subject of updates, Adobe should do interim updates a lot more than they currently do.
Nice work on Opera BTW John.
@Chris Sharp – you can run CS3 + CS4 side by side, I’ve done so no problem. it just takes up HD space.
∞ Jon Hicks said 128 days ago:
@Imajes – Regarding Command+1, it’s the shortcut for 100% in Fireworks, InDesign and Illustrator. That’s what I referred to when I mentioned being consistent with itself. I can see a historical reason for command+h used for other commands, but on OS X, Adobe is the only software that feels it can ignore what has been a standard for 8 years.
Also, previous to Photoshop CS4, it wouldn’t allow you to change the existing shortcut for command+1, as it was used by a palette (channels).
And yes, I do blame Adobe for the performance of it’s apps in Snow Leopard. I didn’t experience the same level of ‘buggy piece of poo’ with Leopard, as I did with the creative suite. The whole point of having developer previews of the OS, is so that developers can test and tweak before the the final release. Adobe had a year (granted not a final master version) to make any necessary changes. Instead, we’ll have to pay for the upgrade.
It’s also not an OS change in the level of other upgrades – Snow Leopard is a refinement. Yes we had to pay for that refinement, but only £25. I can’t imagine Adobe will release an upgrade for that much.
It also makes the point of Adobe vs smaller indie developers. They all released updates within days of Snow Leopard’s release, if not before. They’re not encumbered with the need for cross-platform support, and can use in-built frameworks to their advantage, making them nimble and responsive. These days, the post-macromedia merger Adobe feels to big to move at any pace other than slow.
∞ Eneza said 127 days ago:
I am thinkingin shifting to PHOTOSHOP cause it became standard here in the PHILS which is not GOOD. but nonetheless I feel releived that there are users who are concerned about the real uses of FW.
It has a different use which is always compared to photoshop.
Thanks Man
∞ Adobegripes said 127 days ago:
I have no idea how people can web design in Photoshop, they must be taking literally days longer to work on something than a Fireworks user. And this is coming from someone who learnt everything about Photoshop and was introduced to Fireworks about a year ago.
The saddest thing about Fireworks is not what it is, its what it has the potential to be
∞ JiHO said 127 days ago:
In case you are ready to change a few of your habits, Inkscape (www.inkscape.org) can indeed be an alternative (as recommended by one reader above). It is a vector editor which includes some bitmap-like effect, applied per object/group. To answer the criticisms in the article:
- It does pixel perfect snapping on a 1px grid
- You have groups and layers which correspond to Fireworks pages and states. You can export all groups to separate PNGs in one go (also useful for slicing: place transparent boxes on the regions to slice and export those to separate PNGs)
- Clones can replicate the symbols library: you can either define shapes with no fill/stroke, clone those and color each clone the way you want. Changing the shape of the initial one will change the shape of all clones but the separate fill/stroke properties will be retained. Or you can define a master object completely (shape, fill, stroke etc.) and clone that directly. In which case you can still resize the clones but not alter their colours which stay defined by the master object.
- The file format is SVG, which Illustrator can edit directly
- Items can be placed anywhere on the canvas
- It’s free!
- It’s surely less bloated than the CS. It is not lightning fast when many vector effects are used but that will get better over time
- It installs as an app bundle
- It’s free!… meaning no license this time
Sure it has plenty of drawbacks: it is a GTK app running on X11 and not yet a native OS X application (we are working on that…), font support is not great, it does not update itself, the support of color managed display and export is only in progress. Even when it will be native, it will most likely follow the UI conventions of a Linux desktop rather than OS X (but you can easily change any keyboard shortcut). However, it is an open-source app, developed by an approchable community, so bugs reports/remarks don’t get ignored and contribute to make it better over time.
Anyhow, Inkscape appeal is not as a the best OS X citizen but as a very versatile app with particular care taken in making the drawing experience fluid: most controls are on the canvas, keyboard shortcuts alter the behaviour of tools in a consistent and powerful way, etc. And it also has some unique features (vector art “sculpting”, excellent tracing abilities, SVG as the native format, etc.).
The new version is just around the corner (next week or so). So try it ;)
∞ nubizus said 127 days ago:
I have worked with Inkscape for one year.
Yes for free program is amazing.
They have real vector blur long before Illustrator, design process is very intuitive.
But unique in FW is raster representation of vector objects.
Inkscape is X11 based, and X11 is not stable enough for serious work.
We need someone to copy FW functionality for new app written in Cocoa with Core Image and all Cocoa goodness.
∞ Josh Nichols said 127 days ago:
What I don’t understand, and also why no one talks about this, is why doesn’t an app for building Web graphics use tools/conventions of the CSS box model? I want to apply borders on individual sides. I want background images in my boxes. Can I have a Styles pallet, please?
90% of my designs are CSS and I hate having to fake this stuff all the time using a ton of layers in my mockups.
∞ Eden Jaeger said 127 days ago:
I’m in agreement with others here that mention Adobe seems to be the common denominator when it comes to problems with our previously beloved Macromedia products.
I’m also a heavy FW user, since FW3, and I’ll keep on using it and I’ll keep on complaining until there is a better alternative.
I actually prefer CS3 to CS4. I ‘upgraded’ my work computer to CS4 (paid for by the boss), but kept my personal computer on CS3. I’ve discovered it is more pleasant, though still a bit buggy.
∞ Keith Humm said 127 days ago:
I completely agree. It’s just getting a tad pathetic that each new revision is substantially worse than the previous. For me, performance and UI are the biggest drawcards, which is why I stopped upgrading after FW8.
It’s also the reason why I switched my main design and dev machine to Windows; sooner or later I knew Apple/Adobe would eventually shaft me in the PPC/Intel fiasco. There is a noticable difference between CS4 on my MacBook Pro and FW8 on XP – in performance, stability, and even usability!
Sigh. Bring on these smaller apps. DrawIt looks epic!
∞ Chrispynutt said 126 days ago:
FYI Windows users of CS4 suite aren’t that much happier.
I jumped from CS2 to CS4. To say I can run half the amount of apps at half the speed would not be inaccurate.
Speaking with someone here who used to work as a tester with Adobe, their devil may care attitude to testing and quality has always been lack luster.
For example purely Adobe developed in house apps that have all been various stages of bugginess. Illustator always a tad buggy, Acrobat you wouldn’t believe how many support calls we get for our online app that generates PDFs and GoLive crash crash crash.
Combine Adobe’s terrible QA with Macromedia’s awful custom UIs and you get CS4.
∞ Brian Brooks said 126 days ago:
Great post Jon!! – Neither Fireworks, Photoshop, Illustrator (or combination of the 3) are the answer. This area is such prime ground for another developer to come along and give Adobe some competition.
∞ alex morris said 125 days ago:
This topic won’t go away until there’s a solid and productive solution that Interface Designers can rely on.
I’m firmly in the FW camp – and TBH any serious (read good) UI designer i’ve known has been too.
Having moved slightly away from visual design i’ve found myself working alongside the visual guys who do use PS for their UI work – and having spent a good few hours yesterday working with a really talented guy working the “shop” as I asked for changes and amends it struck me even more just how broken the PS way of doing things is.
Drawing shapes, editing them, finding the pixel dimensions of an object, selecting objects… all one giant ballache. Of course he had a bunch of nice keyboard shortcuts to speed things up but still – i know from experience that the Fireworks way of doing things would have saved an enormous amount of time. OK the output may be similar but when a workflow is so shite that it actually sucks up studio time then all of a sudden its a very different story.
I asked the guy if he’d looked at alternatives as he swore his way through drawing an arrow – and he came back with “of course not – photoshop is the standard” – proof indeed that there’s definitely some kind of snobbery/bias towards using PS even though its just not suited to the job.
∞ Grog said 125 days ago:
Glad to see that I’m not the only one that has a love hate relationship with Fireworks. I agree with almost all of their frustrations, and I think that there is reasons why Adobe continues to hold on to this application. In my option Fireworks does some things so much better than anything else, including rapid design explorations and mockups with pixel and vector based fire power at your finger tips. This is why I continue to use it. I’m not sure for how much longer, since it isn’t evolving as fast as Photoshop and Illustrator.
Here are some of the major problems I have found
It tends to crash if your not careful about file sizes, not sure if more memory would help.
It exports gifs with color graduations and small text poorly compared to PS
Renders certain fonts poorly
Rounded corners on boxes could be better
In my option there are certain things that are best left to Photoshop (collages, photo retouching and heavy color correction) or Illustrator (logos, line art and symbols). It seems silly to think that Fireworks is the answer to everything. My hope is that Adobe fixes the problems Fireworks has or ditch it all together so I’m not tempted to use it.
∞ Amrinder Sandhu said 125 days ago:
Though Adobe itself says that Photoshop is for images and Fireworks is for web but nobody listens and keep sticking with what they have started with. I think most of the guys haven’t even tried Fireworks against Photoshop. I have. And I have seen the difference. It does its job perfectly.
It depends upon once choice and design style. Fireworks help you create pixel-perfect web/UI mockups. Fireworks offers property window, pages, optimize, web layer, hotspot tool which is nowhere in Photoshop.
I’ve no doubt that Photoshop is best for fancy graphics and image manipulation but guys in web designing Fireworks has got the upper hand. By web designing I mean serious web designing using good typography, grids and pixel perfection, not some fancy, shinny reflections and curves.
Try fireworks for sometime and you won’t have to launch Photoshop for web designing.
∞ Simon Meek said 124 days ago:
I hear this, Mr Hicks. I used to think that if Adobe could only address a few of the underlying issues with the apps, we’d all be happier. Now I’m thinking it’s maybe time to start over. Preserve the legacy apps for those that need them, and make something great again.
More here:
http://www.elated.com/articles/is-adobe-losing-the-plot/
Simon Meek
ELATED : )
∞ luis angel said 124 days ago:
Fireworks is also my default tool to design. It’s easy, quick and very practical. I use Photoshop only for photo editing. I would like that Fireworks offers the Magic Wand and quick selection tools of Photoshop.
I hope that Adobe keep developing Fireworks.
∞ Ryan Sadwick said 124 days ago:
Lovely write-up on Fireworks.
I’m a programmer and I don’t like spending a lot of time in programs like Photoshop and Fireworks. However, the version of Fireworks I have is FW MX 2004 which is more of a lightweight compared to the new versions.
I like the old version simply because it’s easy to navigate and I can get artwork chopped up and modified the way my code wants it to be!
What I don’t like is, with each version that comes out, the “title screen” shows for longer and longer.
What the developers need to do with these giant image manipulators is compartmentalize the features so you can turn certain features on and off.
∞ Geof Harries said 123 days ago:
Jon, I have long admired and respected your work, especially what’s happened during your tenure at Opera.
That said, even though you and others don’t care about built-in AIR and Flex support, I’m someone who does. For those of us who design and build applications, these are valuable features that can really speed up development and collaboration.
I’ve been using Fireworks since version 1. Daily, I now run CS4 on Windows 7 and it is a stable, reliable piece of software.
∞ Patrick Rushton said 122 days ago:
Theresa wrote above “ I place a basic Illustrator file in it, that file is now rasterized! I can’t grab any portion of it. “
I haven’t had this problem and do it quite often. Just copy & paste or import into FW and it comes in as grouped vectors. If you want to “grab a portion of it”, just ungroup it, or use the subselection tool (white arrow).
∞ fwolf said 119 days ago:
Also give Inkscape a try (for a mere vector drawing tool). I’ve been using it especially for web development. Its hotkey handling is much more refined than any other program I know of. Exporting of “standard” PNG-24 works just fine (and if you prefer PNG-8, just get holf of a current copy of pngquant), other options would be (of course) SVG, EPS and even GIMP or ODG (OpenDocument Graphics) format. Importing includes PDF text, any thinkable kind of bitmap graphic, of course Illustrator (9.0) and lotsa other happy shiny formats.
In combination with GIMP 2.6, this is the perfect tool for webdevelopers. Talking of latter one: Since version 2.6, its interface has been becoming really usable, and I’m already using it 60:40 (ie. 60% GIMP, 40% PS) all the time.
cu, w0lf.
∞ Arun said 118 days ago:
If you have a proper known workflow following which you are encountering a crash on Mac platform, then feel free to send those details to my mail address.