One of the most ignorant posts i've ever read on the internet... and that's saying a lot.

“It’s pixel based.”

People keep repeating this misinformed junk. Using shape layers, layer styles, mask feathering and a rare smart object (with higher res texture) means Photoshop documents can scale infinitely.

“It’s fixed canvas size - The web never has been.”

Firstly, each web page is rendered within fixed viewport, so that’s nonsense. Also, I hate, hate, hate apps that provide large canvases when I’m trying to build a design that typically targets a very fixed size.

And finally, Illustrator does have a fixed canvas size, it’s just big and called the pasteboard.

“It requires a bazillion (that’s more than a fuck-ton) layers to create an object that can built in the browser with a few lines of code.”

Using monolithic CSS styling for elements just pushes the rendering to be done every time the page loads, so supplying some assets as images can be far more efficient and better for performance. Also, it’s beyond me why anyone would want to write words to describe a design, rather than create it visually.

“When you finish a design in photoshop, all you really have is a really nice picture of a website/app.”

When you finish a design in Photoshop, what you have is a final mockup, that means you can start the code from a focused idea of what the final product will be, rather than hacking away and ending up with horrible spaghetti code and cruft from failed experiments.

Note that I’m not against designing in the browser, but you have to be honest about the pros and cons of different approaches. It depends largely on the project.

“Confession, i’ve never used Photoshop for interface design (i’ve always preferred Illustrator)”

For bitmap image assets (PNG, GIF etc) you definitely shouldn’t be using Illustrator: http://bjango.com/articles/illustratorandappdesign/

Photoshop may not be the ideal tool, but it's often the most competent for creating things that are viewed on a screen.

"It's pixel based - The web isn't anymore."

I think his menu button might say otherwise. http://cl.ly/image/0K2A0S413K0M

Moreover, I'm curious how using illustrator is solving these issues.

I'm not disagreeing that photoshop probably isn't the idea solution for web design, but I certainly don't think Illustrator is a better option.

Furthermore, It seems like several issues he's noting aren't so much problems with photoshop as they are matters of opinion and taste "...what's right for the brand not what's trendy or what you prefer."

I'm all for finding better, more efficient ways to design and be creative. But this article seems like it's written by someone who is less interested in maximizing efficiency and more interested in making a statement by not using photoshop at all.

Photoshop works just fine, it's just not the tool for the task at hand.

This guy, man. Just a fountain of negativity.

Guys, don't be a dick.

Guy preaches about designing in code. Guy doesn't know what Hello, World means.

http://jimramsden.com/notes/hey-internet

Funny, I'm no web designer, but this site and his co's site look like they were kind of made "on the fly" — which makes sense given no space between conception and production

using photoshop to design web interface is like cutting steak with a fork. sure it'll work eventually, but there's better tools available.

Ouch.

I agree with some of what he says - definitely start with IA, definitely work in-browser for some things (responsivity, transitions etc), but it's pretty hard to work out your colour scheme and design details without a good graphics program. Printing out inspiration and sticking it on the wall is not the same as designing the aesthetic of a web page...

Figured this would be a controversial one :-)