10 comments

  • Jrtorrents Dorman , 1 month ago

    Good for them! It appears it finally dawned on them (and Invision) that veing just a protyping too isn’t going to be enough.

    Going forward, I hope they pay more attention to making Framer less “cody” to make animation.

    2 points
    • Denis RojcykDenis Rojcyk, 1 month ago

      Nooo, please no. There are other tools for this kind of approach.

      2 points
      • Jrtorrents Dorman , 1 month ago

        Mind sharing any names ? Please don't tell me Invision, Marvel or Principle.

        They can still keep the code component but if they want to reach a much wider audience, they also need a way to do everything visually.

        1 point
        • Rhys MerrittRhys Merritt, 1 month ago

          I don't agree with this at all. What makes Framer stand out is the code aspect. I can't speak for the Framer team, but I imagine that they shouldn't be going for the widest audience - they should maintain their beliefs that coding is the most powerful way to create a prototype, and appeal at a much more intense level to a select segment of the product community.

          I would argue that the reason Framer has such a passionate following is because they do NOT cast the widest net, they focus on what they do best.

          3 points
          • Jrtorrents Dorman , 1 month ago

            They just raised $8million, in time investors would want to see a return on that investment and I doubt they can do that catering for a super niche market.

            Digital Prototyping is a small market, it makes very little business sense to further alienate chunk of that small market especially when there is a fierce conpetition.

            That is not to say that they should kill off the coding functionality, like After effects, they should provide a way to prototype both visually and through code.

            I have two main issues with their code only only prototyping.

            a. The code that is generated through Framer cannot be used in production. Everything you with framer has to be done from scratch during production.

            b. If I have decent coding skills, why should I pay for framer instead of html/css/Javascript ?

            0 points
            • Rhys MerrittRhys Merritt, 1 month ago

              they should provide a way to prototype both visually and through code.

              They've already provided a way to prototype both visually, as well as through code. https://framer.com/features/design/

              As for your issues:

              a. There have been extensive talks about switching to ES6 among both the community and the Framer team. Coffeescript is an easy language to learn, so it has lowered the learning curve for people looking to start using Framer. But as far as I am aware, the chaps at Framer have not ruled out switching to ES6 in the future. Regardless - there is still a great benefit in handing developers something they can inspect, and read, rather than a simple video file, and of course there is the huge benefit of speedily creating something powerful that works like a real production application, without any engineering effort wasted. This allows an unprecedented level of testing things out before committing to actually building them.

              b. You aren't paying for the ability to code, you are paying for Framer studio, and all it brings. You can use Framer without Framer studio for free if you want. https://github.com/koenbok/Framer

              0 points
  • Taylor PalmerTaylor Palmer, 1 month ago

    Sweet! Looking forward to new feature development.

    1 point
  • Account deleted 1 month ago

    At least now we know they will be here for another 18 months ;)

    HOPE they'll introduce two things: - advanced designer section (at the moment a bit poor) - native app :P (probably never happen, but I'll always want that)

    0 points
    • Jorge MartinsJorge Martins, 1 month ago

      What do you mean by native app?

      0 points
      • Account deleted 1 month ago

        Framer, Abstract, Slack, etc. are based on web technologies like JavaScript, HTML, CSS, etc. and wrapped into a "native looking/feeling" desktop app. Search for, e.g., https://electron.atom.io

        Advantage, one code for cross-platform applications (faster and cheaper to iterate), access to system features like notification, shortcuts and much more. Downsides, slow (most cases), not responsive (glitches), loading times (opening, during work) etc.

        Personally, I hate "wraps" on macOS (but I'm forced to use some of them). In some cases, I can understand the reason behind it (apps for quick things, apps working in the bg, etc.), but for production software, I spending XX hours with, this is a real disappointment!

        I feel cheated when using one of the "WRAPS" on macOS. Those apps should live in the browser, not in my system.

        PS: I appreciate sketch for being (still) a real, native app.

        1 point