Where the design community meets.
Product Designer at Facebook Joined almost 6 years ago
This is cool, and certainly compelling.
Maybe it's just me and my workflow, or my own mental models of how things work...But I find that things like Princple and Flinto are awesome for smaller flows, or very limited use cases like page-to-page transitions, sliders, one-off interactions. When building more complete or longer end-to-end flows things start to get pretty hairy pretty fast--creating and maintaining multiple screens/artboards becomes pretty daunting on a level similar to the noodle-soup that Oragami renders.
I can't help but wondering why are we prototyping between screens/artboards and not creating dynamic state-driven elements?
Are there any plans to introduce anything like this?
Dude--agreed. The H just looks generic; the arrow feels stock.
I gave Principle a try, but it feels really off to me. It's like Sketch, Flash, and Quartz are all smashed together, but aren't truly playing to any of their strengths. I'm also not a huge fan of the overall screen-based workflow.
I've used Axure for a while and it's one of the best tools for wires, flows and fast prototyping. I prefer it for user testing longer flows b/c it's handles them much better; building long flows with Framer usually ends in poor performance, and with Origami there's a certain point in which all of the noodles become too complex and unusable. Axure lets me easily build in logic, account for null states, error flows, and everything else I need to design and test a solid flow. Framer and Origami certainly own the interaction design process in my workflow, whereas Axure's animations are kinda basic--but that's okay because it's just a solid tool for getting shit done. Also, the way it handles bounding-box text is wonderful, and so too is the align feature.
I'd like to see that, but I don't think it'll happen. Adobe seems to only be interested in making small incremental improvements to their product, and continuously catering to high-revenue generating services (CS subscriptions) and customers (agencies). Pivoting to build software that serves a small (but growing) class of designers probably doesn't seem justifiable to Adobe. I loosely suspect Adobe will continue to move up-market and leave the likes of Affinity and Sketch to serve the lower markets, since they can't match Sketch's existing cost or value structure-- and they'll do this for some time until it's too late. At that point, Sketch and Affinity will catch up, subsuming a large portion of the market and forcing Adobe out. At least that's what I think.
Jumping on the feedback bandwagon, my two cents: what are votes for, really? Are they indicators of the quality of the content, relevance, or discussion? Instead of votes, why not translate the number into something that adds context to the story, like 'heavily debated', 'topically relevant','mixed sentiment', etc. Seems to me votes have the same problem as star ratings: above or below a certain threshold of votes and we'll either engage with it or disregard it. Just my thoughts.
Totally agree with this. All for focusing on title/content and making votes more nuanced.
I mapped Axure's alignment shortcuts (distribute doesn't work) to Sketch and it's pretty great. I also think Axure's model of dynamic panels and states would be a solid approach to Sketch's symbol issues. And yes, those selection modes kick-ass.
Would love standardized keyboard shortcuts for alignment; also key objects would be fantastic.
For some reason, I read everything in a David Attenborough voice. This is really fun, and looks great.
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.