Hey readers, I just got back from my honeymoon and alas, I had to miss Adobe MAX this year (although, I can’t complain). Still, I’m a little behind on all the Adobe news. Perhaps you can share by commenting what your favorite new projects, ideas, and technologies were. Thanks!
Archive for the ‘Discussion’ Category
How was MAX?
Wednesday, October 14th, 2009The state of the Flash IDE and the FlashBuilder name change via Blogging
Thursday, May 28th, 2009I just finished reading a great post by Kevin Suttle which is not short, but a must-read nonetheless. Go ahead and read it, I’ll wait.
…
You didn’t read it, did you. Well, it’s basically a very well-formed rant lamenting the sad state of the Flash program (not the platform). There are so many things that needed to be said here. I have been aware of the sorry state of the Flash IDE ever since CS3 came out but never took the time to construct such a compelling article as Kevin has.
ActionScript has matured from a simple frame-based script to a full-fledged language but the Flash IDE remains a glorified animation program (I am reluctant to even call it an ‘IDE’). Most of us who are serious developers are happy to switch to more powerful programming environment such as FlexBuilder, however there are thousands of users who learned programming on Flash who shouldn’t have to switch just because Adobe decided that we’re all either designers or developers. There should be a sense of responsibility to the huge workforce of artisans and engineers who rely on this product to make a living.
On that note, I am very pleased that they decided to change the name from FlexBuilder to FlashBuilder. I can’t tell you how often I’ve been in a scenario like this…
Flash Guy: “Import statements are a pain in the ass.”
Me: “I know. But using FlexBuilder makes it a lot easier because the imports are automated.”
Flash Guy: “But I’m not working on a Flex project.”
Me: *Hand to forehead*
The name FlashBuilder helps to support the idea of the Flash Platform which encompasses many technologies. Danny Patterson has makes some good points on the subject on his blog as well. Most interestingly, the suggestion to change the name of Flash Professional CS4 to Flash Designer CS4.
I think Adobe opened the flood gates to these types of discussions wheen they decided to treat designers and developers as separate camps but I’m glad they’re rethinking their approach.
Never Again
Wednesday, January 21st, 2009I’m officially done with my last banner project ever. Yes, I’ve decided this New Year’s to take a stand against work that makes me miserable. Among these things are…
- Banner ads
- ActionScript 2.0
- Last minute crazy hectic projects
- Working with recruiters (Actually, this one was from a couple of years ago)
Some people say I’m crazy or that this sort of work is unavoidable or that it may be shitty but is highly lucrative. However, I always try to avoid projects where I cannot reasonably predict success. Banner ads, AS2 projects, and last minute work all have in common that they seem more subject to chaos than the usual job. Banner ads are difficult to plan because they require loads of tweaks, tedious restraints such as file size restrictions, and duplication of effort for multiple sizes or multiple ad standards across target sites. Or at least they have in my experience so far. ActionScript 2.0, aside from being nearly obsolete, tends to encourage poor programming practices by being a hybrid of non-OOP and OOP paradigms. Last minute fixes and jobs that need to be done ASAFP are rife with issues: the time a developer needs to familiarize himself with unfamiliar code is usually not considered, formal architecture and design is omitted leading to freestyle coding, and because the deadline is so short, if even a tiny issue arrises the project is fucked. Of course, any project can get out of control, but with a little forewarning and careful choices, chaos can be avoided. These types of projects tend to practically guarantee that there will be issues and that there won’t be a smart way to negotiate them.
As for recruiters (or staffing agents, or talent scouts, or whatever else they call themselves), in hard times they might seem like a necessary evil. Still, I feel that I can almost always find a much higher quality match with an employer or employee by direct referrals from other colleagues and friends in the industry – even if it’s through linkedin. Besides, I’ve had enough shady recruiters call me with “incredible offers” on nights and weekends to make me want to disconnect my phone.
So no offense to anyone else who is stuck making banners for their job. I know that all of these things are a neccessary part of our industry. However, I personally don’t want to be involved anymore. I seriously am going to add a “no-banner” clause to my next contract. Instead, I hope to focus on some of the following things that make me happy…
- Game and application development
- Working with people whom I respect and enjoy
- Writing books and blogging
Wish me luck!
A website costs as much as a car
Monday, January 19th, 2009
When people ask me how much it costs to make a website, my answer is always “A website costs as much as a car.” This invariably triggers the response “Oh, ok… Wait, what kind of car?”
“Exactly.”
A car can be many things. A new sedan, a used 1987 stationwagon, a hummer limo, a highly tuned race car, or a smart car with a 2-year lease are all examples of cars. They may range in price from a few hundred bucks to several hundred thousand or even a monthly fee or sometimes even free.
Websites are the same way. Based on the complexity, customization, features, and level of detail, a site can span the same range of prices. Many people decide that they want or need a website without asking the basic questions that help guide the process like “what is the goal of the site”. Quite often, the actual needs are very simple and generic solutions (such as a PayPal shopping cart) are ideal – the same way that a person commuting 10 miles to work needs a reliable but modest car to get them there and not a sports car (or sometimes it’s better to take public transit). I’ve found that describing the work in these terms tends to help potential customers to create more realistic expectations and reconsider their needs by presenting the concept of a website not as a fixed product but as a toolkit of solutions to specific business needs.
I’m not promising anything, but hopefully this has been the first entry in a short series on my work philosophies. Stay tuned!
In the age of AIR has Zinc zunk?
Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008I recently spotted an ad on a website for Zinc (a tool for creating standalone software from Flash content) and was actually kind of surprised to see that they were still around since the release of AIR which does essentially the same things and works with existing software (Zinc’s price tag is $849.99). I was actually hoping that their site would offer some explanation about why we should use Zinc instead of AIR. Unfortunately, the only thing I could find was a comparisson to the Apollo Alpha!
In the spirit of playing fair, I’d love to hear about your experiences with Zinc – good, bad, or obselete.