Kaleidoscope, as nice as it is, is also the most expensive option I’m aware of. There are several other very capable alternatives, albeit not as pretty. Although I do like the ability to compare images which is something the others don’t do as far as I know.
Thanks Todd, Kaleidoscope seems exactly what I was looking for. It was in part something I’ve been looking for previously but also to address Blocs and FW rewriting changes, that you then have the worked files to compare with etc. etc. changes having been highlighted to paste in again.
Xcode might be rather beyond me but shall investigate.
Thanks again for all, have a good festive season and 2015.
I can see people will soon be designing sites which all look the same!
Maybe it’s just me but I really detest the style of the blocs web site (presumably made with blocs?) and all the cookie cutter lookalikes which flood the web these days. It’s so dull !
There is a LOT of look-alike Bootstrap HTML out there, to be sure. That said, I have seen some amazing designs done by people who started with Bootstrap, and then either applied one of the zillions of “themes” for Bootstrap, or reached into it with tweezers and made some choices themselves about how certain elements would look. The beauty of this approach (following Bootstrap’s layout lead) is that you have thoughtful semantic HTML which can then look like almost anything without change. Yes, a lot of lazy people will just use the base Bootstrap look, and their sites will suffer for it. But you could mock up a site using a theme, then reach in and tweak it to your liking without losing the benefits (mobile-first, tremendous legibility at all scales, strong support for Web application needs – banners, alerts, repeating areas) in the process. Think back to the CSS Zen Garden, how wildly different those pages looked, yet they all started with the same HTML.
Walter
On Jan 9, 2015, at 9:36 AM, hugh email@hidden wrote:
I can see people will soon be designing sites which all look the same!
Maybe it’s just me but I really detest the style of the blocs web site (presumably made with blocs?) and all the cookie cutter lookalikes which flood the web these days. It’s so dull !
We CAN’T judge design - but we can judge construction and its reusability - speed and control about modules.
In my recent screencast series I picked up the bootstrap philosophy and brought it consequently into the Freeway world.
The result is awesome - and it works nearby seamless with Freeway’s responsive features. It’s without constraints - neither in construction nor in design - whatever design means.
Naturally I’m not that quick as you can be in blocks (or however this product is called) - but close to.
I’m proud being a Freeway-user cause I don’t have to discus my “weapons” anymore - just am able to concentrate on CONTENT and results, a luxury I couldn’t afford in the past.
Of course we can judge design! We do it all the time. There are design competitions - with judges!! But we do it subconsciously, too - we weigh up whether things are designed well or not.
It may not be the fault of the design tool itself (Blocs or whatever), but as far as I can ‘judge’ there is a growing number of dull and difficult to navigate sites all built around this ‘bootstrap’ philosophy. And personally I think it’s awful, and stifles true design.
Hugh, I think maybe you’ve not grasped the bootstrap thing. It’s more like
starting each job with a full set of tools and parts – instead of
reinventing the wheel with every website. Web design is more like
architectural design – there is a certain functionality that must be
maintained… doors and window must still be doors and windows, otherwise
you’d have chaos.
I’d agree that there are lots of “pre-fab” or “tract homes” on the internet
– which I don’t think is so horrible. Not everyone is a Frank Lloyd Wright
or a Frank Gehry. Anyway, it’s more about device compatibility now I think
– it’s just so easy to make things that are completely useless for the
most used browsing devices.
PS - I’ve had a peak at Thomas’ new screencasts and I think it’s the most
practical Freeway stuff I’ve seen. Everyone should badger him to release!
Designers have always created sites that “look the same”. Every once and a while a trend takes hold (like the one page bootstrap flat design look). I don’t think that’s a bad thing for the majority of sites as long as the content and experience shine though. It all about not turning up to the party with the wrong clothes.
Think of how a book is designed (the form), the same cover and inner pages (for content) and a chair design, four legs flat surface, back (for experience). There’s a myriad of very similar looking books and chair designs that are very functional and do the job very well and we don’t consider design form.
The moment you go of piste with design too much, experience and content start to suffer. Unless the audience is for art and sculpture lovers. However I bet which most sites we design for are commercial sites where visitors are there for other reasons than design appreciation.
Erns, you’re quite right in that I probably haven’t grasped it all - but I feel I have grasped enough to see a definite and, to me, unsightly trend. I think it’s a very fair point about compatability with browsing devices, I don’t contest that. However, I was rather surprised at Thomas’s admission that [quote] I’m…just am able to concentrate on CONTENT and results, a luxury I couldn’t afford in the past.[/quote] - why was content a luxury in the past?.. It’s the starting point!! Surely the consideration of content comes before you put mouse to pad? It almost sounded like he hadn’t been doing that in the past! (sorry if I misunderstand your intention, Thomas)
David - the key words are ‘too much’ - of course if you go off piste too much, experience and content can suffer. But I see experience and content (and particularly navigation) suffering because the toolset and the device seems to be more important than the content or the user. In my view the Softpress site isn’t a patch on what it used to be for utility.
Well, this debate would run and run and is maybe getting a bit off-topic. I’m sure Blocs and bootstraps are here to stay. But the results I see to date are disappointing.
I destroyed best content by inability to structure it - unable to understand and write a proper outline. Not content is luxury - wrapping it semantically is the point.
Thomas, I’m not hiding!.. sorry, been away and rather busy with other things. But I must find you an example or two. At the end of the day I think we will probably find we just disagree about what makes a ‘good’ web page…regardless of whether it’s bootstrap-made or not!
I’ve been using Rapidweaver with Foundation recently for responsive design and getting on quite well with it all but this blocs app does look interesting. It has a beautiful interface.
Too bad we have to wait a couple of months for form support. I’ve completed a simple site for dog training last week. Took me 1-2 hours, including the learning curve.
I’ve just been playing around with the Blocs trial of and on. Its good but could be a lot better, its very limited in the options on offer, especially sizing, margins and padding. Limited fonts also.
As a photographer a proper gallery would have been nice, that could also have been applied to individual images. Text being able to wrap around images would have been ideal too.
That said its early days and elements are being added progressively. And its rather cheaper than Macaw. I did try Briqs but it kept crashing.
