37signals loves Photoshop and won’t admit it
Today Jason from 37signals posted a ridiculous piece titled, “Why we skip Photoshop”. The post itself is interesting and informative and offers a lot – but I have some issues with what it implies. It implies that the team at 37signals never uses or used Photoshop – or further implies that Photoshop isn’t necessary to accomplish what 37signals has done to-date. Any seasoned UI designer can tell you, this is absurd and ridiculous.
I love thought pieces that come out of the 37signals team, but I’ve noticed over the years that their blog gets a lot of popularity through comments via these misleading and controversial topics – say something you know everyone is split on and you guarantee high readership and high comment participation. But on occasion, I have to speak out – they are being misleading and their responsibility as experts fails in posts such as this. Again, my issue isn’t with the post or its content (both very good), it is with the implied meaning behind it that will mislead and misguide designers, developers and naïve upper-management.
First and foremost, lets replace the word “Photoshop” with graphics program – this isn’t about Photoshop directly; it is about the debate of not needing a graphics program and the idea that you can design an entire concept from sketches right in the code. 37signals has built an entire platform of product offerings … all with unique market features but with no unique visual aesthetic style between them. What 37signals has done is what we call “Product Templatization” – they’ve created one unique and reusable template structure that can be applied to any new product or service offering in record time and give that product a seemingly unique presence but by sharing similar form, function, style and structure to the like. 37signals might no longer need Photoshop, but did they at one point and could they ever be where they are today without a graphics program like it?
37signals says that the “details are for later” – but I thought design was in the details? I thought it was the small details that made your products as intuitive as they are, making them truly stand out among the industry. The team at 37signals is also internal – they have no one to report to, to gain approval from or to work with other than themselves. The power of a mock-up helps with those approvals and communication in a much more effective way than HTML/CSS ever could – especially when getting approval on the aesthetic design. They advocate waiting on the details for later – but isn’t that why we have the information architecture process prior to design? Essentially Jason isn’t saying to remove Photoshop, he is saying to remove OmniGraffle and Viso. Jason is advocating creating “substance” in the mark-up first and filling in the details later. That is fine … use any “prototyping tool” you’d like, but don’t imply that you don’t need or don’t use Photoshop. If so, explain to me how you created any number of the buttons, graphics, drop-shadows or icons without a graphics program like Photoshop? And then tell me your product would be just as good without those design details.
When all of your products fundamentally aesthetic look is the same, when you have no one to report to or gain approval from and when the basis for most form/function and structure is the always the same … then yes, you can avoid Photoshop where many of us can’t. The title of Jason’s post should have been “how we created a product UI design template that put us in a position to not need Photoshop ANYMORE ”.
Thanks to Bryan via the original posts comments, I am reminded of this classic 37signals article from a couple years ago, where they say “I use Photoshop nearly every day to test design ideas before I’m convinced they deserve time in the terminal.”
- June 4th, 2008
- 48comments
- I am a proud member of the 9rules network
I’m not sure 37s needs anyone to take up for them, but from your post I’d think you hadn’t read anything but the “misleading and controversial” title.
At no point did the post say they don’t use Photoshop, it’s obvious (as you pointed out) that their products all contain graphic elements that were clearly created with Photoshop or another comparable tool. I don’t agree with you that they even imply that they don’t use it. The point of the post is that they don’t use it for mock-ups or comps. They’ve long advocated using HTML wireframes to prototype the flow and functionality prior to adding visual elements and I think there is a certain sense to that approach - especially in application development. The idea promotes designing the flow, the experience, and the functionality and THEN using graphic design to enhance that experience.
Are they telling people to boycott Adobe Photoshop and do everything in HTML? No. They are simply sharing how an alternative process works for them. Personally, I’d be offended at your assertion that they put no more thought into their products other than to templatize everything so they don’t have to use Photoshop. They have an aesthetic that is consistent across their products that is perfectly aligned to their application philosophy of clean and simple tools, supports their brand, and provides a solid family of products feeling. I seriously doubt that laziness or avoiding graphics applications played any role in the continued use of that aesthetic.
I disagree with your assertion of 37s responsibility as experts (they have no responsibility save to their customers) and that they are implying anything even remotely like what you suggest.
JZ,
I read the entire article, but I understand what you mean. We actually debated the post heavily here at work; it pissed a few of us of. But my biggest complaint like I said isn’t the post itself or its content — it was as I said very informative and interesting. My problem is that many people only read the title or lack the understanding of what Jason really means or hopes to mean.
It is what Jason is implying that bothers me most. He is implying something that we all know not to be true, that they themselves in past posts have admitted too. I am upset because now clients, young designers/developers and naive upper-management will start proclaiming that we can do everything 37signals has done without the need for Photoshop. Teams will question if Photoshop is a necessary expensive in the budget or if the concepting phase is worth the time or the money.
I read the article, beyond the title and again it is very misleading and upsetting; and frankly untrue. While the 37signals team might not be using Photoshop today — that wasn’t always the case and that isn’t what Jason is making apparent.
Yes, we use Photoshop to design things that can’t be designed in HTML. Say a custom graphic button or rendered text. That goes without saying.
But we don’t use Photoshop to mock up interface designs. We use paper and go straight to HTML/CSS. That was the entire thrust of the blog post. We skip Photoshop when we design a UI. An element here or there may come from Photoshop, but the UI — the structure, the layout, the 99% of the screen — is not done in Photoshop.
I hope that clarifies things for you. I’m not sure why you feel the need to call someone else’s opinion or methods “absurd and ridiculous” — we certainly wouldn’t call your opinion absurd and ridiculous. Different strokes for different folks does not equal “absurd and ridiculous”.
Jason,
Thanks for the comment — I do highly value your opinions and insights. As a designer, it just bothers me that you (in the position you are in, like it or dislike it) are proclaiming something that hasn’t necessarily always been true — that is what I am referring to as “absurd and ridiculous”.
You are in a unique position, with a well established template that you continue to use, one used internally. It is the implied thought that where you are at now can be done by going from sketch to code — it is a great thought but not practical in the real world. From previous 37signals posts, I know your team uses Photoshop for concepting prior to code.
Again, you may no longer use Photoshop and go straight from sketch to code, you only do so over a long process that at some point involved concepting in Photoshop. You are the man! Don’t get me wrong — I just believe strongly you are sending the wrong message and implying something to the masses that look up to you and revere you that isn’t necessarily the case.
Clients will come to me and say that they read in 37signals that they can go from sketch to code … those same clients will ask why they are paying for the Photoshoping time and effort — is it an unnecessary step? Can all truly go from sketch to code? I don’t believe so.
Again, I believe what you are doing is using the code as a prototyping and wire-framing tool. But without Photoshop because you’ve already in previous years established a look/feel that you continue to use and evolve in such a way that can be easily altered in the code rather than needing to open Photoshop.
I think this comes down to, once again, that just because 37signals does it doesn’t mean everyone else should try it. I’ve seen this for so long I don’t even both getting in the discussion anymore.
The thing is, you have to read the title of the post: Why we skip Photoshop.
What does that say to us? It says, right up front, that we’re about to read about reasons 37signals skips Photoshop in their design process. In other words, it’s not as if Mr. Fried is telling all the designers out there, “Stop using Photoshop! It’s a waste of your time!”
And he makes some great points here. In fact, I did the exact same thing when I designed the latest incarnation of my own website. I had about 4 different design mockups in Fireworks (no, I don’t actually use Photoshop either) and I ditched them all in favor of going straight to TextMate and working on the HTML/CSS.
Now, the issue here is that with this workflow, we’re also preventing ourselves from truly exploring our creativity, and we’re pigeon-holing ourselves into a design style that’s more simple, less graphical. Without design mockups, we can’t think about the details beforehand, which can be both good and bad.
Read Jeff Croft’s comment (the 9th one down) on the 37signals post, as he hits the nail on the head.
“Is it possible that your no-Photoshop workflow has actually influenced your design style? I tried going Photoshop-less for a while, and what I found was that I would iavoid texture, depth, shapes that can’t be created with CSS , and imagery in order to facilitate my new workflow. Ultimately, I felt it was harming my creativity.”
Using a no-Photoshop workflow is great for all the reasons Jason mentions, but it’s not for everyone.
At the last Refresh DC meeting on prototyping, there seemed to be a really wide spectrum of tools that people used for prototyping, many of them not classic graphic design tools. Me, I’m much faster and more flexible coding than using other tools, so I agree with 37 signals that using HTML/CSS as the basic approach can often be the most effective way to go. But Martin’s concern that clients might be less likely to understand the need to budget substantial funds for the prototyping stage is important. And one of the comments on the 37signals blog poses an interesting question about whether skipping Photoshop results in a different design aesthetic. Even though I personally find using Photoshop a less effective way to handle prototyping, I can’t argue against an approach that produces the impressive end results of nclud. Would be interesting to see a head-to-head contest of the two approaches on the same project.
I agree with 37signals’ process when it comes to designing applications, but not websites.
In nearly all of my application projects, I first layout the interface on paper and then head straight to code in order to produce a functional prototype. Once the core screens and functionality are nailed down, I bring everything back into Fireworks or Photoshop to design the visual experience, then apply those changes to the prototype.
I elect to go this route because I’ve found with applications that what I dream up in the graphics software gets either tweaked or tossed when people actually start using the system. For me, code is a heck of a lot cheaper to write than fussing over line-heights, contrast and positioning in my chosen graphics software.
Now, when I’m developing a website, I take the opposite approach. The paper sketches still come first, but Fireworks or Photoshop are utilized before code is written. This is likely because, no matter how interactive a website gets, it will likely never be as functionally complex or task-oriented as an application. The main purpose of each determines my approach to the problem.
When a company like 37s has a product line which share similar UI style guides, it’s easy to mock a feature on paper and move right into HTML/CSS implementation. The UI for 37s products have been well established for years, with little aesthetic change. When the aesthetics are already decided upon, Photoshop is a waste of time.
Skipping Photoshop works for THEIR needs, where 99% of their aesthetic decisions have already been decided. However, when working with rebrands/redesigns where the initial aesthetics have not yet been determined, I find it a lot easier to jump into Photoshop for aesthetic purposes only (not IA purposes).
Good post. I also enjoyed Jeff Croft’s comments in response to the original post.
I’d like to see some further response to those. I think there’s a lot to be said about how the Photoshopless method works for 37s largely because their designs just aren’t very graphics-heavy. Which came first is sort of a chicken-and-egg thing but you can definitely tell by looking at their work.
“It implies that the team at 37signals never uses or used Photoshop – or further implies that Photoshop isn’t necessary to accomplish what 37signals has done to-date.”
If that is what you get as an implication, then I get what you are saying. However, I don’t think that is what they are implying at all. To me their article was pretty simple, they don’t use Photoshop as part of the mock process for designing. They go from paper sketches to html/css mocks to the finished project. They’ve found that with their applications creating mock screens in Photoshop is not needed and just a waste of time. That doesn’t mean they don’t use Photoshop in their designs, it’s just not a part of their mock process.
I actually agree with them. Paper is much better for mocking up and I see no reason to digitize it.
And hey, it works for them. 37Signals has some great products.
I can understand this train of thought. I skip the photoshop phase until I need to sort out specific image elements, but that comes later.
thanks for the article Martin!
as Brian Maffitt (After Effects and video guru) famously said during one of his video special effects tutorials:
“All Roads Lead To Photoshop”
that quote is so true i still use it as a footer in my emails sometimes.
photoshop is still an essential part of workflow in the following fields:
photography, desktop publishing, web design, video, 3D modeling, video games design (for creating textures and bump maps), etc.
whatever you do in digital arts, you need photoshop (or an alternative bitmap-based graphics program) to create it.
When you design a website you are designing from a high level. Things like color scheme, layout, flow, etc. do not require a graphics program. Things like buttons and shadows etc. are the details that should not be messed with that early in the design process. You can make a simple button in CSS that has no shadow or round corners but still conveys the basic design of the page. In fact, from the screenshot you included I see literally 4 things on that page that are images (a logo, an icon, the Help button, and the create project button). I would expect that they already had the logo, the icon wasn’t necessary, and the two buttons would be simple text with CSS during the initial design. They would not need Photoshop or any graphics program for that.
I’ve enjoyed all the comments; thank you! One thing to remember is that Jason is talking about using xhtml/css as a wire-framing tool — he is speaking to the fact that the structure, form and function can be visually connoted via the code rather than using a graphics program like Photoshop.
That I don’t have a problem with — use paper, use Viso, use code … hell use a coloring book for all I care. But to say you can plan and design a successful application by simply going from sketch to code and only utilizing Photoshop for graphics after the fact is laughable.
Laughable in the context of a new entity — not one that is based off an existing template (a template that Photoshop was used for in the beginning). I just hate how they are implying that they “never” went to Photoshop — what they are saying is that they NO LONGER need to go to Photoshop; two very different things.
I just can’t leave this alone. I keep seeing two points of view perpetuated:
1. They don’t need photoshop because their aesthetic is established and can largely be executed using HTML and CSS with minimal graphic images.
2. There are no more visual decisions to be made because their UI style is so established.
Those may be valid literal points, but they still represent a short-sighted view that misses the point of the post.
Let’s try to not look at this post insolation in finding implied meanings, but instead look at past posts that reinforce the original thesis: 37s uses HTML wireframes instead of Photoshop comps when they are doing web application UI design.
As I commented earlier, this is about feeling how it is to use an application which at the early stages - even before programming - is way more important than what icon is going to be used or how they’ll style forms, or integrate the branding. Isn’t that what’s most important in your web apps? Isn’t that hard to gauge in Photoshop?
Now that’s not to say they never use Photoshop or it never enters the process, or even that it isn’t sometimes a better mock-up tool than HTML. Take this post for example:
In this case they were dealing with a graphical element and Photoshop was used to mock-up some iterations because it was the most efficient tool for this task.
I hope all of us are smart enough to use the most efficient tool and break out of our typical process whenever the need arises. And let’s not forget this process clearly is for application design and not well-suited to client-driven website design. That seems to be the point of view that most you who are incredulous are arguing this from. The thing to take from the post is to use the right tool for the job and to consider that maybe the best place to design interaction and applications is in the browser.
I hardly think it is “laughable” to go “from sketch to code and only utilizing Photoshop for graphics after the fact”. I use a very consistent mark-up structure in most every web project and use CSS to make it look however I want. Why make the UI and interface mistakes in an unstyled mock-up rather than in fully-executed HTML templates? And won’t your final design be better when you’re creating a UI for a solid app concept instead of just dreaming away in PS?
@JZ, I hear you … I agree with you too.
“Laughable” might be a bit strong — but I am a bit heated on this one. I just think they are speaking to an unusual and unrealistic environment with respect to how most work. They are implying something with discussing the history. It all depends on your site and content — but 37signals products at their base from the early days did not go from sketch to code — they might be able to do so now, but only after several years of working within a templatized vacuum.
“I have never once used Photoshop or any other graphics program to design my layout. I don’t know anyone who does, either. I know some people do. I know some people start with Photoshop and then try to recreate that design in HTML. That’s what this article is against. You should not use Photoshop to design the layout of the page. Photoshop just isn’t a design tool. It’s a graphics tool. Websites aren’t graphics. They’re layouts. They’re text and links and formatting and flow. You have to design all of that into your page. You have to design things like “how is this text going to flow when I resize”. You don’t get that from Photoshop. You can’t.”
I’m with you Adam. Photoshop is nice to have, but not necessary for laying out a site.
You shouldn’t respond to an article based on what you think people who don’t read it will take from it. I don’t see any implication whatsoever that graphics programs aren’t necessary for creating websites. What I see is an article which talks about initial design, and makes a good argument for why graphics programs are completely unnecessary and actually inhibit proper design.
Martin, We here in my office read this post and were also dumbfounded by this notion that you should just skip photoshop in the design process… Our point of view however was not from the aspect of planning the framework of the site but planning the visual make up of the site - the actual look and feel of it. How is it anyone can design a site solely with CSS / xHTML and create an actual look and feel to a site without it being a strictly minimalist design. Maybe we are all talking about different things as Adam says he has never used a graphics program to design a layout and doesn’t know anyone who does… If you are a designer and have designer friends and colleauges I would find that hard to believe. And when we talk about design what is design? Are we talking information layout or are we talking graphics? Is this all semantics we are quibbling over?
We start out with IA and wireframing before we ever get to the design stage - and Photoshop and we often will use HTML, Omni, or Visio to accomplish this. The wireframing process is for sorting out the highlevel stuff Adam mentioned and i agree, at this stage there is no need for graphics.
In the case of 37S, i could see how they could get away without using PS, their design style doesn’t really warrant it. Their style is minimal, text based design with a splash of graphics here and there. Besides, their business is web apps now which is more UI design than Front-end design. In that case i would probably skip Photoshop too.
But I design to make sites function well and LOOK good too. Photoshop is a tool that some may feel people lean on too much but i would never advocate abandoning it altogether.
I have never once used Photoshop or any other graphics program to design my layout. I don’t know anyone who does, either. I know some people do. I know some people start with Photoshop and then try to recreate that design in HTML. That’s what this article is against. You should not use Photoshop to design the layout of the page. Photoshop just isn’t a design tool. It’s a graphics tool. Websites aren’t graphics. They’re layouts. They’re text and links and formatting and flow. You have to design all of that into your page. You have to design things like “how is this text going to flow when I resize”. You don’t get that from Photoshop. You can’t.
I fear some are missing the point. This is not about laying our a site, planning a site, organizing a site or prototyping a site. Jason is saying they go from sketch to code and ONLY use graphics programs for the little details (like images, graphics, icons, etc.).
Jason is saying they are not involving Photoshop in any phase of the project except to create supportive graphics; after the site is near completion.
And my point is simply that Jason and the 37signals team can ONLY do this because the design is done and the code is done — at the least the hard part is. And that original design was created in Photoshop doing exactly what he now proclaims he needs not do. My issue is that this is misleading simply because he is implying you can do what 37signals does without using a tool like Photoshop and that is only true several years into 37signals — not from the start; not at the beginning of a new application that is nothing more than a PRD and has NO OTHER template to follow from; something truly new and unique.
Look at their apps… why would you need to mock any of them in photoshop?
I agree, I think those making a counterpoint to your article are talking in terms of site layout or framework for which Photoshop is definitely not necessary… I think for THEM, for 37S, and for those who elaborate graphical interfaces are not a necessity or those focused on pre-existing web app UI framework, eliminating Photoshop from the workflow may be ideal.
I don’t use photoshop either. Maybe I’m missing something, but what does photoshop give you that sketching doesn’t? It certainly doesn’t give you a code base to work from. In my mind it gives you a sketch and if necessary some graphics. Then you code from scratch to mimic that sketch. I don’t see why you need photoshop to do that. You need photoshop to produce graphics. Not design a site.
You keep separating “layout” and “structure” from this mystical unqualified “design” that requires photoshop… Why? Fancy + layout + structure etc are all part of design.
Look at the screenshot in this article. I could easily design that site without using Photoshop once. I have design sites that look similar without using Photoshop. I design this site without using Photoshop (though it has been modified since, and I notice it now has some scrollbars where it shouldn’t…hmmph).
When I design a site I sit down and decide basic layout first (where does navigation go, where does various content go, etc.). Then I decide color schemes. Then I decide more specific details. It’s all top-down. Only the last step (fine tuning with graphics) requires a graphics program.
This is what you’re getting wrong, Martin:
“And that original design was created in Photoshop doing exactly what he now proclaims he needs not do.
No. He is quite clearly saying (as I am) that he does not use Photoshop to do that design. He’s not going from Photoshop to code. He’s going from sketch to code. When I do that I either pencil something rough or just have an idea in my mind. That’s what I start with. Every time. I never use a graphics program for anything other than making a logo or a button or icon or something. I can’t even imagine needing Photoshop for designing the overall look of the page. It’s just not good at that.
This is where it gets philosophical. IMO, if you start with graphics then you are doing it wrong. Function comes first. There are too many websites that have clearly been designed around the graphics and the function suffers as a result. Your design should start at the functional level and the form should be built around that. Every time you add more detail or more graphics you should be guaranteeing that the basic functionality is still there. If you can’t, for instance, resize the browser or increase/decrease the size of the text and still get a decent page then you’re doing it wrong. You’re not making a PDF. You’re not making a printed page. Don’t design like you are. Design for the web, not for a magazine or a book.
Adam, I respect what you are saying and I hear your point. I don’t work with 37signals and won’t proclaim to know for certain what they do or do not do. I only know what I have read from their previous posts in the past; which allude to the use of Photoshop for concepting prior to jumping into the code.
I agree that NOW they do not need to use Photoshop to create a site similar to that in the screenshot I show above — however, that screenshot is derived from a template that was originally created (several years ago) in Photoshop — this being an assume only from previous 37signals posts on their use of Photoshop.
That is definitely NOT what they’re implying.
36signals have used Photoshop at some point to create their layouts, but considering next to all of their products use the same interface that they’ve already created why should they use Photoshop? They don’t have any clients and a paper-based sketch will do when creating a layout for them.
The whole idea that Photoshop is essential for Web Design is flawed, because Photoshop is not a Web Designing tool. Adobe believe Photoshop to be better than that.
I could go on and on about this, but it seems Jeff Croft has already beaten me to it.
http://jeffcroft.com/blog/2008/jun/04/why-we-dont-skip-photoshop/
I think alot of comments have touched many of the very same points Jeff Croft touches on in his post, except maybe just not as eloquently… And i think he hits the nail on the head and as I pointed out in one of my earlier comments, how you use (or don’t use) Photoshop all comes down to how you define your design process. Alot of design agencies and professionals are creating sites for clients that are looking for a unique and visually rich look and feel that you can’t always create without a graphics editor like Photoshop… others are looking for a clean, minimal UI for a web application or the like… The process is dependent on your product and end goal…
Thedel, I think you are right … Jeff did a great job of articulating his point and reminding us that it is truly about the process.
But, I do feel like I am beating this point to death … 37signals says they skip Photoshop — my only thing is that they should have prefaced that with the fact that they only NOW skip Photoshop; now that they have a pre-defined working visual template. They didn’t always skip Photoshop and if they ever stray from their working Template, they will most likely use Photoshop again prior to jumping in the code.
But the thing is, their blog post didn’t claim anything else. Everything that you’ve been arguing against have been straw men built on incorrect assumptions.
Adam, you are correct. They did not specifically say that and my entire personal rant is on what I believe Jason is implying (rather than directly saying) — or further more, what I concerned many will take away (whether intended or not) as fact from what Jason wrote. My post, controversial perhaps (and wrong perhaps), is all about what I personally feel was implied by Jason through his post.
Jason is stating a fact, that they no longer use Photoshop for concepting and go straight from sketch to code. I am okay with that, I respect it, understand it and even share the sentiment as I do the same. My issue is with the implication that 37signals has always done this or can do what they’ve done from the beginning by following this method — that is what I think is absurd and laughable. But yes, you are right, that isn’t entirely fair as Jason didn’t directly say that and perhaps didn’t intend to imply it.
But what I do know to be true is that whether that is implied or not, that is how it will be received by many young/unexperienced designer, developers and naive upper-management — adding fuel to a fire that many have been trying to put out for years; a further separation of strategy, design and development.
Jason didn’t say anything directly that I am writing about, I’ve made it clear what bothered me is what I personally believed to be implied through his post. The implied and misguided/misleading aspects of what he wrote. Jason failed to make it clear that at one time they did go from sketch to Photoshop to code and that the only reason they can remove the Photoshop piece now is because they are working in an established UI templating environment. By leaving that out, by failing to mention that Photoshop is being skipped in their process because of that — that is why there is that implication I am upset over.
And Adam, I total get this is one of those controversial topics that is pretty evenly split and my point of view is the same; split. I don’t want to try and change your or anyone elses mind — but for those that did read that article and thought for a second they could accomplish what 37signals did without using Photoshop; this post is a reality check for you.
I have never thought that 37signals were the best designers in the world. I don’t have trouble believing they don’t use Photoshop - they might use Fireworks or some other image editing software more suited for the web.
For what it’s worth - Apple requires their designers to create pixel perfect mockups, and no one has ever accused them of putting out bad designs :)
Great point.
Apple is usually more form over function, so that’s why that method would work for them.
You don’t think Apple’s operating system is easier to use over Windows or Linux? For power users, Windows, Linux, and OS X are all about the same in terms of usability - but for new users, Apple is much more intuitive - it all goes back to their design process.
I’ve spent waaaay more time in a windows environment so i’m afraid i’m slightly biased. It’s surprisingly hard to wrap your head around doing things ‘differently’ - I’ve tried in a couple linux flavours, and failed so far :( . My fault I guess for being so comfortable in my XP environs.
No it is not. You are just flat out wrong. I don’t think you misunderstood the article. I think it is saying exactly what you implied: that Photoshop is not necessary for the design process (for any site). What you’re wrong about is your insistence that this is impossible. It’s not!
The last part of my last comment was my opinion about how web design should be done. Other people (like yourself) may have other opinions about how they think web design should be done. But it’s one thing to say that you should use Photoshop to do something, and it is entirely different to say that you cannot do design without Photoshop. That is what you’re saying. You are saying it is “laughable” that 37signals could have designed some things without Photoshop. Bullshit. You can say it’s not the best way, or that it’s way harder, or whatever you want, but it can be done.
Adam, exactly. I don’t even have Photoshop on my computer and I design sites just fine without it. If I need an image for the final product, then I’ll ask one of the graphic designers, but I don’t need them at all for the designing process.
Sorry JoeFrinD, but Apple is exactly the opposite of form over function. What Martin seems to misunderstand about design, and perhaps yourself given this comment, is that design is MORE than form.
And Apple’s policy that designers have to produce pixel perfect mockups (presumably in photoshop) is irrelevant, even if true. It no more means it’s impossible to design without photoshop than Martin’s continued assertions.
Perhaps not appropriate, but would love to see a sample of a website either of you have made without using Photoshop. Not to rip it a part; but perhaps for my own edification?
I do appreciate the comments and the alternate point of views — all much appreciated. My mind is made up, but I always welcome different points of views.
I already linked to one. Other websites I’ve made are not accessible to the outside world or have since been taken down (student groups that didn’t maintain them).
Here, you can try mine:
http://www.marcusthompson.net
Photoshop was not used in the workflow for prototyping my site. I went straight from paper to code or some times when I’m feeling whimiscal, straight to coding.
It was used however to produce the logo and tab images of the main nav, but again, those weren’t absolutely vital to its functionality.
Also, unless you’re talking about Apple’s web designers then you’re comparing app software design to web design. I’d like to see anyone do a “pixel-perfect” mockup of a non-trivial website. How would you even define “pixel-perfect”? Which browser? Which version? What resolution?
Adam: My point was that 37signals implied moving pieces, buttons, inputs, etc. make designing in Photoshop difficult. Apple has designers working on user interfaces that are significantly more complex than a website and they are creating pixel perfect mockups.
Obviously they are different in form and function, but in the end designing a user interface for the web or for software is all about usability, and so the goals overlap.
Also I think it’s ridiculous that people are taking this post so seriously - there is no right way or wrong way to design a website or a piece of software - the end goal should always be “can my user complete the tasks they want to complete?” and if the answer is yes, then who cares how you got there?
Desktop applications are not the same as web applications, and they should not be designed the same way. Web sites are all about content. That content is (predominantly) text. The focus in deigning a web site should be in making it easier to find what you want (both in terms of navigating between pages and navigating within the page), making the page flow well (adapting to different browsers and resolutions/window sizes), and then making it pleasing to the eye.
Desktop applications are more about functionality. They aren’t just content. They do stuff. The focus for those is in usability: making it clear how to do something. The desktop application developer is in absolute control over how things are positioned and how they respond to resizing (or whether it can resize at all). It is possible (and not that hard) to make “pixel-perfect” desktop application mockups because the developer controls every aspect of rendering. The only way to do that in web sites is to control the browser itself.
“there is no right way or wrong way to design a website or a piece of software”
I can agree with that. I have my own philosophy of how it should be done, and so do others. That’s fine. My complaint here is that Martin is saying it is impossible (or “laughable”) to do it my way. That is ridiculous.
I agree. The difference between 37signals and the rest is that their visuals have already been made, so why go through the trouble of doing it again?
Admittedly, I skip using a graphics program sometimes and get stuck in to actually creating the structure, then move onto creating small graphics. Some layouts are so similar that once you’ve made a structure it just takes tweaking on paper and in code to get the same effect. That being said, I’ll always open up something to create the graphics afterwards and adjust to that.
Someone gets my overall point — thanks for the comment.