Lose the photo-surrealism of CS2 but keep the feather, flower, butterfly, etc. symbols, done in white over colored background. What do you think?
Nice compromise between both point of views, IMO.
My only beef is I don’t really get the icons positioning on the color wheel - and how they connect to one another.
Are they really gonna stick with Golive now that they bought Dreamweaver? Does anybody use it?
The only people who used GoLive were either not competent enough at web design to realize what a turd GoLive is, or just too cheap to buy Dreamweaver after getting GoLive as a freebie when they paid for Illustrator, Indesign, and Photoshop.
Also, I’m a bit bothered by Ai for Illustrator.
I think that they did that because it's a common abbreviation used outside of Adobe already. I see it here and there in print and online.
Rumor has it GoLive is going to become PageMaker to Dreamweaver.
Care to elaborate? I've never used Pagemaker, so I don't get the reference.
I really can't understand why Adobe wouldn't just ditch GoLive. When I've tried using it GoLive felt more obtuse than XHTML/CSS is to begin with, and the code it generates is even nastier than the mess Dreamweaver turns out. Adobe should just buy Rapidweaver and re-brand it as GoLive CS3 so that CS users who don't want to mess with web coding can still have a nice app for churning out simple pages for hosting photos, portfolios, etc.
A full-time web design position I once held required that I use GoLive simply because that was the software the staff had been accustomed to using. I got the job after showing samples of content I had built previously using Dreamweaver.
While GoLive was not my tool of choice (I preferred Dreamweaver for several reasons), using it was a requirement, and it met their needs just fine. It had nothing to do with any level of competency at web design or me being too cheap.
The only people who used GoLive were… not competent enough at web design to realize what a turd GoLive is
Not true. GoLive actually has superior site management and planning tools. I know a few designers who start their site in GoLive, then switch to Dreamweaver for the design. Things like external css styles are much easier to manage in GoLive.
But did they buy it for that? Nah. They use it because it came with Photoshop. Otherwise they would have stuck it out with Dreamweaver.
Why ditch a product that you can keep selling indefinitely?
MM killed Freehand around version 9 but kept selling it for years. Seems that Adobe is going to continue that.
If you upgrade to CS2.3 Dreamweaver is part of the package. Basically I was simply saying that when InDesign hit, PageMaker become the little brother.
Do they still even make Pagemaker?
Ok, now I get it.
I believe that Pagemaker is still sold for Windows and Solaris, but development ended years ago. The Mac version was pulled from the market because it didn't run right with under Classic mode in OS X.
I've seen the Mac version of 7.0 available for folks still running OS 9 -- granted, at our U cheap-shop, it's been in the discount bin for quite some time. And I do know one of my regular printshop places still uses it from time to time.
Dear Robert Slimbach,
If you're reading this: Take me on as an apprentice. Between this typeface, Arno Pro, and all the rest, I figure you need to slow down and pass down your wisdom to the next generation. Don't let your knowledge disappear! Share it with me!
Or write a book on typeface design and development. That would also be cool.
> Dear Robert Slimbach, [...] Take me on as an apprentice.
Sorry Dan, that position is already taken. You'll have to wait for the next chance :)
Yup, between Miguel and me, I think our type design apprenticeship slots are full right now.
I'm just hoping Robert's back to work tomorrow so I can get a session of critiques in....
Shucks. Had to try, didn't I?
Quark VS InDesign.com Launches Contest to Design Alternate Adobe Creative Suite 3 Iconshttp://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/news/2007/quark-vs-indesigncom-la...