On 3/14/13 12:33 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what Adobe gains by continuing to
>> spend resources on FXG support at this time. If you can show there would
>> be
>> a significant upside, I will try to bring that case to the right people in
>> Adobe.
>>
>
>
> I am not sure how I can convince Adobe, but here is my reasoning: At my
> current and previous companies, Fireworks is used just because of its
> ability to convert visual designs into FXG. We dabbled with Catalyst,
> but we found that the tool was too complicated to use for Designers, but
> too elementary for Developers. But, the ability to serialize visual assets
> as FXG turned out to be the best way to skin Flex apps.
>
> On the other side, I am very proficient with Photoshop and not too familiar
> with Fireworks. For my simple apps, I choose to create the skins in
> Photoshop and spit it out as FXG and just import it into Flex.
>
> I know other folks that used Illustrator for the same purpose. (BTW,
> Illustrator CS6 still supports the "Save As... > FXG > FXG 2.0" option. I
> just tried it out last night. Not sure what to make of this. )
>
> Thats the possibility of three different tools Adobe could make money of
> off from customers who don't necessarily use these tools without FXG
> support.
>
> And frankly, the absence of this utility could potentially hurt my chance
> of making sure we dont move away from Flex where I work.
Don't PhotoShop and Illustrator output SVG as well? What is it about FXG
that is a must-have especially if you are targeting HTML and not Flash?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
