Comments on: Can Flex be Design Driven?

By: nick

nick — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:42:20 +0000

hey jesse –
well i have to say i gave flex a really close look. as a mac user i installed parallels, bought xp pro and installed the flex trial. something about flex just doesnt

By: Kenny Bunch

Kenny Bunch — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 05:26:04 +0000

PS. Remember that day when I was telling you where I thought MM would go with all their tools, player, etc. Interesting to see where they are at ;). What gets me know like I said is where they are going. I have high hopes.

By: Kenny Bunch

Kenny Bunch — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 05:22:25 +0000

Jesse,
Thanks for making the long trek into town. To your point, I would say currently Flex can be used with design to an extent. Theoretically you could create the same application you might create with Flash, design wise and all. However, it depends on how you are defining design. Like we talked about and I think you were able to explain, most of the applications you have been working on are very business based, form driven apps. These are perfect for Flex, and ridiculous for Flash. On the other hand, you have marketing/design apps. These are a different breed. To your example, X3 could be done in Flex, but should it? How long would it take in comparison to Flash? Flex is good with an existing component structure. You have elements you drag and drop in. In Flash, designers are creating the elements right there in the canvas, there vision (pixel by pixel) is translated directly. It is not you or I twisting their elements to work. To this point, both tools serve different needs. Both needs are valid, creating the need for the separate tools. I currently use both and love both. You pick the tool that fits the job. Adobe has really moved in the right direction. Now I’m interested to see what Appolo brings to the fold. My guess is a Mozilla based desktop engine.

By: Josh Tynjala

Josh Tynjala — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:57:14 +0000

Tom has a good point. If properly skinned, you can work with the Flex framework, and no one will even recognize it. That’s exciting. BUT, it’s kind of heavy, and that means a long, boring download for a flashy entertainment site. That’s not exciting. Flex is designed with bigger applications (with lots of opportunities for components) in mind. For an entertainment site, you’d be better off finding something lighter if you want it based off basic components and views like that.

By: Rahsun McAfee

Rahsun McAfee — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:54:27 +0000

ummm…yeah …. I don’t know. It’s weird cause I have to be developer / designer most of the time.

It took a while for me to get into a flow because usually I’m a designer 1st then developer.

Most people might not agree, but I hate stuff that looks alike from the design perspective. I know it’s more work, but I’m usually thinking of how I can change a component visually as oppose to extending it’s capabilities.

I use RoR more and morenow and got in a conversation with another the other day who HATES Flash cause it’s ‘not open’ ummmmm….wtf!? I also run into many programmers who get excited because it works and says ‘oh yeah, put some colors on that.’ …ummm again WTF?!

After some time I believe that I probably start thinking design first these days. However not in the traditional sense of colors, fonts, etc.

I usually start with HOW do I want to visually represent something. I want to get to prototype as soon as possible with basic layout and interaction functionality. From there if the back end has to be developed it can and if the front end has to be refined (fonts, colors, animations, etc.) then it can at the same time.

Right now that ‘thought’ process works better for me. Will it change, I don’t know, maybe. However over time I’ve realized that looking good AND working good to me are equally important.