I think we're all forgetting that this isn't the first time Adobe (nee Aldus) has been in bed with Macromedia.
A little history lesson:
In the 1980s, a charming little company called Macromedia created a charming little vector imaging program called Freehand. The folks at Aldus, one of the only two players in the DTP market at the time (with Quark) decided it was a GOOD thing, and acquired the rights to market Freehand under its flagship. I believe, but don't quote me, that Aldus Premiere and FrameMaker were also former Macromedia code bases. Same agreement, because they had a place in the market that Aldus couldn't fit.
When Adobe acquired Aldus (or they merged, depending on who you talk to), the licensing agreement for Freehand came to an end, because Adobe already had a competitor product in Illustrator. At that time, Freehand was the far superior product, and was returned in whole to its rightful owner and code-developer, Macromedia.
Then, Illustrator got good, on both Mac and PC platforms. Dunno how, but it did. And Freehand lost a lot of market share.
The folks at Macromedia, seeing the writing on the wall, turned to the interactive world: Flash, Dreamweaver, etc. And that's where they've built a stronghold.
In that world, Adobe has fallen flat. GoLive's 'aight, but not great. Microsoft FrontPage can't even begin to compete with Dreamweaver. Hosting companies support it, the critics rave about it, and designers use DW more than just about any other web WYSIWIG out there.
So, since Adobe's got it's fists wrapped tightly around the neck of those of us in the print publishing world, they're now going after the digital world... in the only way that works: If you can't beat 'em, buy em.
Will it ruin competition? Naaaaah. My case in point: Photoshop. No REAL competition, but it keeps getting better all the time.
As in all things, the design document is only as strong as the documentation it's built on. That is to say, if the user gives you crappy functional spec, you'll have a crappy design document as follow-up.
Key: Make sure the functional spec is exactly what it needs to be. If this means coaching your users on what you need from them, so be it. It'll be a heck of a lot easier than the back-and-forth that usually results.
I've recently been dragged in as the liaison on a project that had little to no functional spec. And because of it, we've got a lot of tension between the programmers and the end user in trying to get the job done. As far as the programmers are concerned, they've done their job because the code is exactly what was "requested". From the user's perspective, the program is entirely unusable.
Maybe I go overboard on the f-spec part, but if the user communicates exactly what they expect to see, the programmer has a much better idea of what they need to do and how best to do it.
F-Spec
(1) The "Here's what we're trying to accomplish, ahd here's how we think it'll work" fluff.
(2) The "Here are the parts we need, and what we think they'll do when we see them/click on them/enter stuff into them."
(3) Followed by the "Here's what CANNOT happen based on what we see/do/click."
(4) Have the user list stuff as
(a) Critical
(b) Desireable
(c) Absolute minimum allowable
(d) Ideal
(e) Totally unnecessary
(5) Make sure the user explains what they expect to do with the output of the program. Does it feed another program? Is it the be-all/end-all of programs? Is it a "nice thing to have"?
Given all this stuff, the design spec is much easier to build, or at the very least, more accurate.
The holiday's coming fast... start practicing now. Say (in as monotone a voice as possible, so as not to incur similar gifts in the future): Look. I got a sock. Thanks, Aunt Joyce.
Wow! This year, your toddler is getting the gift I bought for my 42-year-old brother last year. He was more excited about the Lincoln Logs (I found the ones with the real wooden slats, not the pre-made roof) than he was about the DVDs and the new stuff he got to go with his Treo.
The other big hitters on the list: Silly Putty. It never gets old. Trust me. Spirograph, if you can find it. Fun with pens, colored pencils, and round cogs that can get caught in the vacuum cleaner!
I have to thank the folks at Pixar. With the popularity of the Toy Story movies, more of my old favorite toys and games are back on the market. Mr. Potato Head, Etch-a-Sketch, dart guns... reminds me of time long past.
Slashdot Mirror
A little history lesson:
In the 1980s, a charming little company called Macromedia created a charming little vector imaging program called Freehand. The folks at Aldus, one of the only two players in the DTP market at the time (with Quark) decided it was a GOOD thing, and acquired the rights to market Freehand under its flagship. I believe, but don't quote me, that Aldus Premiere and FrameMaker were also former Macromedia code bases. Same agreement, because they had a place in the market that Aldus couldn't fit.
When Adobe acquired Aldus (or they merged, depending on who you talk to), the licensing agreement for Freehand came to an end, because Adobe already had a competitor product in Illustrator. At that time, Freehand was the far superior product, and was returned in whole to its rightful owner and code-developer, Macromedia. Then, Illustrator got good, on both Mac and PC platforms. Dunno how, but it did. And Freehand lost a lot of market share.
The folks at Macromedia, seeing the writing on the wall, turned to the interactive world: Flash, Dreamweaver, etc. And that's where they've built a stronghold.
In that world, Adobe has fallen flat. GoLive's 'aight, but not great. Microsoft FrontPage can't even begin to compete with Dreamweaver. Hosting companies support it, the critics rave about it, and designers use DW more than just about any other web WYSIWIG out there.
So, since Adobe's got it's fists wrapped tightly around the neck of those of us in the print publishing world, they're now going after the digital world... in the only way that works: If you can't beat 'em, buy em.
Will it ruin competition? Naaaaah. My case in point: Photoshop. No REAL competition, but it keeps getting better all the time.
Key: Make sure the functional spec is exactly what it needs to be. If this means coaching your users on what you need from them, so be it. It'll be a heck of a lot easier than the back-and-forth that usually results.
I've recently been dragged in as the liaison on a project that had little to no functional spec. And because of it, we've got a lot of tension between the programmers and the end user in trying to get the job done. As far as the programmers are concerned, they've done their job because the code is exactly what was "requested". From the user's perspective, the program is entirely unusable.
Maybe I go overboard on the f-spec part, but if the user communicates exactly what they expect to see, the programmer has a much better idea of what they need to do and how best to do it.
F-Spec
(1) The "Here's what we're trying to accomplish, ahd here's how we think it'll work" fluff.
(2) The "Here are the parts we need, and what we think they'll do when we see them/click on them/enter stuff into them."
(3) Followed by the "Here's what CANNOT happen based on what we see/do/click."
(4) Have the user list stuff as
(a) Critical
(b) Desireable
(c) Absolute minimum allowable
(d) Ideal
(e) Totally unnecessary
(5) Make sure the user explains what they expect to do with the output of the program. Does it feed another program? Is it the be-all/end-all of programs? Is it a "nice thing to have"?
Given all this stuff, the design spec is much easier to build, or at the very least, more accurate.
The holiday's coming fast... start practicing now. Say (in as monotone a voice as possible, so as not to incur similar gifts in the future): Look. I got a sock. Thanks, Aunt Joyce.
Wow! This year, your toddler is getting the gift I bought for my 42-year-old brother last year. He was more excited about the Lincoln Logs (I found the ones with the real wooden slats, not the pre-made roof) than he was about the DVDs and the new stuff he got to go with his Treo. The other big hitters on the list: Silly Putty. It never gets old. Trust me. Spirograph, if you can find it. Fun with pens, colored pencils, and round cogs that can get caught in the vacuum cleaner! I have to thank the folks at Pixar. With the popularity of the Toy Story movies, more of my old favorite toys and games are back on the market. Mr. Potato Head, Etch-a-Sketch, dart guns... reminds me of time long past.
You can also give domain users full permission to specific folders... instead of granting All or Nothin' access to their entire computers.