Thoughts on Quark pt. 2
I broke this post up because I have two very distinct points. The other about design, the current about interactive, or rather Quark “interactive”.
Another “great” feature of Quark is its ability to produce swfs (Flash Player 9). They propounded “No coding needed.” Not only was coding not needed, it wasn’t even allowed. He first asked for a show of hands for how many people in the room were coders. He then asked how many were designers.
Shit. I forgot. Designers can’t code, and coders can’t design. Silly me. I do both, though neither very well, and I learned to “code” html long before I considered design. So, I’m sort of an in-between.
While he did say that if you are a coder, than this isn’t for you, Quark’s interactive capabilities were in stark contrast with my previously mentioned philosophy on interactive.
Interactive, in Quark, means taking a print piece and turning it into a swf, which is exactly what I go out of my way not to do in Flash. Animation, in Quark, was simply moving lines and objects across a screen with absolutely no regards for physics or variant motion. Essentially, like Leah said, it’s like making a powerpoint presentation.
Okay, I’ll bite. Here you go, programmer. Here’s my Quark file. What? Why are you laughing so hard and rolling around on the floor?
Is it just me or is it this same logic that got Quark in trouble in the first place? Sticking feathers in your ass does not make you a chicken.
All in all, if you’re hard core into print, there were some kinda cool features, and, I am against monopolies. So, I say give it a spin. I know I won’t.