|
|
|
|
|
|
by GreenSock
3637 days ago
|
|
|
I'd bet that most people who have done advanced animation work [with code] can see exactly what Chris means. I certainly can. There is incredible motion design work that is purely accomplished in code. Certain things are faster and far more flexible in that medium. He's not saying "Design can and should only be done with code". I don't understand why anyone would bash the sentiment expressed in Chris' work. I think it's entirely valid and deserves our respect. Code is a tool, just like a GUI. Most GUIs just abstract away the creation of the code anyway. If a guy like Chris can leverage code as a tool directly and doesn't need a GUI, more power to him. There are plenty of effects I've created with code that would be an absolute nightmare to try to create with a GUI. |
|
|
There are, but not that much. Look at the code of this demo. It's not obvious, it was probably hard to tweak to look nice, not to mention doing any debugging.
> There are plenty of effects I've created with code that would be an absolute nightmare to try to create with a GUI.
That's kind of my point. It isn't that code is better-suited to this job - it's that our GUI tools are mostly stuck in the static world and suck for dynamic / interactive visualizations.
Bret Victor put a lot of thought on how to improve this state of affairs; he also brings convincing arguments that such things are still better-suited for direct, visual manipulation - that coding directly is a crutch we use because of lack of better tools.
Some good talks and essays on this:
http://worrydream.com/MediaForThinkingTheUnthinkable/
https://vimeo.com/66085662
http://worrydream.com/DrawingDynamicVisualizationsTalkAddend...
https://vimeo.com/64895205