|
|
|
|
|
|
by spiralganglion
2018 days ago
|
|
|
I'm the lead on an art/dev team where Animate is our main graphics app. We've been making Flash-based graphics, animations, games, and other media for almost 20 years. Our artists enjoy the idiosyncrasies of Animate, and find it easier to work with (to create the style of art we've arrived at) than Illustrator, Affinity, etc. The fact that Animate can export to a web-compatible format is not sufficient for replicating the richness of Flash-based media with web standards. We tried. The output was far too bloated and inconsistent and didn't interact well with other web content. It also didn't support many the features of SWFs that we had previously been using. We ended up writing our own JS animation framework that works with Animate-exported SVGs. It's faster and leaner than the web export from Animate, and we were able to figure out ways to replicate the special features we needed (or design around them). Plus, it acts like responsible, interoperable web content, not a blob of JS that acts like a compiled binary. Point being — there's a lot more nuance here. Yes, Adobe Animate is the same tool as ever. But the fact that you can't as easily take the output from that tool, publish it, and get an It Just Works™ experience means there's a significant barrier now that never used to exist. |
|
|
Well that's unfortunate.
"Bloated" I get, since there's no longer a black-box binary output format.
"Inconsistent" I'm not sure I understand, since presumably Animate's output is consistent. Does Animate create content that isn't rendered consistently across browsers?
"Didn't interact well with other web content" is interesting, because Flash never did this well IIRC. What was lost?
> We ended up writing our own JS animation framework that works with Animate-exported SVGs.
Neat!