Thoughts on the New InDesign "Export as HTML5" Feature – A Game-Changer for Interactive Design?

[Maurice1587]

It appears to be Publish Online except that it creates an HTML5 'package' that you can upload to a web server. I am a huge fan of the In5 plugin, and I'm wondering if this comes a little closer to that standard. I'll be updating ID and comparing the two. I'm a firm believer in the possibilities of custom designed websites that are  static--meaning not templated or output from a database. If Adobe is planning to put development effort to supporting this feature, I'm looking forward to a lot more creativity and less cookie-cutter interactive design.

Here's my wish list:

• Improved animation tools
• The ability to create variables for things like keeping score in a quiz
• HTML5 tricks like parallax scrolling and draggable elements

<Title renamed by MOD>

[BobLevine]

My advice which you can take or leave: If you want a website, create one properly. There are any number of tools from handcoding (not for the faint of heart) up to WordPress). InDesign is not and never will be a tool for authoring websites. There are far too many devices and screen sizes to think a static website will produce a decent user experience.

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

I agree, but that mostly applies to websites as "Websites!" — if you get me. I am a champion of HTML as a somewhat forgotten long-document format, superior to both PDF and EPUB in many ways, and I've used the existing HTML export, plus CSS, to do all kinds of complex web-based documents and reference systems. I don't have any projects for that right now, but I plan to mess around with the new version soon to see if it supports these goals better than the relatively simple version it replaces.

But that's for documents — books — long-form formatted content for the web. Not interactive 'websites' with multiple pages, navigation, animation, video, etc. ID is definitely not the tool for that process.

And something less constricted, controlled and courtesy-hosted than PO would be a nice option. But ti's going to be... misused by some segment of users who focus on one tool for everything. 🙂

[Maurice1587]

Agreed. My bad--I think instead of "websites", a better phrase would have been "Web-based content".

InDesign is not a website builder, but it is a completely valid way (when exported with In5) to design interactive experiences--from HTML ads to embedded content and landing pages. I've created all of these for my previous employer and it's worked perfectly, including responsive design.

Anyone here who is advanced in InDesign owes it to themselves to at least try the interactive features paired with In5 or maybe this new package feature and see if it could work for their needs. Not to make them forget about Squarespace or Wordpress, but maybe to find out the power of using ID for digital as well as print.

[James Gifford—NitroPress · Accepted solution]

And... ugh.

I just ran a tech manual project through HTML5 export and while it works... it follows the sort of approach I dislike and think is the opposite of creating web-optimized documents.

The good news for many will be that it more or less produces a Publish Online document that is not dependent on Adobe hosting. I'm sure that will go over well with the increasing contingent that want to exploit ID's full page layout power and go to the web for it.

The bad news, in my view, is that it creates hard-defined pages, using the PO/doc-reader flicker arrows, that are closer to PDF images than actual web pages. In fact, it's indistinguishable from FXL (fixed-layout) EPUB except that any browser can display them, without need of a dedicated reader or plugin, with all the headaches that brings. Overall, it's much like a dream project of mine, to create e-books based on HTML5/CSS3, but packaged like EPUB (and there are others out there actually working on implementations, the idea to bring the benefits of EPUB with the power and simplicity of a more basic structural language).

And while hard pages will thrill those who for some reason don't want to use PDF, I find them anything but web-friendly, non-responsive, as much of a kluge and sop to poor practice as FXL EPUB.

On a code level, they use the same practice as FXL: instead of the web-like structure of reflowable EPUB (elements presented in simple code, with styles controlling all), this approach wraps every single element (down to each word) in a massive definition string precisely positioning and styling it. Repeat for 500-1000 elements per page. Completely un-modifiable after export, even though I deprecate that practice for EPUB.

I predict HTML5 export will spark little frissons of joy among the general publish-to-web crowd. I am disappointed at such a retro, limited approach and hope the useful (for creating reflowable long-doc export) "Legacy" HTML export isn't removed or deprecated. It is probably dead in the water, though, with no further updates, fixes or tweaks, which is a loss for a small contingent of users who found it valuable.

[Maurice1587]

Too bad, they did get my hopes up 🙂

Still, if they were willing to do this, it might mean there's light at the end of the tunnel for InDesign users who think that their main layout tool should be usable for digital work.

[Jeffrey_Smith]

If you are looking to create animation and parallax scrolling in an application similar to Indesign, you could look into Adobe Muse. Please note, Muse is no longer supported, but can still be used.

[Maurice1587]

Thanks Jeffrey, I was a Muse user back in the day when it was supported.

The thing is, the interactivity and animation tools in InDesign are still top notch even though they are beginning to show their age. To use an old buzzword, it's the synergy of ID layout tools with the interactive tools that gets people like me excited.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

Of course, Muse is still available to download! 😁

[abdul_8379]

I recently processed a technical manual project using an HTML5 export. While the output functions as intended, it employs a methodology I strongly oppose, as it contradicts the principles of creating web-optimized content.

On the positive side, the export essentially generates a Publish Online-style document that is not reliant on Adobe's hosting platform. This will likely resonate well with the growing community of users who wish to leverage InDesign's robust page layout capabilities for web-based applications.

However, from my perspective, the downside is significant: the approach lacks optimization and simplicity, making it less intuitive for users to comprehend and implement effectively.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

For a technical manual that needs PDF, HTML5, and other output formats, I would look at Adobe FrameMaker. Not as robust typographically and graphically as InDesign, but it's a mainstay for large tech manuals. 

[White Horse Press]

As a publisher of print and online academic articles, we use PDFs to preserve the appearance of the printed page for online readers using fairly large screens. I like the ability to create simple and compact html documents as an alternative way to present important content in a flexible layout suitable for reading on mobile devices. It's quite easy to customise the output in export html(legacy), using additional stylesheets and the other export options, and we have a workflow for this which gives simple html needing minimal editing. I'm concerned that 'legacy' implies that Adobe will ditch this very useful feature. Export to HTML5 does not offer control over what is exported, so the result is a bloated file that looks awful on a mobile phone. Please keep this feature!

[Maurice1587]

Maybe eventually they will add some settings to optimize for different use cases. Otherwise this will be as useless as HTML export from Microsoft Word

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

Both @White Horse Press and @Maurice1587 replied to my post about FrameMaker but I'm not sure why. Neither reply seems related to what I posted. FrameMaker's export functions are very good and the HTML5 export is customizable.

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

I think it's just because yours is the last post. This forum does not do sub-topic threading very well or encourage fresh sub-topics when needed. 🙂

As HTML export, now Legacy HTML export, has not changed in a while, I suspect it will simply remain the same indefinitely; I dont think Adobe has any thought that the new option replaces it. Chalk and cheese, and while the basic HTML export is nothing spectacular, it is quite well suited to exporting moderately formatted documents (as opposed to 'publications' or 'web pages.') I've found it quite useful to extend the publication range of information-based documents.

I have yet to find a need for PO, HTML5 or even the vaunted In5 export, though: ID is just not a very good tool for creating web publications no matter how good the export tool is.

[Maurice1587]

I agree with these points--with all due respect though, InDesign + In5 is a powerful way to produce web-based content, and for particular projects it can be all you need.

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

I'm not dis/mis/sing In5 at all, except for my usual observation that it's rather pricey unless you use it on a more or less daily basis (that is, it doesn't seem cost-effective for the occasional export project).

[Maurice1587]

No argument there, it's definitely best when you are spending someone else's money 🙂