https://forums.adobe.com/people/Duncan+Wilcox wrote But then you end up with a "yourfilename.sparkle" file and not native HTML/CSS/JS source as was discussed earlier. So you end up exporting from Muse to source or importing from a live url source into Sparkle. Then you are fixing up, redoing, converting things inside of Sparkle so combining the two code sources together, not sure of its process with that? The documentation says it does single pages, not complete sites, so that requires more rebuilding, linking, etc., if thats true? Does it keep all features in tact or the responsive nature of your pages? Also understand that if you ever need to use it in another program ever, you have to take your .sparkle file and export that. So when you don't work with native source files you are always orphaning the process one way or another. I understand people desperately want the page layout style environment, but that described process seems like a convoluted method for moving forward, verse using a program that works with native files.
Oh come on now. You clearly don't like Sparkle, or have an agenda, or both. You are definitely misrepresenting Sparkle's abilities. "Working with native files" just means forcing visual thinkers to learn to code. Is anybody "working with native files" when they use illustrator or photoshop? Do you advise people to fix their own car too? Sparkle produces high performance and perfectly standard HTML/CSS/JS, the idea that the workflow is convoluted in any way is contrary to what we have been working on for the past 4 years. I suggest everybody have a look on their own: sparkleapp.com |
I installed the free version of Sparkle, and tested the waters a bit.
Positive compared to Muse, Pinegrow, Webflow:
- similar freedom in placing boxes (which is also a caveat, see below).
- anyone can use it to design static web pages. No coding required.
- no reliance on a third-party online service (Webflow).
- Not browser based: it's a regular desktop app (unlike Webflow).
- no need to be logged in (Webflow again).
- layout grid is adjustable. Simple to change to a good number of grids from 2 up to 24.
- simple to add multiple responsive breakpoints.
- nice live server in browser while editing the layout.
- sections to repeat content on pages.
- very simple GUI.
- simple page manager
- nice to see automatic image generation for different screen pixel densities.
Points of critique:
- odd and inconvenient that Sparkle, like Muse, relies on a proprietary file format to save projects. Html, CSS, JS are standardized and open formats, and it just makes things more convoluted in regards to workflow in SO many ways. The only reason I can think of is that the Sparkle developers want to avoid an open format to prevent users from leaving their app to work on pages. I understand it would be handy for the Sparkle developer to keep track of project/app specific properties, but for example Pinegrow resolves this by keeping track of Pinegrow stuff in a JSON file.
So I just see no need, outside of vendor lock-in, to save in a proprietary file format. It actually is rather counter-productive. Why the need to "publish", when the web already works with open file format standards?
It also complicates handing off your files to a developer for back-end functionality or other more interactive stuff after you've finished the design.
Simple example. Suppose the developer needs to add some additional CSS styles - well, you receive an updated CSS file from your developer, and replace the old one. You can both work on the project. No issue when working directly with the native web files. However, I see many problems with Sparkle: it is obvious Sparkle isn't meant for a web team to work on things together.
Or what if you decide to change some CSS outside Sparkle when previewing your work in a browser? How will that work?
More importantly, it completely obliterates an efficient versioning workflow, no matter whether you are working by yourself, or as a member of a team on a web project.
No, in my opinion having a proprietary file format dramatically reduces the scope of the projects a Sparkle user can work on.
- While freely dragging and dropping boxes seems fine, it also means it works (like Muse) against the natural layout flow of a typical web page layout. For example, suppose you've built a page with multiple sections in Sparkle. You then decide to move the second section after the sixth section. In a box-layout aware visual designer everything automatically adjusts. Drag to a new position, and all the other sections automatically fall in place.
Not so in Sparkle. Because Sparkle uses a translation layer (like Muse), while it *is* very intuitive initially to an Illustrator user to work with those boxes, larger layout changes may take quite a lot of time. For example, drag and drop a major section in Pinegrow automatically adjusts the entire layout. One action. With sparkle this is not nearly as effective, of course. The price that is paid for a translation layer.
Having said this, I understand that creatives only used to Muse, Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop wouldn't be aware of these drawbacks of such a translation layer approach, and it makes sense that the Sparkle devs accommodate an identical workflow. However, It would be nice if Sparkle would allow for a more traditional web layout mode as well, where sections and columns would automatically snap in place, like Pinegrow, Webflow, or Wordpress visual builder plugins.
- Sparkles GUI is very, very static, just like WebFlow's. It is not possible to drag panels or adjust the GUI in any way, outside tools. It's super-limited this way. No way to adjust the workspace, let alone set up multiple workspaces. Maybe it is just me, but in Muse and Pinegrow the user is free to order the GUI in the way (s)he wants and needs. It just seems so limiting. Take it or leave it: the Sparkle and Webflow way.
- Not possible to view multiple responsive breakpoint layouts side by side. Not possible to test drag behaviour in Sparkle. Not possible to test interactivity in Sparkle. All because of the translation layer approach. Everything must be previewed in the browser. Compare Pinegrow.
- inability to work efficiently with native html and css files. Like Muse, and other products that rely on a proprietary local or server-side project files flow. Just a shame.
- the user cannot expand the library of available items, just like Webflow. Which means, unlike Muse and Pinegrow, the user community is pretty much locked out, and only the developers themselves can add new functionality. Not nice, in my opinion.
- Sparkle relies on its own proprietary CSS layout grid code. I checked the exported code, and while it isn't atrocious like Muse's code, it would be nice if the code base would optionally be allowed to use Bootstrap and/or Foundation, because (whether we like these frameworks or not) they are standards most web developers are familiar with. So it would be much easier to hand over the published files to a team member, or a contracted developer so that the site could be integrated in a CMS, or something.
Anyway, I think that Sparkle is a good choice for Muse users who need to create simple websites with static page layouts and still want a lot of visual control, who want absolutely nothing to do with ANY code whatsoever, work by themselves, and don't have to hand off their work to a developer after finishing the layouts, and don't mind losing the option for installing and working with community-based plugins/extensions.
And who don't mind working with yet another proprietary file format (which is really superfluous when the web already provides us with open standards that can be easily accommodated in anyone's workflow. In my experience Designers don't care working with such files, because they already know how this works when dealing with InDesign layouts: images are separated from the main project file, external files, etc. So the argument that working directly with html, css, and img files is akin to working as a mechanic "under the hood" is an arguably obfuscating statement, since InDesign users already work in a similar workflow).
Sparkle is also a nice prototyping tool, but the lack of a built-in "real" web preview is rather limiting in this respect.
As always, test for yourselves. This is my opinion.
2432
Replies
AdChoices