Do you use Flash anymore?

Jri

Member
Hi all,

Not sure if this belongs in the software forum or not - feel free to move it if so, but it kinda pertains to the skillsets you prioritise as a Graphic Designer too...

I was looking through the various CC apps the other day and came across Flash. It dawned on me that, to date, I hadn't even opened the CC version of the program yet and more broadly speaking - haven't touched the program in years.

I played with it for about a month at uni (ten years ago!), but have used it for absolutely nothing since (much less had any briefs that require me to use it).

Does anyone here still use Flash, if so, for what?

This got me onto thinking about my priority for Adobe CC programs (if anyone wants to share theirs, it might give an abstract insight into the demands of the industry in general).

My proficiency order is (roughly):

1) Photoshop
2) Illustrator
3) InDesign
4) AfterEffects
5) DreamWeaver

It's a pretty fluid list. The next thing I want to start learning is PremierPro, but beyond that - I'm not sure what to go into (the full suite is choc full of as yet unused goodies - so I feel pretty spoilt for choice).

In what order do you use these the most/most proficiently?

Thanks,

Jri.
 
Seeing as flash is actively being phased out by most web browsers I personally wouldn't bother learning it or using it now.

As to proficiency... personally I'd focus on ones which will be your main area of expertise/income, rather than trying to master them all because to be honest most of us would agree with me when I say that even though use our respective adobe programs daily we still don't know all the ins and outs of it because in a lot of cases there's just so many options/ways of doing things.
 
My work is more focused on illustration and web design but I haven't used flash in any web project for about four or five years.

The limited mobile compatibility and Apple pretty much killed it off.
 
As to proficiency... personally I'd focus on ones which will be your main area of expertise/income, rather than trying to master them all because to be honest most of us would agree with me when I say that even though use our respective adobe programs daily we still don't know all the ins and outs of it because in a lot of cases there's just so many options/ways of doing things.

Basically this. Better to be the master of a one (or a couple more likely) than the Jack of all. You can learn to use every design software out there, and why stop with Adobe? But if it's not necessary for your main source of income than what is the point?

I think nearly all of us started out with Windows 95 Paint... I mean Adobe Photoshop! I then learnt Adobe Indesign, sorry actually it was Quark Express back then and then Adobe Indesign, I used Adobe DreamWeaver briefly but didn't really grasp it so I don't consider it be at all proficient at it to include it in my arsenal, so after in design was Adobe AfterEffects which I absolutely loved but never gained any work which required its use, and lastly I learnt Adobe Illustrator only 7 years ago! Ironically, ever since, Adobe Illustrator is the software I use the most, it is defo my 'go to' program.
 
If you took some of the job ad's seriously that I could see why people feel the need to be able to use every app out there.

For me, I started off with Macromedia Freehand and Photoshop.
I learned a bit of Quark but only as I had to, to output other peoples files to print. HATED Quark! :(
I did learn Flash but only to build my web-site at the time.

After Adobe bought and killed Freehand I reluctantly changed to Illustrator.
Past few years I've had to learn a bit about After Effects as I do a lot of illustration for animation.

About 99% of the time I just use Illustrator..
Thinking about going over to Affinity though.
 
Haha just realised I missed the main topic of this thread, Adobe Flash! I used to use Adobe Flash as a school student, I don't recall ever using it in college and I contemplated using it for a university project but correctly opted for Adobe AfterEffects instead. I have never used Adobe Flash in my working life as a professional.
 
Maybe when graphic designers go to the bar for a pint, they should be asked what their experiences of using Flash have been instead of asking for an ID. It's a good indicator of age!

One or two of you have touched on it - but basically, I get put off by the "required skills" sections on a lot of job ads. It's silly, because my current position asked for full Adobe CC knowledge, but in reality a basic (by basic, I mean what you can glean from YouTube in an afternoon) knowledge of Photoshop and Illustrator plus a teeny tiny pinch of Microsoft Office savvy would get you through 99% of my workload.

As Carl said, I am going back over After Effects (number 4 on my list). It's a great programme and I actually really enjoy using it - but wish I could get it to earn its keep so to speak.

The general consensus backs up my suspicion that Flash is a bit of a dead end. I'll spend my time boning up on JavaScript and CSS instead (also something that are plastered all over job ads)!
 
Most job ad's are pretty much a joke now.

I think it's because so many recruiters are involved now who have little real knowledge of the industry.
It's a bit like asking a kid what they'd like for Christmas.
I've seen positions for a junior role asking for the moon on a stick at pretty much expert level. o_O

I think Ae is a good one to know as things like explainers are getting very popular what with technology changing the way we do normal things.
Pluss, once you get over the learning curve it's a lot of fun to use.

Apart from that, I'd stick to what you know best and brings in the money and if something interests you then learn that too.

Better to be very good at a few things than pretty sketchy at lots.
 
Yeah. For me, Illustrator and Photoshop are the money making bedrock. After that it goes:

InDesign - dull but usefull.
After Effects - fun but I don't feel experienced enough to offer myself up as a commercial motion graphics guy (yet!).

Thanks to everyone for the useful answers!
 
Yeah. For me, Illustrator and Photoshop are the money making bedrock. After that it goes:

InDesign - dull but usefull.
After Effects - fun but I don't feel experienced enough to offer myself up as a commercial motion graphics guy (yet!).

Thanks to everyone for the useful answers!

Eh - InDesign is the only correct tool for page layout. Illustrator can do it for 1 or 2 sided, or large posters/banners etc. - but InDesign is the correct beast and it's by no means dull. Especially when it comes to brochures/booklets/catalogues - it is by no means dull.

Illustrator and Photoshops are for me add ons for InDeisgn, to create assets to place into InDesign.
 
Eh - InDesign is the only correct tool for page layout. Illustrator can do it for 1 or 2 sided, or large posters/banners etc. - but InDesign is the correct beast and it's by no means dull. Especially when it comes to brochures/booklets/catalogues - it is by no means dull.

@hankscorpio You made your point and then reinforced it again at the end. :LOL::ROFLMAO: I knew you would pick up on the dull comment and defend InDesign haha!

I do understand where @Jri is coming from when comparing it to what the other programs can do and is used for. InDesign is the best page layout software (imo) but seeing as that is its main function, page layout work may sound dull and boring to an Illustrator that produces beautiful artwork in AI or a designer that comes up with the most creative photomanipulation in PS.

It all comes down to taste and what kind of work you're into, they all have their uses. Personally, I use all 3 but I only use InDesign when I'm working with multiple page layouts of say more than 5 pages or double-page spreads.

Illustrator and Photoshops are for me add ons for InDeisgn, to create assets to place into InDesign.

It's the other way around for me. Without AI or PS, anything I produce in ID would look pretty 'dull.'
 
It comes down to function - not taste. I see more and more artwork coming through Illustrator/Photoshop that should have been setup initially in InDesign.

Do not substitute function for ease of use or if it's dull or boring etc.
 
Of course it comes down to taste, one persons dull is another persons excitement.

I spent years having hardly touched InDesign, as I just weren't into multipage spread layout type of work, it didn't appeal to me for a long while, I was really into branding at the time. It's only the past couple of years I began using InDesign again due to my rekindled love for editorial design, which obviously involves multiple upon multiple page layout designs.

There is nothing wrong with creating a couple page layouts in Illustrator, it's when several pages are involved that it really becomes problematic, as it is the incorrect tool for the trade at that point. It all depends on what you are working on. A lot of illustrators prefer to draw freehand in PS rather than AI for example, even though Illustrator is clearly made for Illustrations and such. This is partly due to ease of use, as Illustrator can be quite restrictive at times, Photoshop seems to have more intricate control and freedom over freehand drawings using a tablet and stylus. They can then take their artwork into Illustrator if required and finish up in there.

They all work in tandem and should be used accordingly where appropriate. As mentioned previously, I believe the dull opinion (which I don't share) comes from the type of work InDesign is used for, as opposed to the software itself. They are all tools used for different purposes. If your taste is not of multipage page layouts due to you finding it boring, then you wouldn't go after such briefs and would have little use for InDesign and its functions.
 
It's all well and good when you know the ins and the outs of the software, the finished product and such.
But when one is ill informed on output intent, that's when it all falls apart.

I've often seen logos created photoshop, photos edited in illustrator, and a 56page magazine created in photoshop - along with many other things.

I have no problem making print ready content in Photoshop, and you wouldn't know the difference when in PDF format - a well formed PDF from any source is indecernible along as the output is the correct quality.
 
(Sorry for nurturing this away from my original Flash ramblings).

When all's said and done, they're all tools for a specific purpose - none are 'better' or 'worse'.

I've always had a niggle that I can't put my finger on with InDesign's interface, to me it feels clunky and I feel like it could be integrated into illustrator a little more smoothly. By virtue of how they have independently evolved as programmes, they are separate - but I often feel like they could be fused together somehow to bridge the difference in their intended use.

Also, personally - I feel that it does come down to taste in the sense that I love page layout as a discipline as much as I love illustration, but my preference for the software interface draws me to Illustrator, therefore I tend to do more work that necessitates using Illustrator (vector illustration/animation assets, poster design etc...).
 
Back
Top