Farewell to Fireworks

Last week, Adobe announced that there will be no further development of their Fireworks application. Security updates will be provided and bug fixes may arrive, but for all intents and purposes Fireworks CS6 is a dead man walking. The petitions for clemency have already begun, but it seems likely that at some point Adobe’s CEO will give the order to flick the switch and like a paper rocket on a rainy fourth of July, Fireworks will be no more.

Whilst many in the web design community bemoan Adobe’s lack of foresight, there are others — myself included — that don’t quite understand the fuss. It’s just a piece of software, and a niche one at that, so what’s the big deal?

It seems for a great number of designers, Fireworks is the only tool they’re prepared to work with.

Here’s a confession: I’ve installed Fireworks on my machine twice; once to try it out, around 8 years ago; and once to research this article. Both times it lasted less than a day before being uninstalled.

I’ve heard the arguments in favor of Fireworks before. We regularly have articles submitted to WebdesignerDepot that extoll the use of Fireworks over any other application. I’ve been told that any designer who doesn’t use Fireworks is stuck in the past, too lazy to learn something new. The problem is, that none of these arguments have ever seemed to ring true:

I’m lead to believe that Fireworks exports sliced HTML better than Photoshop. The problem is, that the last time I allowed an application to code HTML for me it laid out the page in tables — and yes, that was standard at the time. We simply don’t slice images any longer; responsive design, flat design, the mobile web, SEO; everything considered good practice by contemporary web designers is hampered by image slicing.

Fireworks exports CSS, but then so does Illustrator, and so do a number of other tools. I’ve never seen one that could write CSS as succinctly as I can, especially when SASS or LESS are taken into account.

The main use, and main argument of flag waving Fireworks supporters is that Fireworks is superb for rapid prototyping web page mockups. That may have been the case a few years ago, but how does one approach prototyping responsive design in Fireworks? Fireworks creates pictures of static websites, which makes it about as useful for mockups as…well…Photoshop. Admittedly, not all designers are fans of designing in the browser. But even for those who can’t code, products like Typecast are far more advanced than Fireworks.

The current assumption is that Adobe will plunder Fireworks’ features and attempt to crowbar them into Photoshop and Illustrator. However I find that unlikely; both Photoshop and Illustrator are distinctly different tools. It’s unlikely that Adobe would compromise the premium raster and vector programs on the market in an attempt to win over former Fireworks devotees. It’s more likely that Adobe sees the future of web mockups in the Edge line of tools. Animate and Reflow are available now in beta, and show a great deal of promise.

It’s also important to recognise that Adobe are not comparing current versions of tools. Their development team has sat down and compared what they can do with Fireworks over the next decade, compared with what they can do with the likes of Reflow, and came to the conclusion that Fireworks will, sooner or later, be deadwood.

One thing that is interesting is that Adobe haven’t also pruned Flash from their line up. The Flash platform still has its uses; AIR applications, mobile apps and gaming are all well suited, but they’re better served by Flash Builder, it’s difficult to see why Flash Professional dodged the bullet. Why would Adobe kill off an application that is at best loved and at worst ignored; whilst saving an application almost universally abhored?

The show of support for Fireworks from the community has reaffirmed our belief that Adobe should continue to deliver dedicated tools for web designers — what follows Fireworks CS6 will be an revolutionary leap, designed from the ground up with the needs of the modern web designer front and center. — Adobe’s Web Platform and Authoring Team

For the time being Fireworks CS6 remains part of the Creative Cloud subscription. However, with its now inevitable decline, it’s hard to see Fireworks as a realistic option for web design. Many will seek an alternative, and Adobe will be hoping that their new products will inspire the same loyalty that Fireworks users are now showing.

Has anyone not using Fireworks missed out? Is Fireworks still relevant for web design? Will you miss it? Let us know in the comments.

Featured image/thumbnail, Fireworks image via Shutterstock.

  • gastrophase

    The strength of Fireworks is its unique workflow. It takes all the Ps/Ai bits that are relevant for web and combines them in a super fast workflow based on vector based, instantly editable, object-oriented thinking, but realised in pixels. No other software does this and this is what all the racket is about.
    No, you can’t code responsive sites – but with pages, symbols, states and styles you can design comps for responsive development or mobile apps really fast, and you can iterate super quickly. Photoshop can’t match and the host of new apps such as Sketch etc lack depth and feel very limited and superficial – they are good for icons and UI elements but not for screen flows. Typecast is a nice tool indeed but it’s a tiny subset of what Fireworks is used for…

    • Esteban Dinamarca

      Yeah I think the same. I would hope an improvement of all Fireworks tools adapted to new web (HTML5, Responsive, Web Apps, Mobile, so on). I don’t know what kind software could replace all the features of FW. So sad

  • Shaun Korinek

    I think it’s ridiculous that Adobe consider getting rid of Fireworks while Photoshop still doesn’t have the functions (or ease of use of the functions) that Fireworks has.

    I love Photoshop and use it every day, but FW is so much better as creating frames and objects at specific dimensions and aligning them, it’s more user-friendly to combine bitmaps and vectors, and probably above all it’s image optimisation function is way better than PS / Image Ready.

    I’m all for killng off Fireworks cos it does seem to take three times longer to load than Photoshop, but please Adobe please just move those three functions over to PS before you flick the switch. I know it’s probably not as easy as Control+C, Control+V but c’mon this is Abobe we’re talking about!

    • Benjie

      Do you think PS can take over from FW? It seems like a different beast to me. I’m expecting FW functionality in the Edge products rather than PS.

      • Shaun Korinek

        I think PS can take over from FW in the same way that a dialysis machine can take over from your kidney – clunkier, slower and not quite as efficient (at some tasks) – but if that’s your only option then what can you do?

        Yes they’re different beasts but with so many crossover functions I think it’s inevitable that PS will end up being the first thing people turn to, mainly because PS is one of the few necessities for designers at the moment wheras Edge products may never achieve that status.

        Anyway FW is a pretty polished piece of art now and if it stayed the same for the next ten years I imagine that its fans will still keep using it

  • bgbs

    Thats not the only farewells given. A lot of hobbyists are giving farewell to Adobe’s subscription model as well.

    • Benjie

      Do you think hobbyists were Adobe’s main concern? Hobbyists don’t tend to upgrade and many seem to be using pirate copies anyway. In fact, a lot of the complaints about the subscription model have been that people won’t be able to pirate it anymore.

      • bgbs

        “Do you think hobbyists were Adobe’s main concern?”
        Probably not, but it should be.

        For most folks Photoshop was a hobby which started when they were in high-school. The fallacy of this whole argument is that some people on here believe that design for most designers started from design school. Thats a false assumption. It started from grade school. Maybe they have not paid for the program at first, but when they eventually became professionals they bought the program. Because when you’re working at a pro level, you legally register a business and you buy stuff for your business through legal means. Or you work for the company which obtains everything legally. Yes, Adobe shouldn’t worry about these professionals, because they are already hooked and will probably pay a subscription fee. But I’m talking about a growing up generation who will, after learning that Photohop is no longer for sale, start their hobby using Corel or other products and eventually become pro using them.

        But I also suspect that there will be a new rise in piracy among the professionals. Remember, CC7 is still an installable product; it does not operate in the cloud. You watch, CS7 will be available on blackmarket the first week of its release. It will not have the cloud part, but how many really need it?

        The more I think about the CC the less I like it even though I am not affected by the change personally because my company gets me all the goodies I need from Adobe.

  • http://twitter.com/mullercardenas Michael

    Will refuse to let Fireworks go.

  • http://twitter.com/smlombardi Steve Lombardi

    It’s one of the only maps that can still do image maps. And I am a bit tired of hearing that “with CSS and such be don’t need slices”. When you get a PSD from a designer, how else do you get pieces of it to use? Slices. Now, I have been mostly using Slicy for this since it not only exports slices but arbitrary parts of my PSD as well — but FW was good for simple slice and dice.

    • Benjie

      What you do when you get a PSD from a designer (assuming that you’re not the designer) is recreate the PSD with CSS and in some cases you’ll break out patterns and textures. But you don’t slice, not any more.

      • bgbs

        I second that. Most stuff is done via css, and if you’re slicing too much, you might need to rethink how you’re designing.

      • jaystrab

        If you are not slicing things out of Photoshop or Fireworks, then there is no reason to design a site using those programs.

  • ikkf

    What’s the fuss? It’s easier to make quick mockups with it than with Photoshop or Illustrator. Just because you don’t find it useful doesn’t mean others don’t either.

    • Benjie

      I’m certainly faster in PS than FW, but who knows, perhaps I could have learnt to get fast with it. But then, I wouldn’t mock something up in PS.

      It’s evident from the reaction to Adobe’s that many people find it useful. No one seems to be able to explain why, other than personal preference.

      • http://twitter.com/sinyayadynya синяя дыня

        Hey Ben, please stop this non-sense. There is such large amount of users comments around the web describing why they love to use Fireworks. I don’t feel that it is very professional to write such article if you have had FW installed for less than 48h in your life.

        The real reason Adobe kill it, it it because their developers don’t understand the Macromedia philosophy which was behind it, as they did not understood Freehand’s one.
        Now it is second time that Adobe is killing a tool that we just enjoyed to use. Of course they can make some more advanced piece of software, but they are so fare from giving the same ease of use and are not intuitive at all.

      • Benjie

        You do understand that when Adobe bought Macromedia they bought the whole company, including the staff that developed Macromedia’s product line?

        Of course, you should use whatever tool provides the best results for you. But I maintain that Fireworks is an outdated tool.

      • MustangWolf

        You’re faster because, you stated in your article, you only used (opened) it twice. PS is nice for creating one page at a time, but consider that other workflows require showing multiple pages in various states for many difference uses (creating slideshows for stakeholders, showing how pages change throughout a workflow for dev teams)—doing this in PS is time consuming because of PS works compared to workflows in FW.

        FW is great for UX/UI designers whereas I see more UI-only designers use PS.

      • Benjie

        I have to disagree with that point. Multi-page design, especially when it comes to shared assets is extremely fast in Photoshop if you have a machine fast enough to run multiple tabs (which most people do).

  • http://www.facebook.com/deadlandchronicles T.E. Mencer

    I love web designing in Fireworks. I’ve done it in Photoshop also and that also has some awesome abilities. I think some of the arguments provided are not designer based and are obviously given because of lack of knowledge of the software.


    In Fireworks you can create a box. You can in PS. HOWEVER, you can’t copy/paste in Photoshop.

    You can’t give it a size past a percent. Sure, this isn’t “responsive”, but who cares? At this point, you’re designing the idea of the site. You work on responsive once you know what you generally want to see and go from there.

    I’m disappointed that FW is going to be killed off. I’m not arrogant enough to think Adobe will do anything about it if I sign a petition, nor am I going to make a stink one way or the other. I’ll adapt to just Photoshop and move on.

    • Benjie

      Do you think Photoshop can be used like Fireworks? In my experience Photoshop isn’t really suitable for anything but bitmap editing.

  • Benjie

    When I tried Edge Reflow, I saw the potential in seconds. Trying Fireworks, despite trying to convince myself, I’ve never seen anything but a basic drawing application.

    If it works for you that’s great, but I’d love someone to tell me why it could work for me. I’m in no way biased against Fireworks, but I don’t see that we’re losing anything.

    Oh, and Dodge make really bad cars.

    • capesnbabes

      LOL! Well, our Dodge minivan is still running strong after 100,000 miles.
      In any case, I can’t tell you why it would work for you unless I know the way you work. But that still might not convince you. If you love Photoshop, you’re going to prefer Photoshop.
      Personally, I don’t hate one over the other. I use Photoshop quite a bit for all of my illustration work. In fact, it’s a heck of a lot better for that than Fireworks is.

      I’ve always held the belief you use the right tool/program for the right job. Photoshop is a great program but it’s not the most intuitive when it comes to mocking up or prototyping web sites – as many have already said. For me, it’s all about speed, especially in an agile environment where you’re constantly changing things on the fly.

      That’s why FW is great as a super fast mock-up and prototype tool. The things you have to change on the fly you can do so much faster in FW than you can in Photoshop. You can do a lot of the same things in both programs but with FW, you can do them quicker, easier and modify them to your heart’s content without going through a ton of steps as you sometimes have to do in Photoshop.

      It’s also a little bit ironic, Ben, that Fireworks has given you the impression it’s nothing more than a basic drawing program since, as an illustrator as well as a designer myself, I have NEVER used Fireworks as a drawing program. For anything. To me, it was, has been and shall continue to be a great WEB designing piece of software. For me.

      • Benjie

        Why ironic? It’s interesting that you don’t use FW for drawing. What do you use? Illustrator? Would you have preferred Freehand if it was still available?

      • capesnbabes

        Well, I think we have to define what we both consider “drawing”. Are you talking about using a tablet? Or are you talking about creating simple geometric shapes in a design? I’ve never done the former – in any of the major programs… Illustrator, Freehand, PS or FW. But I have designed commercial layouts in Illustrator and Freehand and have designed multiple websites in Fireworks. All three of those programs are great for creating buttons, gradients and various other special effects for those particular projects. I don’t consider those things as “drawing” but others might.

        Now here’s the one thing no one has mentioned yet… just because Adobe is no longer going to continue FW, that doesn’t mean FW is entirely dead. In fact, I am still using FW CS4 as we speak. I still have the last version of Freehand installed on my iMac. I can still use it if i prefer but now that I’ve grown accustomed to Illustrator, it’s simply easier to use that particular program because even I will admit there are things Illustrator does that are better than what Freehand did.

      • Benjie

        I’m not really using a traditional definition of drawing, which would be noting ideas in preparation of a finished piece. That’s for another day.

        What I mean is creating something from scratch, rather than manipulating it. So to put that in context, you wouldn’t normally try to draw something in Photoshop (although you could if you *had* to) it’s not designed for that; but you would in Illustrator.

        It’s interesting that you still have a copy of Freehand, how well does it run on an Intel Mac?

        I think the assumption that FW is dead is similar to the idea of dead languages: when there are no new speakers, a language is dead. For example, there are still people who read/write/speak latin, but it is still a dead language. Likewise, Fireworks isn’t going to cease to exist, but it’s unlikely to find many new users; colleges will stop teaching it, studios will stop licensing it, etc.

      • capesnbabes

        Well, we can agree in part about Fireworks never truly dying. And although you’re right that it might not never prosper as it used to, there’s still some programmers out there that will continue to create extensions for it – just probably no where near the rate that they used to. The real question would be will the Adobe Extension manager still work with any newly created extensions from those developers once FW is finally dead in Adobe’s eyes? That’s the bigger question. Once it is no longer possible to add extensions to FW, THAT’S when its death will really be final.

        But until then, yeah, it will die a slow death in schools and other places like that.

        My iMac is an old machine – it’s just a little over five years old so Freehand still runs fine on it. I can’t say anything about the Intel Macs though. The truth is though, I probably just keep Freehand installed on my machine for nostalgic purposes more than anything else. I haven’t opened or used it in well over a year. maybe more.

      • Benjie

        I suppose the point at which Fireworks will be finally killed off is when it no longer runs on new OS. I understand Adobe plan to support the next version of MacOS and Windows, but not after that.

        Given the life cycle of operating systems I’d guess that’s 10 years at the outside.

    • MustangWolf

      Ben, I get the feeling you only do UI work.

      • Benjie

        Actually, most of my work (apart from editing this blog of course) is typography based. I do very little UI work.

        And contrary to the assumptions made by people in these comments, I rarely open Photoshop other than to resize and resave bitmaps.

    • jaystrab

      I don’t know how you can see potential in Edge Reflow in seconds when it does EXACTLY the same thing as using Firebug in a browser. Literally, the exact same thing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/davidmorrisw David Weinstein

    I tried using Fireworks for a long time. In concept it seemed perfect for web and app design. In practice however it failed in many ways. It was so foreign from PS in many things that it slowed my workflow down quite a bit, not to mention the atrocious crash problems it suffered (which was eventually corrected in CS5 to some extent). It’s memory leaks were never fully corrected however. When CS6 was released I completely abandoned Fireworks and went back to Photoshop for all my mockups for web and app design.

    Ultimately the promise of Fireworks was never met in my eyes and Photoshop is just that much more powerful in every aspect for web and app design, especially with all the vector improvements made in CS6 and even more coming in CC.

  • http://twitter.com/jonbianco1 Jon B

    Well written and thorough article! I never used Fireworks anyways tho…

  • http://twitter.com/sgd Scott G-D

    I left Photoshop for Fireworks (for UI design) back in 2004, and thinking that I might have to go back leaves me with a pit in my stomach. Having to give up the pixel-level precision and Pages of FW just kills me. And kicking out quick clickable prototypes from high-res work will be missed, too.

    *sigh* I don’t want to think about this right now.

  • http://twitter.com/timshundo Tim Shundo

    Now let’s see an article from someone that actually uses Fireworks.

    I’ve used it for years to design everything from print designs to my company’s app. It has always had more potential for things other than web design and Adobe failed to see that. The way Fireworks handles vector objects and it’s selection/object arrangement tools are not found in any other application which is why many considered it the sweet spot between Photoshop and Illustrator. It’s looking like Photoshop CC will be adopting Fireworks Object Properties panel which is a good start but until I can go around editing things in my document on the fly without having to interact with the Layers panel (whaa!?) Photoshop will never compare.

    • Benjie

      Yes, by all means, if a regular Fireworks user would like to submit an article that objectively explains why Fireworks is a loss to web design, we’ll be very happy to consider it.

      There’s a link at the bottom of the page :)

  • http://gene.lu Gene Lu

    Here’s my reason why I still use Fireworks and will continue using FW until something better comes out: http://tapotype.com/ with the help of @UnitID (the creators of TAP). It basically lets you create interactive mobile prototypes without the coding. Also, this workflow integrates perfectly with the documentation process, which is done in InDesign (here’s the link on how that works: http://tapotype.com/documenting-your-prototype.

  • http://twitter.com/fr33r Martin Freer

    Nice piece of linkbait. Writing about an application you’ve never actually used. Kudos.

    • Benjie

      The article isn’t about Fireworks, it’s about the reaction to Adobe’s decision.

  • priya nallaathambi

    I like PS and moreover I used work in Ps for designing part in my company (http://www.zersys.com/ ).Its performance also good.

  • Michel

    And, dear author, let me add something after your quote: “Trying Fireworks, despite trying to convince myself, I’ve never seen anything but a basic drawing application.”

    Your “basic drawing application” can create vector illustrations such as this one (author: isabel Aracama)!

    This illustration doesn’t look too basic, does it?

    And your “basic drawing application” can also create interactive iOS prototypes; it can work equally well with both vectors and bitmaps; it offers not only Symbols but also Rich Symbols; it has pages/master pages; interactive HTML prototypes; layers and states; styles (that work as real CSS styles within a document!); shared layers-to-pages; special vector autoshapes that no other app on the market offers; superb “live editing” gradient controls; and much, much more.

    In a word: Fireworks is a great application for UI design; however, to write about it you must have used it for more than 5 minutes or 2 hours — something that you never did; yet, you pretend to write an article about it! Aren’t you ashamed — at least a little bit?

    (This is as if I wrote an extensive article about Maya 3D… and if I have used Maya 3D for 5 or 10 minutes total before that! I would be ashamed. You are not… Well, seems Webdesigner Depot articles quality have dropped quite a lot lately…)

    • Benjie

      That doesn’t look like a basic illustration (apart from the gradient quality) but it could have been created in *any* drawing application by a competent illustrator. Some people could — shock horror! — draw it by hand.

      If we’d wanted to write *another* article about the decision to kill off Fireworks, we’d have released it last week. This one was written in an attempt to understand the reaction.

      Having looked at the responses of the community and the application itself, I don’t think we’re losing anything that can’t be replaced, and the industry experts at Adobe — who created the application — agree with me.

      • Isabel


        Just to let you, and the rest understand actually how good gradients are in FW, which by the way is one of its major strengths when drawing, please check the original illustration:


        The other example that Michel showed has been filtered and exported again, with an online tool I was experimenting with just for the sake of it… so not really the best example.

        I was still waiting to see this dithering level for gradients in other apps until Sketch by Bohemian Coding came around, not to mention the feathering tool quality Fireworks has. No other vector software can do it as well as FW a this moment.


  • artblackey

    Well, what would be your reaction if Adobe would get rid of Photoshop ? It’s just a piece of software, so what’s the big deal?

    • Benjie

      Assuming they replace it with similar or better capabilities I’d be absolutely fine with it.

      But then, I don’t use Photoshop that often.

      I’m sure there’d be a similar reaction from the community, one which I would find equally hard to fathom.

      • jaystrab

        From your article and comments, it seems as though you don’t use any software enough to truly write a review about it. You’ve opened Fireworks a few times. You don’t use Photoshop that often. Why are you writing an article about this?

      • Benjie

        After five years of college and approaching 2 decades in the industry I’d say I’m more than qualified to comment on industry reaction.

        Could I write an objective review of Fireworks? Yes. Is this article a review of Fireworks? No.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Adz.Jessop Adam Jessop

    Wow, this article has a pretty harsh ‘good riddance’ tone coming from it, especially when the author has only had the application installed for 2 days in the last 8 years.. fail to see where the authoritive approach here gets its credibility.

    I am a web developer by trade but I have also undertaken more and more design tasks, especially within my freelance roles. For me as said else where PS is a bitmap editing suite, and for that it serves a great purpose however I think its learning curve to a new user is a lot steeper than that of fireworks, who’s interface is a lot more intuitive. Fireworks is a completely different product and one that suites web design to a T. Its ability to handle most formats you can throw at it inluding .ai vectors and even psd layers and run with them, makes it a great complete tool for putting different design elements together and tweaking them to your hearts content for the purpose of website design and mockups.

    I have never relied on fireworks to export code and I agree with the previous comment that focusing on that OPTION is a bit poor, most wysiwig apps wether it be documents or design have some function that mimics this. What I have had use of though is the CSS rule tool which instantly shows me the css3 properties of a particular elements border, drop shadow, text shadow e.t.c. so quickly cuts out the whole manual nudging of pixels in code to match a design element.

    I am suprised at Adobe’s decision and whilst I know there is very little people like myself can do to stop the cull taking place, I for one don’t appreciate people with so little experience of it simply stating ‘it was never any good anyway…’ and seemingly celebrating its demise and the frustration that it impacts regular users with.

    • Benjie

      There’s no ‘good riddance’ tone to the article. As someone who didn’t use Fireworks regularly, Adobe’s decision simply doesn’t affect me, it’s natural therefore that I’d be interested in the views of designers who are affected.

      The problem seems to be that everyone — including most of the commenters in this thread — assume that I favour Photoshop over Fireworks, which I do not. If the Fireworks community views it in terms of Fireworks or Photoshop, is there any wonder that Adobe are pulling the plug?

  • Benjie

    Regarding pages in PS, why would you not set up a tab for each page and share assets across them? The duplicate layer option is ideal for this.

    Is it that Fireworks held everything in a single file that you liked?

  • http://www.blackbookoperations.com/ Black Book Operations

    The Pros n Cons of fireworks fits great into discussions on websites like these… good job webdesignerdepot to stir up the madness and accompanying comments, keeps a site alive! ;)

  • Benjie

    There was no pretence to educate people about Fireworks, if there had been I’d have asked someone with more experience of the application to write an objective review.

    The truth is that tools don’t matter. The only thing of consequence is the end result.

    It’s ironic that you, and every other supporter of Fireworks compare it to Photoshop and Illustrator — I haven’t, except to point out that Photoshop is *equally* unsuited to website mockups.

  • jaystrab

    I second that. FreeHand was (and STILL is) superior to Illustrator in almost every way. It is faster and MUCH easier to select objects. I still don’t understand why Illustrator needs two different selection tools. Talk about old school thinking,

  • Benjie

    The phrase “so what’s the big deal?” was me playing devil’s advocate a little. It’s evidently a big deal for many people, and the article was about the fact people feel so affected.

  • Benjie

    It’s only professional to admit a bias, or lack of one. It would be absolutely wrong to write this article claiming to be an expert on FW.

    Of course, all editorial is biased. If I’d written a piece having used FW for 8 hours a day over 10 years, it would be biased.

    The news aspect of the piece was the reaction of the FW community to Adobe’s decision.

    The editorial portion was my opinion, and yes of course I understood that people would strongly disagree. But I thought it was worthwhile hearing views from the community and from our readership in their own words.

    I stand by everything I’ve said in the article, but it is just my opinion and I appreciate people taking the time to call me out, it’s a productive dialogue.

    • capesnbabes

      Yes, I agree it’s been a productive dialog. If it’s seemed anything other than that on my part, it’s simply the fact that text can not express inflection. Never anger on my part. Frustration, maybe but again, as you said, an editorial has to have some slant and not all editorials will have agreeable viewpoints.

  • http://anotacoestricolores.tumblr.com/ Alexandre

    I can’t say I’d be able to convince anyone about FW’s utility, but it’s been very useful to me since version 1. I’ve been using it mostly for mockups, especially for stuff that hasn’t been coded in HTML/CSS yet. But whenever I need to edit/adjust photos, I open Photoshop. When I need to, say, resize an image, I open FW, but only because I was used to using it for resizing, since it used to load way faster than PS (it’s not the case anymore, at least in my PC).

    I was a Freehand user, but I didn’t mind (a lot) when Adobe killed it, because Illustrator was a more than decent substitute, at least for MY workflow. In all these years, I still haven’t found anything (again, in MY workflow) that FH could do and AI can’t.

    But I can point many of my workflow steps in FW that I can’t replicate in PS, like the very easy copying/pasting, the selecting, the easiness of vector handling etc. Can it be my fault? Of course, because I’m no PS power user. But it’s frustrating to know that I’ll have another learning curve ahead of me whenever FW doesn’t work in my OS anymore.

  • pavan bangaram

    This is good information regarding Fireworks..!

  • Arjun

    The article isn’t about Fireworks, it’s about the reaction to Adobe’s decision. anyway it is good thing regarding fireworks.

  • Andre Reinegger

    Fireworks is not dead since a few days. Fireworks is dead since 2007 when Adobe got it.

    Since than only 2 new features where added worth mentioned.
    So 6 years and Fireworks is alive than ever.

    The real power of Fireworks are the extensions. As long as the developer create awesome extensions FW is not dead. Thanks to them new features can be added what Adobe missed to do all the time.

    The community is very strong. So don’t give up! Keep Fireworks alive by creating more and more good articles and extensions!!!

    I will not stop using Fireworks, until there is no better alternative to create screendesign layouts.

    Photoshop and Illustrator will never compete with Fireworks, because the tools have to change there whole concept for this, which is not really possible.

    So it is up to you to keep Fireworks alve, by writing more good articles, creating extensions and so on.

    I will continue using Fireworks until there is no real alternative, and that may take another 6 years.

  • PixelCut

    As an alternative to Fireworks, you can try WebCode. It is a vector drawing app that also instantly generates JavaScript+Canvas or CSS+HTML code. http://www.webcodeapp.com

  • Laxmikant

    I heard about this few day ago, but i think this is now it’s official they are closing FIREWORKS ! very bad !

  • juliiul

    I heard about this news some time ago from friends but didn’t believe it until I ran into this article. Don’t know how I didn’t see it before, because I noticed it’s 7 months back.

    Reading some of the comments below I feel I simply must restate the importance of prototyping for mobile devices, using TAP. After I first heard Fireworks will be dead soon, I tried to find some replacement for this mobile prototyping, so I tried Adobe Muse, and it was such a pain in the ass to work with.

    On the other hand, I do consider it’s not a good tool for webdesign, especially according to the new requirements, but it’s great for prototyping, both on mobile and web.

    I’d advise Adobe against killing Fireworks.

  • Awais Waheed

    this is ridiculous.. Adobe never cared to promote Fireworks on the first place.. looks like they had some personal vendatta against fireworks, maybe coz it had macromedia brilliance written all over it otherwise a tool this capable should be worshiped

  • Lovefireworks

    Sad to read this. :( I love fireworks, it’s simplicity, workflow and it’s less bulky than Photoshop. What will make them change their mind.

  • David Chipps

    This push to get rid of Fireworks is a social push to get rid of designers. I agree with the below comments that CSS just doesn’t look that great or offer the same solutions for alignment that Fireworks does. I said today that it is a Wallmart world…and that is what this is about…THE MODEL WORKS. The masses just need Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft, and Apple who can argue. CSS, most importantly, is great at streamlining global tasks..it is not very good with design issues like precision, placing images in direct locations, or creating an interesting page..there are advances, but if your a designer you know the difference. I would prefer however, that these young coders who do not understand the history of design or care about it, be honest and consider what this is about….that is my only issue with the amount of dishonesty and not very intellectual debate that I have heard. “CSS is so yesterday, Fireworks writes garbage, you are so 90’s” I’ve heard these comments in adobe chat rooms to bully the pulpit, but it still doesn’t solve the fact that Adobe’s website itself has 54 WS3 code errors or that I have yet to see very appealing or interesting work from these CSS3 geniuses.

  • Cathy Morgan-Gilmour

    I also agree with the comments made by David Chipps. I don’t know whether my recent comments were included but were along the same lines: I also have to question the integrity of companies like Adobe who are deprecating software which is clearly still of great use to the Audio-Visual/Graphic Design community, looking at their response here at the time of writing. Adobe has become a large monopoly in the software arts industry but not given a valid reason why we will be unable to continue to use the tools that have worked well for us and will continue to do well into the future if allowed as the internet evolves and becomes more efficient yet we seem to have gone back to the dark ages. The only updates necessary should be to make life easier not more difficult but instead we are being told that years of work is now obsolete in favour of yards of jQuery machine coding more suited to back end database work. Is this really the future of the World Wide Web? This is a pretty sad state of affairs for talented designers that have come through art college and invested time and money, not only learning about the art of good design but constantly having to keep up with the latest design tools, not to mention scripting language for multimedia tools like Flash and Fireworks, then only to have the rug pulled from them without good reason. Although not related to Fireworks per say I downloaded a trial version of Dreamweaver CC last year to wrap a Flash website in but it repeatedly failed to work when published, except in previous versions of the software. It took me hours of troubleshooting to find out the reason which was that Adobe’s latest release had swf parameters set for Flash Player version 14.0 by default. As this version does not even exist yet, at the time of writing that is, one has to wonder how such an error had not been spotted. The bug wash’t fixed in a subsequent update either, a pretty basic mistake but well hidden. One cannot help but wonder whether the company was sabotaging its own software to justify their decision to drop Flash but perhaps I am missing something.

    • http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/ Benjie — WebdesignerDepot

      I don’t think Adobe want to drop Flash at all. I think they were hoping that Flash would continue to grow into the standard for all websites. But the technology moved on and now Flash is a niche tool.

      Whether it’s Flash, Fireworks, Photoshop, or a thousand other pieces of software; no tool is useful forever and if you invest all your vision in it, you’ll become obsolete at the same time.

      The important thing is that the skills you acquire in Director, or QuarkXpress, or whatever are transferable.

      • Cathy Morgan-Gilmour

        With respect, Adobe have done quite a bit to sabotage Flash: It was Adobe who withdrew its support for Flash for Android, not the other way around. This and Apple never supporting Flash for mobile devices from the outset has clearly had a knock on effect throughout the rest of the industry, the rationale for which has never made much sense. In fact technology moving on, particularly in the hardware sector, means that well designed Flash applications would have continued to be an ideal development tool for mobile websites, particularly multimedia applications for tablets. Adobe spat the dummy at a time, not long ago, when 97% of web users had Flash installed on their systems and on almost every platform except iOs. Why else would Adobe also release a version of Dreamweaver that had swf parameters set to a default version of Flash Player that would not be released for well over a year, thus killing the runtime of any Flash application imported into an HTML environment? These parameters are also well hidden from the novice. I personally didn’t go to art college or work in AV to become a backend programmer or desktop publisher not that there is anything wrong with either when used for the purposes for which they were intended. However, I detested software such as Quark Express as much as I detest Dreamweaver and its Cascading Style Sheets today as, like many who have responded here, I resent design concepts being dictated to me just as much as the buggy and despotic, jQuery-driven accordion fests that have infiltrated the mobile web in the meantime, leaving most of us scrambling for the desk top site for our sanity. Director was one of the first of its kind to offer a really good multimedia development tool where at least some of the tortuous, backend work was done for you, leaving designers to concentrate on design and programmers to concentrate on where their skills lie, in more complex coding. Director was, quite rightly, superseded by Flash which was a tool that could be used by both programmers and designers, either alone or in collaboration, and therefore remained a flexible, cross platform development tool many years. I don’t agree that the skills learnt using AS1 and AS2 scripting, for example, is easily transferrable to AS3 now Adobe has completely scrapped the former in favour of of a language which only seasoned Java programmers could possibly decipher. Trying to translate “on mouseUp {_root.play ();}” to something like “myButton.addEventListener { MouseEvent.MOUSEUP, function(evt:MouseEvent) :void{ play();} is too mind-boggling for many and will most likely be scrapped by Adobe in the not too distant future anyway for something else.

      • http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/ Benjie — WebdesignerDepot

        Flash on an iPhone would consume the entire battery life in about 17 seconds. It wasn’t profitable for anyone to fix the issue.

        The bottom line is that you have to adapt to new tools, and new ideas.

        A college education means very little compared to real-world experience, as thousands of graduates discover, to their enduring disappointment, every year.

  • John Harrison

    Fireworks simply gave me enough of that vector/bitmap hybrid tools that allowed me to get in and out fast… I think I see pixelmatr in my future.