Get best of the week

Why Axure could bend Sketch and Figma, but didn't bend


This article is not a historical guide with dates, milestones and secret insights, but just my look at the history of product development and thinking about why Axure, having everything that we love Sketch and Figma so much for, long before the appearance of these, now huddled in the backyards, but occupies a special place in the hearts of hardcore designers.

And yet: This is not a comparison of who is cooler and not an attempt to litter your favorite work tool, whatever it may be.

My acquaintance with Akshura (hereinafter I will write this name this way) began, no, not from the first versions, as is often the case in such articles, but from version 6 or 7. But those who know how often Akshura releases new major version, understands that it was a long time ago.

When I first opened Akshura, I immediately realized that it was a combine. Real. A huge combine with a bunch of all kinds of functions. But starting to study it, I realized that all the basic functions are easily accessible and the logic of the arrangement of the panels is very reminiscent of, oddly enough, Photoshop. It was nice, because then Photoshop was also used to draw sites and other interfaces. Yes, there was such a time. You, the generation (I don’t even know which letter of the Latin alphabet must be substituted now), do not understand this. Such a familiar arrangement of panels, I think they did not choose by chance.

Let's go over the features that were already in version 7 and that became widespread only with the advent of Sketch and Figma.

  • The components . Yes, the very Symbols (for Sketch) and Components (for Figma) have long been and are in Akshur. They are only called Masters. The principle and logic of the work of the masters is absolutely the same as that of modern counterparts.


  • Styles . Predefined styles that can be quickly applied to any text or object.
  • Library . There were special files in which designers assembled their components and these files could be easily fastened to your project and use not standard calendars and buttons, but specially prepared ones. There are even libraries that repeat the bootstrap style .
  • . , . , , - , , .
  • . 7 ( ), 8- . , .
  • . , , .


  • . Abstract. .




/


  • . . , , .
  • . , . JavaScript, . . . , JavaScript, React, .
  • Tools for creating diagrams . It is useful for fans to create CJM or just the structure of the pages / screens of the interface and the logic of different scenarios. Now most often it is customary to use for this, for example, Miro or the divine Overflow , but in Akshui it was from time immemorial without having to jump into other instruments.

When I switched from design exclusively to design (now it’s not so anymore), designers who were already starting to feel for Sketch could not understand why I needed this combine and continued to convince that Sketch was better. But no one could explain clearly what exactly he was better at. By function, Sketch lost under the net. Sketch's advantage was at the level of sensation. He was really, more friendly and new. This, as it seems to me, is the problem of Akshura - it seemscomplicated. She can do too much. A lot of this is not needed (for example, generating documentation based on the prototype structure) even for those who work in it every day. If I conducted an A / B test for the attractiveness of the Akshura and Sketch interface, the result would be 0 versus 100 not in favor of Akshura. But in fact, it makes no sense to compare Sketch and Akshura. One tool is about creating a beautiful interface, and the other is about a dynamic prototype.

The funny thing is that even the process of creating and editing shapes in Akshur itself is much closer to the modern principles of “drawing” in Sketch / Figma than in Photoshop of those years. That is, in fact, in Akshura, you can draw the final design no worse than in Figma. The only problem will be with the shadows (they are not very in Akshur) and the effects of layer overlays (which simply are not in Akshur), but to be honest, I never used layer overlays.

Adobe, having created it is not bad at all, in my opinion, the XD could still, if not jump, then at least cling to the outgoing train with their fingertips and are now fluttering on the sleepers, but they are holding on. But Akshur did not have time to jump and in fact run after the train in splendid isolation, and from time to time, designers who have long taken their will into their fists openly and openly open the Figma to look at them from the train with sadness in their eyes.

In my opinion, Akshur at some point experienced an existential crisis, the echoes of which she is still experiencing. On the one hand, striving to be like the heroes of modern times, on the other hand, stick to their concepts and remain a harvester for everything at once. And, it seems, the developers have chosen the first path and are trying to keep abreast, realizing that the world has changed. This is evidenced even by the fact that Akshura now supports the reception of files and Sketch, and Figma and even XD (and none of them supports Akshura files). True, I do not know anyone who, being in their right mind, would like to go from Figma to Akshur.

This post is for me a kind of tribute to Akshura and nostalgia for working in it. As well as a look into the future with a timid hope for Akshur Renaissance in the mass design mind. After all, it is now rapidly changing and, in fact, is no worse than Sketch and definitely better (value judgment) XD. The new version has CSS code for developers and even animation settings for designers. Yes, what am I telling you. Just check it out for yourself.

More articles:


All Articles