Iconfinder integration

[bastiankuehn]

Hey there! 

 

In my company we are using the tool "realtimeboard" for brainstorming stuff. In realtimeboard there is the "ICONFINDER" feature, a collab with www.iconfinder.com. You can easily search for an icon you need and just drag & drop it to your board. This will make prototyping or layouting websites, apps, .... easier and faster. 

 

What do you think? 

 

Regards

Basti

[iconfinder]

Hi

 

Martin from Iconfinder here. We would to make this possible.

 

Let us know if we can help: martin@iconfinder.com

[MattP]

Hi Martin,

 

I read your review comparing Affinity Designer to Illustrator CC and Sketch 3 and from the conclusions that the reviewer came to, I'm at a loss as to why you would want to integrate with us?

 

The vast majority of comments pertaining to Designer in that review weren't actually correct (despite one of our team contacting yourselves and offering to help if there were areas that you were struggling with) and it came across as very much a description of why one person was intent on using Illustrator and not relearning anything different.

 

If the review is likely to ever be corrected effectively (updated, not just errata added as comments after each erroneous paragraph) then I'm definitely open to trying to see what's possible. I don't expect your review to be anything other than factually accurate and fair to all 3 applications, rather than quite as obviously biased and inaccurate as it currently stands.

 

Thanks,

Matt

[iconfinder]

Hi Matt

 

Of course the review should be factually correct. I will go through the post with the reviewer, Scott, and contact you for follow up questions.

 

Martin

[MattP]

Thanks, Martin :)

[iconify]

Hi Matt. My name is Scott Lewis. I was the author of the article. Would you please email me to discuss your concerns further? I'm troubled that you seem to have such a problem with the review. When Dale emailed me, I worked with him quite a bit for 2 days to update the article in such a way as to make sure readers knew I had erred but also maintain editorial integrity and not just revise the article wholesale based on vendor dissatisfaction. It's a fine line to walk. The "errata" you refer to was the most honest way to point out that I had made a mistake. Simply rewriting the article based on the feedback of any of the vendors would be a bit unfair to readers.

 

I  hope we can resolve this issue to your satisfaction. I will be happy to change any facts that are inaccurate.

[MattP]

Simply rewriting the article based on the feedback of any of the vendors would be a bit unfair to readers.

 

Completely agree - that's why I said the article should simply be accurate and fair - nothing more. I would hate to read the article and think it was anything other than a genuine review.

 

Simply looking at the comments at the bottom of the review shows that a number of other readers have also posted about inaccuracies in the Affinity Designer text from their own experiences. We would expect that there would obviously be a period of learning associated with any new package and this is natural, but lets try to work together to make sure that what is presented is actually factually accurate.

 

I am deliberately keeping this on the forum so that others can see what I took away from the review as being inaccurate (even after the corrections) and they can help me out if I've missed anything. Off the top of my head, the biggest things I remember that were definitely wrong were:

 

- The selection marquee does not act differently to Illustrator or Sketch if you simply tick the checkbox in preferences to make it operate that way. It's called 'Marquee Select on Touch' under 'Preferences'->'User Interface'. It's there specifically for people who are ingrained in the Illustrator way of thinking.

 

- The quote '[...]while using the pen tool in [sketch and] Affinity feels more like drawing with chalk' is obviously up for debate and I would like to draw your attention to the fact that not only does Affinity's Pen Tool have most of the functionality of Illustrator with the Astute Graphics Plugin installed (which costs a premium) that it is also one of the most honed and considered parts of the application and I would argue it is on par with any other offering found in any software, at any price. I know for a fact that I have worked directly with professional illustrators (look at the welcome screen for a sample portfolio of some of the designers we have worked with so far) and the Pen and Gradient tools are the two which repeatedly keep coming back with nothing but praise. Your opening gambit of 'I admit to being biased by years of use' (in favour of Illustrator) goes a long way towards explaining the reasoning for your 'chalk' comment, but try using it for a while, adjusting the node sizes in the preferences panel to suit your tastes (smaller, I assume, if you like Illustrator) and I think you would have a hard time levelling any actual criticism at it. Our Node Tool is incredibly clever and productive, and you can enter it at will from the Pen tool, simply by holding down Command at any time - it's much more productive than Illustrator's default variants... But that's just my opinion.

 

- Holding down the Option key when clicking a boolean op button will form a non-destructive boolean compound object.

 

- Yes, there are a lot of snapping options... but they're broadly intended to be used by simply selecting one of the sensibly named presets for the type of work you're doing, i.e. I simply choose the 'Curve drawing' preset when I'm interested in snapping during curve drawing to get the most sensible combinations of settings for that task.

 

- You list the file types Illustrator can import, then list the same types that Affinity can import and say that Illustrator is the winner. It is the winner because it can import its own file type better than anyone else - and it would be a concern if it couldn't, surely? So how is anyone else supposed to win in this category? We can open PSD files better than Illustrator (and faster than PhotoShop) so does this mean we win some extra points? ;) Have you tried the SVG import of Illustrator - we can load files they can't... and vice-versa, and we try to retain shadows and blurs unlike Illustrator.

 

The final issues come down to the product matrix comparison which is still wrong, despite the errata corrections:

- 'Drawing: Fair'... really? Have you checked out the samples - I can send you some comments from the designers that made these and they thought it was anything but 'fair', even though they were using it in the beta form. I mean, take a look at our implementation of on-document Gradient Tool and compare it to Illustrator's - in what world is the experience in Illustrator so definitively better that it ranks as 'Excellent'?

- 'Join points and segments: No' - at worst, this should say what is possible, not just 'no'

- 'Area selection by marquee: No' - should be 'yes'

 

Obviously the 'cons' of Affinity Designer also includes duplicates of some of these errors.

 

 

Yes, we are a first version software. Yes, we have holes in our feature set. We are very aware of this and you can see we are very passionate about turning this software into the alternative. You'll start to really see the benefits when Affinity Photo launches and you see the power of a suite of applications that can all edit literally the same file format without any loss or conversion.

 

I wish there was a section in your review for 'final finishing' or 'embellishing' where people often have to load their work into another program (typically PhotoShop) to add texture, brush on highlights, add adjustments... We can do it all live on the canvas non-destructively. Our hierarchical document model is also unreasonably powerful, but there is no section in the review for discussions of limitations.

 

If you're genuinely interested then don't forget to take a look at our beta versions - you can see what's coming and at what rate. We've already submitted an updated version for App Store approval earlier today, and there should be another beta out within the next few hours, so we're very committed to the product. Suggest something you'd like and as long as it makes sense we'll add it to our list and get typing as soon as we can - you won't see that from many of the other big names...

 

Thanks again,

Matt

[Dale]

Hi Matt. My name is Scott Lewis. I was the author of the article. Would you please email me to discuss your concerns further? I'm troubled that you seem to have such a problem with the review. When Dale emailed me, I worked with him quite a bit for 2 days to update the article in such a way as to make sure readers knew I had erred but also maintain editorial integrity and not just revise the article wholesale based on vendor dissatisfaction. It's a fine line to walk. The "errata" you refer to was the most honest way to point out that I had made a mistake. Simply rewriting the article based on the feedback of any of the vendors would be a bit unfair to readers.

 

I  hope we can resolve this issue to your satisfaction. I will be happy to change any facts that are inaccurate.

 

Hi Scott, I hope you realise when I contacted you that I was pointing out inaccuracies rather than huffing and puffing about the review, I actually appreciate the review and am sure plenty of people have enjoyed it. It's a bit unfair that pointing out errors gets labelled as vendor dissatisfaction but I hear you. Many will know that an in-depth review of a new app is a massive task and I appreciated that there were also positive comments made where you spotted strengths across the apps. I also accept you're an Illy fan and don't hold it against you, I'm a fan of all sorts of apps and could show bias, but I don't assume that would get in the way of fixing errors in the body, feature matrix and cons list of a review. Nor should post-editing be an issue IMO. Better to be right moving forward even though thousands of people have already read the factually incorrect version? You suggested I left the remainder of my suggestions for review inaccuracies in the comments section, that should fairly well match what Matt's picked up on too if I've been on it.

[iconify]

I will make the updates to the factual inaccuracies you've provided corrections for. I won't be able to get to it until Sunday so please be patient.

[Andy Somerfield]

Hi Scott,

 

First up, I'd like thank you for taking the time to respond to this in detail - that's so refreshing to see..

 

I'm sure Matt will be available to post a response to your comments asap - although it's late here now (21:30pm) - so I imagine it will be tomorrow..

 

For what it's worth, I don't really disagree with you on most things - aside from the "the snark and tone of Matt's comments" thing (that really, really isn't the case) - and the Pen Tool stuff. I know it's all personal opinion there, but in mine, most users who have used a Pen Tool for real work in the last 25 years unequivocally agree with what Matt has said.. 

 

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond here - let's work this all out then get on with answering the question the OP asked..

 

A

[iconify]

Andy, I deleted my original response because I didn't want to get into an endless debate. I understand you all are passionate about your product. I am passionate about mine as well - which has been created using the pen tool almost every day for the past 23 years ;-)

 

I will make the updates that are clearly factually incorrect. The opinions will stand. I invite anyone who disagrees with them to join the debate in the comments on the Iconfinder blog - as was my intent all along: to build engagement.

[Andy Somerfield]

Again, good to hear..

 

Some of the grating is maybe because we are currently more competent as a product for illustrators - which are not icon designers.. I see a number of simple things we need to do (snapping off-curve handles, etc.) which makes all the difference to you guys, but are irrelevant to most illustrators. These things will come, in short time.

 

Anyway, we'll pick this up on Monday - have a good weekend :)

 

A

[iconify]

The Iconfinder article was updated to correct the factual inaccuracies about Affinity Designer (and 1 about Illustrator). I apologize for the mistakes but they were just that, honest mistakes, and there was no intent to mislead anyone or disparage anyone's product. Feel free to review the updated article and provide additional feedback.

[astutegraphics]

- The quote '[...]while using the pen tool in [sketch and] Affinity feels more like drawing with chalk' is obviously up for debate and I would like to draw your attention to the fact that not only does Affinity's Pen Tool have most of the functionality of Illustrator with the Astute Graphics Plugin installed (which costs a handsome premium) that it is also one of the most honed and considered parts of the application and I would argue it is on par with any other offering found in any software, at any price. I know for a fact that I have worked directly with professional illustrators (look at the welcome screen for a sample portfolio of some of the designers we have worked with so far) and the Pen and Gradient tools are the two which repeatedly keep coming back with nothing but praise. Your opening gambit of 'I admit to being biased by years of use' (in favour of Illustrator) goes a long way towards explaining the reasoning for your 'chalk' comment, but try using it for a while, adjusting the node sizes in the preferences panel to suit your tastes (smaller, I assume, if you like Illustrator) and I think you would have a hard time levelling any actual criticism at it. Our Node Tool is incredibly clever and productive, and you can enter it at will from the Pen tool, simply by holding down Command at any time - it's much more productive than Illustrator's default variants... But that's just my opinion.

 

Dear Matt,

 

It would be wise, when asking for accuracy of others, to check your own facts. Our tools for Adobe Illustrator which you are indicating that you are benchmarking are available as different products for different markets and for different tasks. The plug-in InkScribe which you must only be referring to above as our Pen Tool replacement directly in Illustrator is only £19+VAT (about $30 USD). I therefore would ask you to revise your "handsome premium" statement.

 

We would welcome any direct functional independant review between our InkScribe vector drawing toolset/workflow and that found in Affinity Designer and any other vector drawing solution.

 

 

Beyond this oversight on your part, we do find Affinity Designer a very interesting and welcome development in the market. Competition is a good thing for all users in the market.

 

Astute Graphics

www.astutegraphics.com

[MattP]

Hi there Astute Graphics :) I've amended my original statement to remove the 'handsome' decorator because you're quite right that it's thoroughly reasonable when someone is paying for Illustrator. Please do remember though that to us, that price is two thirds the cost of our whole product and more than buying iDraw outright.

 

The comment I made was actually what had been relayed to us from some of the illustrators we commissioned and was not my direct observation as I do not have a version of your plugin to compare it to, so you are quite right that I should check my facts and I have updated it to be correct and in context - which is all this whole thread was about in the first place.

 

Many thanks,

Matt

[MattP]

Hi Scott,

 

Thanks for updating the article - I do appreciate the work you've put in there and really am grateful that it now is a clear mix of facts and opinion (clearly labelled as such when it is given)

 

I didn't read your deleted reply, but from Andy's response it sounds like a good job I didn't ;) I'm sorry for any headaches caused - I really did only want for the review to be accurate and as unbiased as possible to give all 3 apps a fair chance. I know you are passionate about your job, as am I - I have spent the last 4 years typing at something nobody had seen until the other day and for it to be passed over with errors was just a bit frustrating. Again, sorry for any distress caused.

 

Thanks again, it's really appreciated,

Matt

[astutegraphics]

Hi there Astute Graphics :) I've amended my original statement to remove the 'handsome' decorator because you're quite right that it's thoroughly reasonable when someone is paying for Illustrator. Please do remember though that to us, that price is two thirds the cost of our whole product and more than buying iDraw outright.

The comment I made was actually what had been relayed to us from some of the illustrators we commissioned and was not my direct observation as I do not have a version of your plugin to compare it to, so you are quite right that I should check my facts and I have updated it to be correct and in context - which is all this whole thread was about in the first place.

Many thanks,

Matt

Thank you for correcting your original post quickly. This is appreciated.

 

We were under the impression that you were in possession of - and had therefore benchmarked InkScribe - due to your assertion that AD was of an equivalence to Illustrator + our plug-ins. If we understand correctly, this is not the case and therefore it may be best to assess the full path creation and control functions found in InkScribe (let alone VectorScribe, etc.) before presenting your statement. Even if gathered through third party opinions, nothing beats direct appraisal.

 

From the initial beta announcements, we have taken an interest in AD. It is presented professionally, is visually appealing and does show great promise. We do hope to see it continually developed, and would encourage it. We will continue to develop likewise as there is more than enough room in the market where we are likely to be appealing to a different audience - one where the outlay of £19 is very quickly recovered by the time savings on offer.

 

Astute Graphics

www.astutegraphics.com

[iconify]

MattP, Astute Graphics, and Martin,

 

It occurs to me that rather than chatting amongst ourselves about the strengths of one product versus another, everyone may benefit from a head-to-head comparison, this time without opinion from me, of the Pen Tool in Affinity Designer and InkScribe.

 

To make the comparison fair from the outset, Serif (via MattP) and Astute Graphics can come to an agreement on the comparison criteria and the tests to be performed. I will work with both Serif and Astute Graphics to learn how their tools work to their satisfaction, then conduct the tests (and record them like the examples in my original article). And finally, Iconfinder can publish the results. 

 

It seems to me that this could be a real win-win for everyone involved, create some really useful information for users, build relationships, and should even be fun. Like Astute Graphics said, the market is big enough for everyone.

 

Let me know what you guys think. 

 

Kind Regards,

Scott

[astutegraphics]

MattP, Astute Graphics, and Martin,

 

It occurs to me that rather than chatting amongst ourselves about the strengths of one product versus another, everyone may benefit from a head-to-head comparison, this time without opinion from me, of the Pen Tool in Affinity Designer and InkScribe.

 

To make the comparison fair from the outset, Serif (via MattP) and Astute Graphics can come to an agreement on the comparison criteria and the tests to be performed. I will work with both Serif and Astute Graphics to learn how their tools work to their satisfaction, then conduct the tests (and record them like the examples in my original article). And finally, Iconfinder can publish the results. 

 

It seems to me that this could be a real win-win for everyone involved, create some really useful information for users, build relationships, and should even be fun. Like Astute Graphics said, the market is big enough for everyone.

 

Let me know what you guys think. 

 

Kind Regards,

Scott

 

Sounds like a good idea, Scott. We're not on Serif's forum to sabotage or detract from the advances made by Serif's team in critical areas of the vector creative workflow, but such a review should be of interest to many users of the various tools now available. We hope that Serif will find equal benefit from this.

 

To get the ball rolling, our suggestion is as follows...

 

1) Review or consideration between the following packages:

• Illustrator CC 2014 (October, v18.1) - current public release
• Illustrator CS6 (the last "boxed edition" before the Creative Cloud was enforced) as many Adobe customers are sticking to this
• Affinity Designer - current public release
• InkScribe v1 + VectorScribe v2 plug-ins enhancing either Illustrator CS5, CS6 or CC

Consideration of the Illustrator Creative Cloud edition as a separate entity will also allow the review to assess the effectiveness of Adobe's new Curvature tool in addition to the ubiquitous Pen tool. This is part of Adobe's own attempt to enhance the creation process. It was released just days after AD was officially launched which makes things interesting.

 

In all fairness, CorelDRAW, XARA (both Windows-only), iDraw and Sketch3 (both Mac-only) should also be considered. But this may come down to a question of practicality on the part of those tasked with reviewing.

 

2) In order to ensure the review is of a common task that is directly applicable to all solutions, it should be of a task that every professional vector-based designer will need to do on a regular basis. We consider a professional designer as somebody who uses vector design tools for at least 10 hours per week, normally forming the basis of that designer's income (freelance or as an in-house creative).

 

One such common task is the recreation of a scanned sketch or archive artwork. Vector creatives who originate new designs for clients still typically sketch/scan/vector-recreate whilst vector technicians are often tasked with vectorising historic or "lost" artwork.

 

The breadth of artwork that falls in this concept can easily be seen in this basic Google image search. We would consider a randomly-picked vector-based logo such as Langur's to be a good middle-ground (this artwork only shown as an example - permission would obviously need to be sought if re-used!). Not too basic, but not overly complex either - ie. "average" from a technical view-point.

 

3) Determining the outcome could be based on several factors. Initial purchase cost considerations are (rightly) promoted strongly with Serif's approach to the market. However, the "cost of ownership" is an accumulation of numerous factors including:

• Initial outlay.
• Learning time invested which can be aided by support material such as AG's regular Pop-up Webinars and community interaction such as this AD forum hosted by Serif.
• Time saved over previous workflow solutions (per day/week/month/year)* per designer in the organisation.
• Upgrade costs (unsure of AD at preset as version 1 has just been released - some clarification from Serif would help).
• Automation potential for repetitive tasks such as Actions and scripting found in Adobe Illustrator.
• Interaction with designers throughout the industry such as the need to receive and supply in specific formats - designers rarely work in isolation.
• Interaction with other software such as Photoshop (reduced thanks to AD's enhanced raster-based capabilities), InDesign and so forth. This consideration may need to be revisited in a year when Serif's full range of solutions become available.
• Mac/Windows platform interoperability.
• Training and support, especially for larger clients.

*Some interesting material for basing an hourly rate or design staff salary may be found over at Coroflot and Creative Review

 

More factors may (and should) be considered such as hardware requirements, but this list could get very long!

 

We'll be interested to assist in ensuring such an amazing review becomes reality. We respect all considered conclusions and would be more than happy to help publicise such a review regardless of outcome.

[iconify]

Hi Astute Graphics,

 

Thanks for the reply and willingness to participate. I too want to make clear that neither my original review, the confusion over the correction of the factual errors, nor even my conclusions were ever meant to demean or undermine Affinity Designer. Just the opposite is true. I came across Affinity Designer on the Apple Store when I went to upgrade to Mac OS Yosemite. As the Editor's Choice, it was featured on the first hero image in the App Store home page. Looking at the web site, examples, and reading some reviews I was excited to see something that looked like a serious alternative to Illustrator. I then approached Martin from Iconfinder about doing a review. I'm not an Iconfinder employee but do some guest blogging for their blog every couple of months.

 

I thought since MattP originally made the comparison to InkScribe, which caught Astute Graphics' attention, it might be an opportunity for Serif Labs to showcase Affinity Designer's Pen Tool.

 

At the end of the day, my only real objective is to help as many people be successful as I can. I get a lot of pleasure out of helping others succeed.

 

Regards,

Scott

[MattP]

Hey Astute Graphics,

 

Wow! That's one heck of a huge compliment there if you're thinking that a review of our very first release of our first ever Mac application (written completely from scratch) is worthy of detailed comparison against something as powerful and mature as your additions to Illustrator's functionality - thank you! :)

 

I may be wrong, but I just don't see that there is actually any point in such a review at this time?... Designer is a version 1 product and we have always made clear to our users that we have included the things they actually need to get the job done, but that they are buying a product that will be constantly upgraded and expanded into being the product it should have been over at least the next two years, hence why these upgrades will be free. So we are transparently admitting that we are not yet the application that we will become, and that we firmly believe the product is powerful, capable and very productive (and fun!) enough to achieve professional results, but it is obviously missing some features.

 

Reading your thoughts on test criteria and comparing them to our product... Not all designers are the same. Look at our samples and tell us how many repetitive tasks requiring automation were involved, how many times the designer needed to use their Windows computer to achieve something during the process or whether that even crossed their mind. The designers we approached had never seen the software before (as it was only released to beta at the same time as we approached them) yet gave it a try and found they enjoyed it so much that they have gone on to buy it with their own money after it was released in the store, and some still continue to use it for their trade. That in itself says that any criteria we may decide on are not the be-all and end-all to everyone in the real world, away from product comparison matrices. I don't argue that being able to do absolutely everything you could ever think of isn't a fantastic thing, and that's what we are aiming for by the time we are done, but at the very start of our journey, empowering and enabling people to achieve their goals is the thing that matters most. Interestingly, none of the designers we have approached to date have said they could not take on the work because they do not own a Mac - so it has not been a problem for us to date.

 

If the tools are considered carefully before being implemented to make sure that they are productive, enjoyable and offer all the core functionality properly (and some niceties) then I don't see how a comparison based on 'can it do this?', 'how many clicks to do that?' terms could genuinely be of much interest at this point? The bits that we're currently lacking are the bits that would be of most interest to this kind of user, and they are in the works. So the people who would be interested to read such an article will just find a number of holes that we are already aware of and have always planned to address on our roadmap. Our users are very happy with our current performance, and are obviously very happy about the thought of it becoming an altogether more mature product over time. The key here is maturity... We are at version 1, Illustrator is at version 18. We started from the ground up as did Illustrator - so we both come from the same starting point, we just have a lot of years of difference between us. We're not looking too shabby at this point, but we are clearly not there yet - but we will get there quickly. We are always very open about our product's missing features, even providing a roadmap document to show what to expect.

 

None of these reviews would ever contain sections that pay any attention to the fact that we remove traditional limitations and let you paint onto your pixels, adjust them, mask them, import PhotoShop documents with incredible accuracy and so, so much more - and all of this comes in the package that the Pen Tool is just a part of. Our application can do such a wide range of things that real world users are actually enjoying, yet these would not count as they don't form part of the traditional usage test cases, which again would seem unfair.

 

Wait until our application is more complete before starting to judge, otherwise it seems like an attempt to be deliberately unfair. Who knows, within the next couple of years it might be that people are crying out for the ability to perform pixel-based functions in a vector editor so that they can be more creative, or open their Illustrator document non-destructively in PhotoShop (or vice-versa) - in which case, we've already got a solution for that...

 

I guess the 'TL;DR' version should simply be this: Not all designers design in the same way.  The launch version of our software is particularly strong at certain design cases (those found in our samples) and weak at things that other packages may have focused on, but the current version is going to undergo changes over the next two years to make sure it is as strong in those other areas. If it is to be judged in a traditional manner, then it's better to wait until we at least think we have finished typing a particular tool, before pointing out what we already make clear is unfinished.

 

Thanks to all involved,

Matt