This isn’t too radical of an idea… software developers have used the concept of ‘target systems’ for decades. You set what your target system is, and your compiler lets you know when you coded a feature not available on that platform.

So, if you used basic animation, video, and offline editing, you could output HTML5 from Adobe’s design tools.

“… where Adobe is taking “output” from your tools: Flash only and all the wood-is-behind-the-bat to knock Flash out of the park? Or is it that *and* delivering on HTML5?”

HTML is a big area for Adobe. Dreamweaver is a big seller — got its start bridging the browser fragmentation of DHTML days. Most of the other tools use HTML in some way, or produce for HTML in some way. Adobe also does a lot with output to film and video, electronic documents, paper.

Adobe’s investment in SWF hopes to enlarge the publishing choices of tomorrow. There are various workflows, some for designers, some for developers, some for groups of creators. The goal is to remove barriers to publishers, whatever style they may choose.

The InDesign folks are currently mid-cycle in development, but are always looking for change-requests.

jd/adobe

Sorry about the delayed response (and maybe we should take this to email), but I guess understanding directionally where Adobe is taking “output” from your tools: Flash only and all the wood-is-behind-the-bat to knock Flash out of the park? Or is it that *and* delivering on HTML5?

The former would continue Adobe’s hegemony with the Flash platform so it’s assumed (and reinforced by your CEO’s analyst call remarks) that it’s all Flash and Flash only. If it’s that *and* the latter (as the latter gains momentum), then that would be good to hear publicly.

The other piece is what I perceive as a shift away from the design community and an embracing of the developer community in ways that are (IMHO) placing much of the Flash, RIA and other deliverables just slightly out of reach for designers. These folks are ones whose core skill-sets are being obviated by a move away from print output toward the web, RIA’s, Flash, widgets (or ‘sprouts’) and there are few “bridge” products that take them from print-to-web, leveraging their skills.

To illustrate that last point is what I alluded to in my post: InDesign output to Flash or Web is so poor that I (and just about every designer I know) would be embarrassed to deliver it as an extension of a print deliverable.

So understanding Adobe’s focus on those respective ecosystems (designers & developers) would also be beneficial to hear. Again, it’s because Adobe’s DNA ensures that you “get” the subtleties and nuances designers demand for output that places Adobe in a class by itself (and I *would* put Apple in that class but, for the most part, their tools are targeted at the masses rather than the creative class).

What do you seek from me?

jd/adobe

Curious what you think of the other 95% of the post JD?

But instead of Flash Lite revenue decreasing, it increased, even after its end-of-life was announced. It was surprising enough to make that quarter’s analyst call. The reason was that the iPhone convinced other manufacturers that “experience matters”, and they ballooned their orders, even though they’d be getting even more for free the next year.

Summarized, the positive attention paid to iPhone increased consumer expectations, which resulted in increased demand for Flash Lite among manufacturers.

(I had a followup post the next day.)

jd/adobe