<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Designers Who Skip Photoshop</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pixelhaven.co/?feed=rss2&#038;p=33" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pixelhaven.co/?p=33</link>
	<description>Portfolio of Senior Frontend Developer Josh Harbaugh &#124; Crafting user-centered interfaces and interactive experiences.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:02:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bogdan Pop</title>
		<link>http://pixelhaven.co/?p=33#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bogdan Pop]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pixelhavenllc.com/?p=33#comment-55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Should I put off the &quot;Photoshop&quot; stage for as long as I can? You&#039;re joking right? I don&#039;t endorse 37 signals idea , but in some projects, even those developed for clients, that works better than wasting hours and hours of photoshop before going forward.

It depends on each project, each client&#039;s personality and so on. If the client ask you all the time for designs, improvements and so on, you&#039;re better off with sticking longer with the &quot;Photoshop&quot; page. If your client is one that has a clear image (which you understood) and wants fast answers, you&#039;re better off going to xhtml/css and doing clickable elements.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Should I put off the &#8220;Photoshop&#8221; stage for as long as I can? You&#8217;re joking right? I don&#8217;t endorse 37 signals idea , but in some projects, even those developed for clients, that works better than wasting hours and hours of photoshop before going forward.</p>
<p>It depends on each project, each client&#8217;s personality and so on. If the client ask you all the time for designs, improvements and so on, you&#8217;re better off with sticking longer with the &#8220;Photoshop&#8221; page. If your client is one that has a clear image (which you understood) and wants fast answers, you&#8217;re better off going to xhtml/css and doing clickable elements.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Team Roster</title>
		<link>http://pixelhaven.co/?p=33#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Team Roster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Oct 2010 05:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pixelhavenllc.com/?p=33#comment-54</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Best you could edit the webpage subject title Designers Who Skip Photoshop &#124; Pixelhaven Web Design &#124; A Cincinnati Web Design Company to something more suited for your content you write. I liked the the writing withal.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Best you could edit the webpage subject title Designers Who Skip Photoshop | Pixelhaven Web Design | A Cincinnati Web Design Company to something more suited for your content you write. I liked the the writing withal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: danielgenser</title>
		<link>http://pixelhaven.co/?p=33#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[danielgenser]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pixelhavenllc.com/?p=33#comment-53</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It depends.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;To me, it depends on the design in question. Typically, I find that designing in Photoshop first often results in inconsistent UI and non-semantic markup. I consider HTML and CSS as design tools themselves. My preferred process is 1. paper sketch or Omnigraffle wireframe 2. Write markup 3. Add stylesheet.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It depends.</p>
<p>To me, it depends on the design in question. Typically, I find that designing in Photoshop first often results in inconsistent UI and non-semantic markup. I consider HTML and CSS as design tools themselves. My preferred process is 1. paper sketch or Omnigraffle wireframe 2. Write markup 3. Add stylesheet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: danielgenser</title>
		<link>http://pixelhaven.co/?p=33#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[danielgenser]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pixelhavenllc.com/?p=33#comment-52</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It depends.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;To me, it depends on the design in question. Typically, I find that designing in Photoshop first often results in inconsistent UI and non-semantic markup. I consider HTML and CSS as design tools themselves. My preferred process is 1. paper sketch or Omnigraffle wireframe 2. Write markup 3. Add stylesheet.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It depends.</p>
<p>To me, it depends on the design in question. Typically, I find that designing in Photoshop first often results in inconsistent UI and non-semantic markup. I consider HTML and CSS as design tools themselves. My preferred process is 1. paper sketch or Omnigraffle wireframe 2. Write markup 3. Add stylesheet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gfxdude</title>
		<link>http://pixelhaven.co/?p=33#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gfxdude]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:44:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pixelhavenllc.com/?p=33#comment-51</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[thanks !!  very helpful post!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks !!  very helpful post!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
