PDA

View Full Version : Web Site Animations



Jagella
10-04-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm wondering how effective Web designers believe animations might be on Web pages. Personally, I like animations as long as they don't get in the way of my finding the information I need. My interest in Web animations was piqued recently when a client of mine requested that I create one for his site (http://www.derbysfence.com/). I enjoyed the work, and honestly I was a little surprised by the demand for animations. Might they be a viable product that I can begin to offer my clients?

Input on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Jagella

Steve B
10-04-2008, 12:41 PM
Hey Jagella,

I'm glad you found you way over to the new forum.

I am the client. The reason I wanted an animation is because I once saw my dog (Derby) start chasing a cat at a client's house. When the cat crossed the flags - Derby came to a screaching halt. I often tell that story on sales calls when the prospect tells me they are worried that it might not work on their dog. I always wanted to re-create the scene on video - but, realistically it would be impossible to catch something like that on tape. So, I thought of animating it. I asked around and couldn't find any graphic artists who knew anything about animation.

I was so glad to find Jagella on the old forum. He thought he could do it for me and we worked together on it. I think he did a great job - especially given my limited budget. What you see is exactly what I had in my head for the last few years!

I don't think I've ever seen animation on other sites. I'll bet there might be a market for it once people are made aware it is an option.

Thanks again Jagella - I was really impressed with your diligence to get it done so quickly - and how you made the changes I kept requesting.

vangogh
10-04-2008, 12:55 PM
Hey Joe. Welcome to the forum. I was hoping you'd find your way over here.

The animation you did for Steve turned out well. It does a good job showing what his business offers to customers and enhances the site.

In general I think animations can be used effectively, though I think often they aren't used well. Like anything else they should be present because they add something. Many of the animations I see distract more than enhance. Often they'll run on a loop and never stop, which only keeps me from focusing on the rest of the page.

You could certainly add animation as a service you offer. Not everyone will want it, but some will. I know the animation for Steve is .gif image. You may want to focus more on Flash animation since it's become the defacto. You can also have more interactivity with Flash animation than you can with .gif animation.

Thanks again for stop by Joe.

Jagella
10-04-2008, 02:02 PM
Hi Steve:


I asked around and couldn't find any graphic artists who knew anything about animation.

It's very interesting that you should mention that a lot of graphic artists don't normally do animation. I'm studying graphic design at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh (online), as you know, and so far we haven't even touched on animation except for being assigned reading about it in our Photoshop texts. I've dabbled in animation for several years now, but most of my work was self-study and exploration. I didn't pursue animation as a product offering because I assumed there wasn't much of a market for it and that Web designers considered it to detract from the design of a Web page. I'm glad to see there is some demand for it because animation can be a lot of fun to develop.


He thought he could do it for me and we worked together on it.

It cannot be said enough—good design is as much a part of the input of the client as the designer. A design succeeds or fails based on its purpose and how it may fulfill its purpose. Clients need to work with us to assure that the result is what the client and target audience wants and needs. Design is a process that takes time and requires a lot of correction and honing. Fortunately, Steve understood these facts, and the result is an animation he's pleased with.


I don't think I've ever seen animation on other sites. I'll bet there might be a market for it once people are made aware it is an option.

Vangogh (Steve) might know more about this than I do, but most Web animation these days is created with Adobe Flash. GIFs, I believe, are an older animation technology that I'm sure don't offer the features that Flash does.


Thanks again Jagella - I was really impressed with your diligence to get it done so quickly - and how you made the changes I kept requesting.

You're welcome, Steve. I try to be very prompt and responsible with my clients, and it's good to see how they appreciate it.

Jagella

Jagella
10-04-2008, 02:21 PM
Hey Joe. Welcome to the forum. I was hoping you'd find your way over here.

Thanks, Steve. The Small Business Forum was always friendly and gracious, and I see that hasn't changed.


Many of the animations I see distract more than enhance. Often they'll run on a loop and never stop, which only keeps me from focusing on the rest of the page.

(The other) Steve and I discussed the looping options for his animation while I created it. You are correct in that animations can be distracting if they run “forever,” but if they run only once, the visitor might miss it. Steve and I decided to have it run once and (have you) position it on the page so that the animation can be easily noticed. I think we have the optimal solution.


You may want to focus more on Flash animation since it's become the defacto.

Thanks for the advice. I have a copy of Flash CS3 that I haven't installed yet. What's the best way to learn Flash?

Thanks, Steve,

(Joe) Jagella

KristineS
10-04-2008, 03:40 PM
I'm with Vangogh, animation can really enhance your site, if there is a reason for it to be there. A lot of people use it simply because they think it's cool, and that's not a good enough reason. It also shouldn't have a negative effect on load times or put barriers in front of clients getting to the information or products they want.

If you can integrate animation into a site in a way that enhances the site and makes sense, then I'm all for it. It it's just another thing on a site that gets in the way of site function or site utility, than I'm against it.

Jagella, it's nice to see you here. It is always lovely to see familiar screen names.

billbenson
10-04-2008, 04:35 PM
I'm in the camp of don't use any movement unless it really serves a purpose. In the case of Steve B's site I think it worked very well. I think you really did a good job there.

Flash vs gif: Remember a flash video uses up a lot more memory and cpu resources. For someone like me who may have 30 to 50 tabs open, if a bunch of those tabs have flash banners or videos running, it could crash a computer. Particularly older computers.

Most people don't have that many browser tabs open at once, but it's also something to consider.

vangogh
10-04-2008, 09:19 PM
Animated .gifs probably came before Flash, but both have been used as long as I can remember. I'd say animated .gifs for simpler animation and Flash for more complicated animation. Some also will come down to what the image is, just like the .jpg, .gif debate. Use .gifs for images that will have large blocks of solid color with definite transitions from one color to the other.

I think there are still plenty of animated .gifs on sites today. They can work well like the one you created for Steve. They're also easier to add to a web page, though Flash isn't too complicated either. In fact one place you see animated .gifs all the time is in banner advertising. I think most of the banner advertisements you see with animation are still .gifs, probably due to their being easier to add to a site.

If you're interested I came across a post on creating effective banner ads (http://www.anywired.com/the-complete-guide-to-creating-effective-square-banner-ads/146/) not too long ago. I'm not sure if you'd want to specialize in that or not, but I can see where it could become a valuable service for small businesses.

For learnign Flash I'd say install the program, pick up a book or find a good website tutorial and dive in. I can't claim to be a Flash expert. My work with it is mostly incorporating a Flash file into a web page. I do or did know some of the basics. From what I remember it's not the most intuitive program to learn, which is why I'd recommend agood book to start out with. It should give you a handle on the basics and then after that it will mostly be you using the program and learning new things as you do.

billbenson
10-04-2008, 10:46 PM
In about 2002 I bought a book on Flash - a "Sams teach yourself" book. I wrote an online Valentine's day card in Flash for my wife and haven't used it since. Had a really good Valentine's day though :)

On a basic level it wasn't to difficult to learn. Like most things, the more sophisticated the more complicated. At some point, to get it to do what you want it to do it becomes programming, not graphics. It can do some pretty incredible things though. Movement of any kind just needs to be used appropriately though IMO.

orion_joel
10-05-2008, 12:27 AM
I think that the grahic works well on this page as it is. There is however potential to improve it i think. Some of this could be the computer i am on as i have looked at pages before on my laptop (using now) and desktop and can see more of the page.

In this case the animation sits about half on and half off the bottom of the page, on a 15.4" Widescreen. This is more so probably my computer then the site though. So i only fully saw the last half which appears to be the more important bit anyway.

Steve B
10-05-2008, 05:13 AM
We spent a lot of time trying to position the animation so it showed completely on most computer set ups. I had a few family and friends verify that it didn't get cut-off for them, but I didn't think about people with laptops. It would be interesting to know what % of people use laptops.

But, ultimately the other things on my site are more important (like the revolving sample testimonials). So, I don't know if I'd want to change the position anyway.

Incidentally, VanGogh is my website guy and he gave good advice to keep the animation short and to make sure it only ran one time to prevent distractions. We decided to put it on a few pages - but not all. It will run again every time a page is refreshed, so if someone spends any time at all on the site they will get to see it.

orion_joel
10-05-2008, 07:54 AM
Yeah i can see it much better above the fold on the monitor at home, i am unsure if it may be the difference between a widescreen configuration and a standard ratio that causes it to move off the screen.

Jagella
10-05-2008, 04:06 PM
Jagella, it's nice to see you here. It is always lovely to see familiar screen names.

Thanks, Kristine.


If you can integrate animation into a site in a way that enhances the site and makes sense, then I'm all for it. It it's just another thing on a site that gets in the way of site function or site utility, than I'm against it.

Steve B and I discussed those issues a lot before and during the time I created his animation. As you might see by checking the image's properties in your browser, it's only 133 KB and 576 x 144 pixels. I kept a close eye on the file size and was pleased to see that it was very small even with 9 layers and 16 frames. When developing Web pages, I try to keep the file sizes as small as I can without degrading the image quality. Photoshop's Save for Web & Devices feature is very handy for that purpose.

Jagella

billbenson
10-05-2008, 05:52 PM
Have you played with any opensource photoshop like programs Jagella? inkscape and gimp are two that seem popular, particularly gimp. I'm wondering what you can do on photoshop that you can't do on gimp or others?

cbscreative
10-05-2008, 07:07 PM
Welcome to the new hangout, Joe, good to see you found us.

I'm one who likes Flash if used corectly. One thing bill mentioned that is both true and false is file sizes using Flash. If you import video or bitmap images into Flash to create the animations, it will have a larger file size. If you use flash itself to "draw" the animation and the elements in vector format, your file size will be smaller. For example, SteveB's 133k animation could be brought down using Flash. I can't be sure of exact numbers, but I will guess it could be below 40k (maybe well below that).

Here is one reason why, and also a good reason to learn Flash. When you have an animation such as a running dog and cat, the act of running could probably be reduced to about 5 or 6 "symbols" which can be repeated like frames. Symbols are graphics that can be used several times in an animation without increasing the file size. You could then repeat the running while the background moves on a separate layer as a single object to keep file size down and create a smooth movement.

I do recommend installing that Flash program you have. Once you get past the initial shock stage of wondering what everything in the program is for, you will find it quite useful, especially when you see the differences first hand over gif.

As for the question in this thread, I touched on that at the beginning here. Animation has its place when it serves a purpose. This example for SteveB demonstrates that.

billbenson
10-05-2008, 08:49 PM
Interesting point you make steve (cb) -gotta qualifiy which steve around here- that flash can be optimized or created differently to have a smaller file size. It makes sense but I never thought about it. Good point.

Jagella
10-05-2008, 11:08 PM
I think you really did a good job there.

If my head gets any bigger it'll explode. :D


Flash vs gif: Remember a flash video uses up a lot more memory and cpu resources.

In that case simple animations may be best left to the GIF format. Use Flash for more complex effects that cannot be done using GIF graphics.

Thanks for the feedback, Bill.

Jagella

Jagella
10-05-2008, 11:21 PM
Hi Steve:


If you're interested I came across a post on creating effective banner ads not too long ago. I'm not sure if you'd want to specialize in that or not, but I can see where it could become a valuable service for small businesses.

Right now I'm working hard on learning to create digital illustrations and paintings. I love to do that kind of work, but it does require a lot of talent. Perhaps coincidentally I was able to use a cat illustration in Steve B's animation that I created months ago for educational purposes. It just goes to show how much the different disciplines of graphic design are interrelated.

Anyway, I'd definitely consider creating banner ads as an offering. I try to be flexible in my work and do work I may not normally think of offering.

Jagella

vangogh
10-06-2008, 12:10 AM
I bet you find the more illustrations you create, the more they end up in your design work. I use digital images I capture from time to time.

I think offering banner creation would make for a good service. They are something small businesses use, but likely don't have the talent in house to create.

Jagella
10-06-2008, 11:03 PM
In about 2002 I bought a book on Flash - a "Sams teach yourself" book.

There's always a zillion books out there to learn software, but I'll check that one out.


Had a really good Valentine's day though

Was it better than Flash, Bill? :D


On a basic level it wasn't to difficult to learn.

If I can learn Dreamweaver 8, Photoshop CS3 and Illustrator CS3, then Flash CS3 shouldn't be too much of a challenge. It'll be a while before I get to it, though. I realize this is a Web management forum, and Flash is an important tool these days for Web development. However, right now I'm focusing my efforts on graphic design and illustration.

Jagella

Jagella
10-06-2008, 11:10 PM
There is however potential to improve it i think.

If there's one thing I know about design, Joel, there's always room for improvement.


In this case the animation sits about half on and half off the bottom of the page, on a 15.4" Widescreen.

I thought that might be a problem. Isn't the multitude of different computers out there the bane of Web development? Obviously, the site visitor can always scroll, but some Web designers advise against pages that require scrolling, especially horizontal scrolling. I don't know what else could be done in this case, though.

Jagella

Jagella
10-06-2008, 11:15 PM
It would be interesting to know what % of people use laptops.

Laptops may outsell desktop computers in 2008 (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080103-2008-could-be-the-year-laptop-sales-eclipse-desktops-in-us.html), Steve. They're a force to be reckoned with.

Jagella

Jagella
10-06-2008, 11:24 PM
Welcome to the new hangout, Joe, good to see you found us.

Actually, Steve B found me at the “old” forum, Steve. He encouraged me to visit this one, and who am I to decline such an offer?


If you use flash itself to "draw" the animation and the elements in vector format, your file size will be smaller.

I drew most of Steve B's animation illustrations in Illustrator and pasted them into Photoshop. Does Photoshop increase the file sizes of those illustrations when changing them to pixels?


I do recommend installing that Flash program you have. Once you get past the initial shock stage of wondering what everything in the program is for, you will find it quite useful, especially when you see the differences first hand over gif.

I'll need to put it on my to-do list, Steve. Thanks.

Jagella

cbscreative
10-07-2008, 12:16 AM
I drew most of Steve B's animation illustrations in Illustrator and pasted them into Photoshop. Does Photoshop increase the file sizes of those illustrations when changing them to pixels?
The answer is yes, but one benefit to Adobe having bought Flash is that it now integrates better with Illustrator. Since you created the drawings in AI, you could easily import them into Flash as vector objects and convert them to symbols. This would keep your file sizes low.

Your question does remind me of a change Adobe made in PS and AI. PS does preserve vector info so the image can be scaled up without pixelation if it was originally a vector object. I haven't played with this feature, so I don't know what effect it has on file size. As for output in gif, that will be the same regardless of the size of a PS source file. Flash has a file size advantage because it is a vector program, which is further enhanced through its symbols feature.

To help understand why symbols are so powerful in reducing file size, they are only stored once in the file, and you can reuse them as many times as you need with almost no increase to file size. A walking character is a perfect example. You will only have a limted number of positions to create the walking motion. With symbols, each of these can be repeated and looped which greatly reduces the file size compared to creating "frames" in a traditional animation. Every frame adds significantly to file size. Repeating symbols requires only what is needed to "tell" them to repeat, which is very little.

Let me put this a different way since it might still be confusing. Using a walking character, let's say the walking requires 5 postions to create the walking motion, and the character takes 3 steps. With symbols, you loop these 5 positions 3 times and only repeat the 5 positions (symbols). So you really still have 5 symbols. With frames, even though there are only 5, you still have to repeat them. The same 5 frames are repeated, but you need 15 frames to take 3 steps. That means 3 times the file size over a one step animation. With symbols, you still have only 5 no matter how many times they repeat.

billbenson
10-07-2008, 03:44 AM
Your question does remind me of a change Adobe made in PS and AI. PS does preserve vector info so the image can be scaled up without pixelation if it was originally a vector object. I haven't played with this feature, so I don't know what effect it has on file size.
Steve, what versions of PS does this apply to?

I'm lousy at graphics and am certainly not artistic, so I would be inclined to do a lousy version of what I want and hand it off to a designer who can do a good version; be it a logo or animation.

That leads to the question of what should you expect from the designer (of the graphic or animation). If you pay someone for a logo, gif, or flash fiile, what should you expect from them as "source" so you can take your business elsewhere if they aren't providing the services you require?

cbscreative
10-07-2008, 01:57 PM
Bill, I believe the vector info embedded into a PS file if it is imported from AI or vector format was new to the CS3 version.

On your other question about source files, anything bitmap like gif or jpeg is always best if the source file if the source file is Photoshop (psd). The jpeg format is "lossy" meaning every time it is saved, even at max quality settings, it loses file info (like makking a copy of a copy of a copy). The psd format allows you to keep the original integrity of the file so it can be saved as gif or jpeg. Flash files should always be .fla or it is not the source file. Logos that are not in ai, cdr (CorelDRAW), or vector pdf are not really logos. There is also eps which can be vector, but they can sometimes be problematic. I prefer ai or cdr as source files. People who design logos in Photoshop are a joke on the business owners who hire them. It's OK to include a Photoshop version of a logo, but it should NOT be designed using Photoshop.

billbenson
10-07-2008, 03:41 PM
So to clarify Steve, if I give a JPG or gif to a desisner I should expect back a psd in vector format? I would assume that CorrelDraw is not as highly used and I might not be able to find other designers to modify it as well as an Illustrator file.

Files saved in PSD are only PS files or Illustrator uses the same extension?

cbscreative
10-08-2008, 01:26 AM
Bill, Photoshop saves in PSD format by default. Illustrator saves in AI format and CorelDRAW saves in CDR format. CorelDRAW, as you already mentioned, is not as commonly used. Many designers shun it, but I think that it deserves much more respect than it gets (admitting you like CorelDRAW in a group of professional graphic designers invites questions about your sanity). I not only like CorelDRAW, I prefer it most of the time. It also handles AI files very well, both in creating them as an export option, and reading them as an import option.

To further clarify your question, if you have a high resolution JPEG, it is best saved as a PSD (still bitmap though) to keep it from degrading like it would if it were resaved as a JPEG (copy of a copy). If your JPEG or GIF file is best saved as a vector, it would need to be "recreated" or "redrawn" in Illustrator or CorelDRAW. In order for the PSD to contain vector info, it has to be a vector image before it is brought into Photoshop.

I think a brief explanation of vector vs. bitmap may also be needed here. Let me use a simple triangle as an example. In bitmap format, the triangle looks good as long as you don't enlarge it. If you enlarge or zoom in, you'll notice "steps" on the angled sides. The larger you make it, the bigger these "stepped" edges become. If the triangle is vector, there are 3 "points" with straight lines between. No matter how much you enlarge, the lines between each point stay straight, and there are no steps or "sawtoothed" edges.

billbenson
10-08-2008, 04:51 AM
Then, why is a vectorized drawing done in PhototSop considered to be so much poorer in quality than Illustrator? Since PhotoShop does so many things including vector drawings, why is the quality of the vector graphics considered to be so much poorer? I guess they want the designers to buy Illustrator but...

Also, what would you require as a client for a designer. An AI file?

And as I'm thinking about this, If I give a graphics designer a logo, which is usually fairly simple if you look at most logos, in bitmap. What should I expect to pay to have that converted to vector?

cbscreative
10-08-2008, 02:23 PM
Then, why is a vectorized drawing done in PhototSop considered to be so much poorer in quality than Illustrator? Since PhotoShop does so many things including vector drawings, why is the quality of the vector graphics considered to be so much poorer? I guess they want the designers to buy Illustrator but...

Also, what would you require as a client for a designer. An AI file?

And as I'm thinking about this, If I give a graphics designer a logo, which is usually fairly simple if you look at most logos, in bitmap. What should I expect to pay to have that converted to vector?
To my knowledge, a vector drawing cannot be created in Photoshop. Even though the capability of CS3 "remembers" the vector data, it is still creating a bitmap of your image. The vector data is used if you want to increase the dimensions of your image without pixelation that would occur without the vector data.

Pixels are the tiny squares that form the image you see on the screen. If your image is 300 pixels per inch (ppi) and the image is 1" wide, there are 300 of these squares. At the 1" size, the image will look clear because the squares are so small you don't see the "sawtoothed" edge. If you increase the width to 5 inches, the image still has only 300 squares, but each square is now 5 times larger, and you will now see a noticeable sawtoothed edge.

Vector uses "points" with lines drawn between points (lines can be curved or straight). When you increase the dimensions of the image, you don't get the sawtooth because it is still points with lines that scale perfectly regardless of the size of the image.

If you import a vector image into Photoshop and it stores the vector info, then my example of increasing the dimensions above to 5" would increase the 300 pixels to 1500 pixels to prevent the sawtooth that occurs without vector data. This would naturally increase the file size, but it keeps the image quality.

On your question about what you should expect from a designer, I provide logo files in the following formats: PSD (large size so it can be scaled down without pixelation), GIF, PDF, AI, CDR (CorelDRAW), and PDF. You may notice that JPEG is not on that list. First, a JPEG (or any other bitmap format) can be created using Photoshop. Second, logos typically have "blocks" of color so GIF is the better format. JPEG is best when you have many colors like a photograph has.

If you have a bitmap logo and need a vector, it probably would be around $50 (maybe less) to "redraw" it. I base that off the fact that logos should not be very complex. If it's just two circles overlapping or something really basic, it could end up taking longer to fill out the paperwork than to actually do the drawing. Something like my logo would be a little more because it takes more time.

We've strayed off a bit on the original topic, but I think this info may help a lot of people who may be wondering about about the differences being discussed. At the very least, it will help you determine what best suits a certain need, whether it's animation or a logo. There are designers out there who try to pass off Photoshop files as logo design, so it's good for every business owner to know to avoid being taken in by that.

Jagella
10-09-2008, 11:12 PM
To my knowledge, a vector drawing cannot be created in Photoshop.

That's true, Steve, but Photoshop does offer shape layers that are created with the Pen tool and that can be edited with the Direct Selection tool. These shapes come complete with curves, anchor points, and direction handles. It's very similar to what you can do in Illustrator although not nearly as powerful, and unlike Illustrator, these shapes are made up of pixels and are resolution dependent.

Getting back to my animation, I traced Steve B's dog in Illustrator, and then copied and pasted it into Photoshop to set up the animation. Come to think of it, I suppose I could have used Photoshop’s shape layers and tools as described above to trace the dog. In that case I wouldn't have needed Illustrator, of course. Since I have both programs, though, I use whichever one is most appropriate for the task. Tracing is much easier to do in Illustrator than Photoshop.

Jagella

Jagella
10-09-2008, 11:24 PM
Have you played with any opensource photoshop like programs Jagella? inkscape and gimp are two that seem popular, particularly gimp. I'm wondering what you can do on photoshop that you can't do on gimp or others?

I've heard of Gimp and Inkscape, Bill, but I've never tried them. I understand that they're powerful programs.

What can Adobe products do that these “free” programs cannot? I've used some of Serif's products, and they're remarkably powerful for the price. They offer some of their older software versions for free (http://www.freeserifsoftware.com/). I've used DrawPlus 7, a vector program like Illustrator, and it can do most of what Illustrator can do. In fact, it can do some things Illustrator cannot.

So what's the catch? As far as I know there's not much documentation for these programs beyond the manual and Serif's forums. Adobe products have truckloads of books and online tutorials. And if you want to study graphic design formally, your school will probably require Adobe products.

Jagella

billbenson
10-10-2008, 05:50 AM
Jagella, the motivation for gimp and inkscape is not as much "free" as I'm investigating converting to linux - not just because its free. Free is good though, and I'm finding that a lot of the free programs are as good or better than the pay equivalent. FireFox is a good example.

The problem is that pretty much across the board, the open source programs are more difficult to install and have less documentation and tutorials.

It's interesting that Illustrator is such an industry standard and as you stated above easier to use for vector. Although I'm not that artistic, if you hear of anything that is good as a vector program and works with linux I would be interested. I'll take a look at the software you recommended above.

Its not surprising that you used more than one program for this animation. From the programming side, a typical web page I write, I use Excel, a text editor, DW, and a PHP editor (Zend).

vangogh
10-10-2008, 01:08 PM
Bill, I don't know too much about Inkscape, but the GIMP is a pretty good program from what I understand. Odds are it'll take care of most your image editing needs. It's aim is to be an open source Photoshop. I think documentation for it is good too, though it's not going to be as much as Photoshop. I would think it has some vector tools built in as well, though maybe not th full range of them.

cbscreative
10-10-2008, 01:47 PM
I can't speak for quality/capability and have no experience with it, but just as a suggestion to try for open source vector, it seems to me that Open Office has some kind of drawing program included. I don't know for sure, and have no idea of Linux compatibility, but it might be worth checking in to.

Jagella
01-03-2009, 10:57 PM
I can't speak for quality/capability and have no experience with it, but just as a suggestion to try for open source vector, it seems to me that Open Office has some kind of drawing program included. I don't know for sure, and have no idea of Linux compatibility, but it might be worth checking in to.

I've used OpenOffice Draw. (Original name, don't you think?) It's a good program, but I haven't used it much. I'd recommend any person who wants to learn basic vector drawing to give it a try. You can't beat the price because it's free.

Jagella