Xara on graphics.com

**zaphodeist** · 07 April 2008, 09:22 PM

Just to point out - if you don't know already - graphics.com have a link to the new Xara on their newsheet. No review, but " highly recommended" ... good eh??

Found review on their site ... D'OH!!

***EDITED

**Xhris** · 08 April 2008, 04:06 PM

While the review praised version 4, the review was clearly slap-dash and rushed.

"Thus, also related to speed are new non-destructive photo editing features, which Xara claims are 10 times faster and result in files 10 times smaller than "other graphics tools." While this is promising, it would have been instructive for Xara to specify exactly to which "other graphics tools" they were referring."

Erm, did they not actually read the part of the website showing this? The image showing Xara compared with CD, AI and PS is literally right next to the text they read. It really does give a devastatingly loud sign of poor 'review-manship' to see this kind of thing in a review, where the reviewer clearly lacks basic observation skills--a skill that is somewhat key to being a respectable reviewer.

**zaphodeist** · 08 April 2008, 05:40 PM

It's true what you say. I was amazed though to find anything about Xara on that site.

**Xhris** · 08 April 2008, 07:20 PM

I don't quite understand the criticism about the new Xara site. It seems quite logical to me. Across the top is the main toolbar with the different sections of the site. Below that is the headline advertising the new Xara version. Below that is an efficient headline discussion providing general information about what's new and what makes Xara stand out. Below that section is a summary of popular material such as other products, and news etc. This is all on the home page. On the top toolbar, there is then the place where you can download it, followed by a detailed features list. Next is video demos, followed by galleries of output. The next two buttons deal with buying and upgrading; the upgrading section has a list of what's new since the last version--a perfectly logical place for that kind of information to be. Less popular material is covered by the latter buttons.

Often when I see people criticising a website, it's usually just a subjective expression of opinion. What I never see is what's actually more useful: a good, objective explanation of what could be improved, with a sound, logical explanation of why the suggestion would improve it. In other words, criticisms have almost always fallen flat and given the host a somewhat shaky credibility.

Here is an example of an objective criticism about the website: The succinct summary of the new version in the table below the headline section on the home page could stand out better if the black background object it sits on were coloured more distinctively from the page background colour. As it stand now, both blacks blend in too much and the lack of distinction can initially cause confusion due to loss of focus.

Contrast that with what's been said in recent time: "Oh, the website is just awful! It's ugly and confusing and makes my eyes hurt and makes me queasy and where are all the new features and who's idea was it to make it all black? Only porn sites are all black! Xara is clearly going down the tubes, and it's all Magix's fault. As soon as I find better software, I'm leaving Xara behind. Let's see if this site is like this in 6 months!! When I open a website I expect to find everything I'm looking for without me having to even look. And why are there all those flash videos telling me what's new? They're like adverts that get in my way and are distracting!! And where are the videos telling me what's new supposed to be? They should be there without me having to look."

**ss-kalm** · 08 April 2008, 07:24 PM

I'm with you Xhris, I thought it was a wonderful update to the site. I couldn't find anything wrong with it.

**zaphodeist** · 08 April 2008, 07:44 PM

I wasn't referring to the Xara site in post #3, I meant the graphics.com site where I don't think I've seen Xara mentioned except in a download link. I think the new Xara site is fine.

**Xhris** · 08 April 2008, 07:58 PM

Heh, I guess the lesson is to never use a pronoun before it's been defined--something I'm getting increasingly aware of myself when I check my own writings.

**zaphodeist** · 08 April 2008, 09:02 PM

Correct

**covoxer** · 09 April 2008, 06:53 AM

From my experience, graphics.com was usually quite aware of the Xara. I've seen Xara reviews there. One curious thing I remember, is that many years ago, in times of XaraX or X1 maybe, there was a poll on graphics.com on the best vector drawing software. One of the five positions was Xara, and it finished third after AI and CD if I remember well.

**masque** · 09 April 2008, 07:23 AM

It's worth mentioning that the Xara gallery on graphics.com is one of the most viewed, certainly more frequently visited than the Illustratior and Corel gallery as well as a number of others, though not Photoshop, which reflects better on Xara than many reviews as it seems people seem to like looking at the pictures produced in xara at least a little more than from other vector applications.
As regards the new Xara site, I think its a great improvement, clear easy to navigate as well as providing, as you would expect, an advertisement and information for Xtreme and a gateway to further help and information about the product for new and existing users. Compared too many, a joy to visit.
Derek