We have been spending a lot of time lately puzzling over a very simple question:

Is there a "Macromedia experience"?

Which came first: Tools or ideas?
Do you believe that your designs have discernible, describable qualities that have led to better experiences than were possible with traditional web and desktop applications?

In the best examples of "made with Macromedia" sites and applications that we've seen, the depth and directness of the user interaction and the richness of the feedback provided to the user goes well beyond anything else on the web. While it may be hard to describe in objective, measurable terms, we think the kind of experience we're talking about is easy to recognize… you know it when you see it.

Obviously, an important source of this "quality without a name" is the consistently high level of design and development talent that is attracted to our tools. But that doesn't explain why you've selected Macromedia products as your tools of choice. Are you attracted to Macromedia tools because of the great experiences you are able to craft with them? Or, do these tools produce great experiences simply because they have fallen into such capable hands?

One answer lies in the qualities of the platform itself. Just as very different forms are enabled by construction in steel (long span orthogonal bays) than by construction in brick and stone (arches), the things you can build with our tools provide experiences that are qualitatively different from those produced in Visual Basic, C# or HTML.

Architects are able to build conventional buildings in steel, but they are also empowered to develop new forms that uniquely address the requirements set before them. In a sense, that's exactly what's happening today within the community of Macromedia developers and designers. Freed from many of the limitations of traditional "building materials", you have created new conventions that go beyond the limitations imposed by other tools.

Identifying traits of the Macromedia experience
As we work to understand the experiences that you've created, we begin asking deeper questions. If we can identify and even formally define the salient characteristics, can we capture them, package them, and bake them into our platform and tools? Are these great experiences completely dependent on the talents of the author, or can we identify recurring design patterns that can help bring the creation of these experiences more into the mainstream? Can we help everyone achieve consistently better results by documenting best practices and providing enabling technology in the form of components, frameworks, and tools designed to make it easy to create a great user experience?

You know a Disney experience when you see it. Every aspect is carefully crafted for maximum effect (without ever crossing the line that would make us uncomfortable). The Disney experience is powerful in its depth and consistency. Walt Disney created policy for those experiences—policies that have been faithfully followed for years.

You know an OSX app when you see it. And you have certain expectations for the consistent quality of the Mac OSX experience. Some really talented people on the Aqua team worked for a long time to describe the Apple experience down to its smallest details. The experience is quite good (at least I am a fan), but it's proscriptive. The Apple experience was carefully crafted, heavily branded, componentized, and integrated into their tools. How did we end up with a Macromedia experience without even trying?

Macromedia + you = the Macromedia experience
We can't just suddenly commit our tools and platform to a single unified look and feel. The freedom to create and be innovative is at the heart of Macromedia's appeal. So looking deeper, beyond color or effect, is there some underlying factor that is so fundamental to the truly great experiences that we can bottle it?

Our experiences, the ones you create, seem smoother than comparable experiences on other platforms. They flow like a good movie with carefully crafted transitions. Contrast this with the disjointed, compartmentalized, flat presentations that make up most of the web.

Our experiences seem more alive or aware; they respond to the viewer. They bring the viewer in; they convert information and media from isolated elements to something more satisfying, more complete.

Our experiences are more engaging, more entertaining; occasionally they are even more informative. To take the point as far as I think I can get away with, I'd say that our experiences actually inspire.

We have relied on you in the past to help guide our development efforts. You've shown us new ways that our tools and platforms can be used—concepts we never imagined when we originally set out to build them.

We could really use your help here. How do we bottle these experiences? How do we ensure that the creation of consistently great experiences is possible for a greater number of people and, by virtue of that, share these experiences with more people? How do we accomplish this without compromising the flexibility that gives you the freedom to be as innovative as you have consistently proved you are? Let us know how you feel by participating in our Online Forum.

In the coming months we will be pondering these questions. We are a company whose reputation is built on great experiences; especially the great experiences that people like you create. Anything we can do to extend the reach of those experiences is obviously good business for us, but we also believe it's good for you.

As we move toward these goals, the innovation and energy that surrounds these great experiences will in turn cause the pioneers of those experiences to be challenged to innovate even more – and we know how you all love a challenge.