Can anyone confirm if building prototype in FIGMA is better to check the design,
than Thunkable Live and Testflight?
I have yet to see a good example of a workflow that starts with Figma and ends with Thunkable. I haven’t had much success trying it myself.
Probably depends on the use case @stefansladdeneng1 - I really like Figma for user flows and wire-framing but still do all the functional prototyping in Thunkable.
Figma is also great for creating device art, visual assets for your app etc
What sort of use case do you have in mind for it?
Well the basic challenge i have is the the way Thunkable is displaying an app during the development
The design tab is not att all exact. You have to guess where to place things.
Thunkable live is compressed and does not either show anyway near reality.
When finally using testflight one have to wait until apple has reviewed the app before I can see the result in reallity.
So, the question is more about, IF create a basic app in figma using their template, and then importing it to thunkable, will that give a more exact result in the design tab ??
Do you understand what i mesn…?
Stefan
Ah, I understand now @stefansladdeneng1 - are you using Layouts in your designs? These allow you to specify, to the pixel, where a component should be placed
Well… I want to be able to design and view live what is happening and how the design is impacted when i do changes. Thunkable live is compressed and not that detailed for the user to view that do that.
Testflight is more accurate but i have seen example that there is one result on screen when designing in you compure, and another in Thunk ölive and a third in Testflight. And finally when publish - a fourth version is shown.
I do not think the layout works 100%. The ambition si good - But sometimes i get the feeling it is much more difficult now than it was before, in appinventor appliucation
A new concept where new emulators (like thiunkable live) is available and show accurate design would be a great thing…
Testflight and the published version should be identical - would be very strange if not, have you shared an example of this already by any chance?
Unfortunately, Thunkable Live will alway appear slightly different due to the bottom bar that Apple requires us to have, and we the compromise is to use a slightly slower testing method (i.e Test Flight)
In my work flow I use web testing to rapidly mock-up an app, Thunkable Live for device specific functionality only (location sensor, BLE etc) and then Test Flight for client feedback/approval.
Even then components like push notifications and IAP will take additional time to integrate, but I’m glad at least that the first couple of phases of development are so rapid.
Can you share a UI that you’re having issues? I’m finding them to be quite powerful, but they can take a bit of work to get them dialled in.
You start by using web testing to rapidly mock up your app. This allows you to quickly iterate and visualize the overall design and functionality. For device-specific features (such as location sensors, BLE, etc.), you rely on Thunkable Live. This helps you test and fine-tune these functionalities directly on the target devices. Autodesk AutoCAD LT 2017 special offer. When it comes to client feedback and approval, you switch to TestFlight. This method ensures that the app behaves as expected on real devices and provides a more accurate representation of the final product. You mentioned that components like push notifications and in-app purchases (IAP) take additional time to integrate. These features are crucial for enhancing user engagement and monetization.