Slashdot Mirror
Adobe to Unclutter Photoshop UI
spotplace writes "It's not common to see a company blast their own product for failing to adapt to times and people's necessities, unless they're trying to give you a reason to buy the latest and greatest of said product. That's exactly what Adobe has done. John Nack, senior product manager at Adobe, says the old Photoshop interface doesn't cut it anymore: "I sometimes joke that looking at some parts of the app is like counting the rings in a tree: you can gauge when certain features arrived by the dimensions & style of the dialog. No one wants to work with — or work on — some shambling, bloated monster of a program.""
Good, now can you do Acrobat next?
I'm always glad to hear of a serious attempt to clean up the user interface of a major application. All too often, keeping an interface clean comes second to keeping it similar to how it was in the previous major version. As it sounds like they will be splitting the existing functionality between modes for different classes of tasks, I just hope they don't mess up and force their users to continually switch between different modes to do everyday tasks.
Insert self-referential sig here.
1) This one is inevitable, everything changes sooner or later. Same with old arguments related to old interfaces.
2) We would not have a shortage of this one. But at least they could make it a notch or two better than bs, either way I'm sure the talented ones would improve also...
#3 Means "provide good defaults so regular users don't have to mess around with UI customization".
I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
Photoshop is one of those apps where the users (at least the ones who tend to pay for it), graphic designers etc. are usually power users who spend all day with it and make heavy use of keyboard shortcuts and are used to its quirky interface. Changing too much of the UI at once could affect the productivity of a whole lot of people. Not that it matter too much since photoshop is the only choice for them so they'll just have to learn it again but still...
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Few Photoshop profis I knew in past were telling to work effectively in Photoshop (or any other similar application for that matter), you need to learn (1st) keyboard shortcuts and (2nd) plug-ins menu.
It always seemed to me that Photoshop professionals were unfased by the clutter of its GUI.
In many aspects, Photoshop is optimized for several workflows and most newcomers work solely within one of such workflows: steep learning isn't much of problem then.
But probably do-it-all freelancers would be happy with cleaner simpler interface...
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
The whole floating windows and palettes system is fiddly and pointless.
I used to use TV Paint on the Amiga, when you opened up an image it opened pretty much full screen except for a palette on the right. You could hide this with one keypress.
Professional systems in the past have had this approach, full screen canvass with a palette. Think Quantel Paintbox and the like.
An artist does not want to have to keep shifting windows around.
The irony that this product is THE most used among design professionals, and is itself an ugly monstrosity, designed by committee, very badly.
This has needed to happen for a very long time. Although it does mean that those of us who are professionals are probably going to have retrain to rid ourselves of the esoteric plethora of keyboard shortcuts we've had to learn to use over a long period of time.
Just one personal gripe about PS in case anyone from Adobe is reading -- why on Earth are the dialog boxes modal? When I open up a dialog box, decide that I need to move the picture underneath to see it better (since dialogue boxes are all sizes under the sun), but I can't do that can I? No, I have to close the dialog box, move the picture, and re-open the dialogue box -- that's just plain dumb!
Like most people out there, I love what I can do with Photoshop (and most other Adobe apps) but I despise the product. I would jump ship tomorrow for a better product. I don't doubt for one second that I am alone. Adobe needs serious competition. Considering the preposterous cost of their apps, and the fact that they don't make them well, I don't really understand why there's not a long list of competitors, those guys can't be the only ones who know how to code this type of application.
Hi rackrent,
You're not the only one - I too use good old PSP 7.04.
After many years of Amiga graphics software - still remember those days fondly - I gave PSP 6 a try and then moved to 7.04. I tried PSP 8.x, but it was getting to look too much like PhotoShop - which I always found to be a bloated, whale of a program. So PSP 7.04 it is! I can do 80-90% of what PhotoShop can do and 110% of what I need.
Long live PSP 7.x!
And to all those harden PhotoShop users who're quaking in their booties at the thought of a redesigned GUI - just stick with your current version! Just because an app gets updated doesn't mean you NEED to upgrade, particularly if it does what you need it to!
I read the article and I was sure, to find a GIMP joke here - because the UI of Gimp is really a bad joke ;)
There was already a good GUI redesign - but because this guy was ignored by the GIMP developers (which are not really open-minded) he started "GIMPshop" - http://www.gimpshop.com/ - a picure can be found via Google Picture Search.
But they want to stay with their window policy which is IMHO unusable for a image manipulation program.
I don't say that GIMP should orientate on Adobe Photoshop.
But at least it should also do a complete redesign of the GUI.
For a complex program like that they also shouldn't go to tight with the Gnome UI definitions, it is completely okay to go the "blender way" - a own UI for a program like the blender 3D program.
Ubuntu, a terminal, Python and Slashdot. Thats all you need.
I really, really, really, REALLY hope the have the option to switch between any new UI they create and the old one.
._.
UNLIKE FLASH MX.
Anyone who's ever had a look at their plug-in SDK can tell you that the UI is the least of what they need to overhaul
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I've always found Adobe's programs useful, but for some reason I've found their interfaces to be counterintuitive, messy time-wasters. PhotoShop is just the worst of a truly horrible bunch in that respect. I absolutely love what you can do with images in PhotoShop, but I can't count the number of times I've had to get up and walk away from the computer in a rage because something that should be dead-simple is buried where no sane person would look for it.
I can't wait to see what the re-design looks like. I only wish to hell they'd asked me first. Not that I'm a world-class expert, it's just that I have a feeling some guy from Adobe sneaks in every so often and has Audition or PhotoShop or Acrobat report on how I use them just so the next version can piss me off all over again.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
you know what would be cool? it they could rework the UI based on Microsoft Office 2007. I know, i know, m$ is evil, blah blah blah, but hear me out. well, i just like it. i mean, i know i know, menu bar blah blah blah, but i've used office for years with the standard bar menu and got used and in fact, very familiar to it. then i switched to office 2007 (i got it for free, so figured might as well). the initial learning curve was there, obviously, but after you figured it out i just hate going back to the standard menu bar type. same with photoshop. if they could make a big ribbon thing at the top, with the mostly used commands highlighted, yet make getting to the lesser used ones a breeze - even if you don't know where something is, you could figure it out in office2k7 - then i see many many people using photoshop. heck, my mom got into typing and stuff because she loved office 2k7 - "it's so easy". i'm not ms fanboy, but i gotta say office 2007 is one of the good things that came out of redmond. of course, that's just IMnotsoHO
I have bad karma. What do I care what you think?
#2 The crappy interface
#1 The zooming with the scrollwheel does not work as I expect it to and I have not seen any options to customize it to my needs.
Those two reasons alone keep me from using it and staying with Paint Shop Pro.
( a thinly veiled one at that ) to cut down on features as a pre-cursor to moving to their subscription based purchasing. A snr level spokesperson at Adobe laying the groundwork for cutting down on their development budget. The subscription based model means they remove the requirement to innovate continually to get new sales and produce revenue, as with subscription model revenue is a constant stream whether they release new versions or not. Win win for the corporation/shareholder, lose lose for the end user.
but because this guy was ignored by the GIMP developers (which are not really open-minded) he started "GIMPshop"
The purpose of GIMPshop was to "replicate the feel of Adobe Photoshop". Well, Adobe just told you themselves that the Photoshop UI sucks. So, clearly, redesigning Gimp to be more Photoshop-like would not have been a good way of improving it.
I don't say that GIMP should orientate on Adobe Photoshop. But at least it should also do a complete redesign of the GUI.
Phrases like "a complete redesign" generally just indicate that people have no idea what's wrong or how to fix it; they are not helpful. In fact, I see no indication that the Gimp needs a "complete redesign". What it needs is dockable palettes and better multi-window handling. If you can identify other *specific* problem areas, please do so; but comments about "complete redesign" are bullshit.
I think what most Photoshop users don't like about the Gimp really is that the menu entries and shortcuts are so different from Photoshop so that they can't find anything. Well, tough. The Gimp menu structure is no worse than the Photoshop one, and Gimp users are used to it. At least the shortcuts are much easier to change on the Gimp than in Photoshop.
I just loaded up the GIMP, made a new image, clicked on the brush icon and changed the brush size. You know... the one that was right fucking in front of me on the default menu. I know most of that other garbage in your post is not in the gimp, but we've heard that same old shit so often before I think every slashdot user could tell you now that the GIMP doesn't have CMYK or have a whole bunch of filters that like one or two graphic designers actually use and no one else never needs. "Teh gimp suxors" posts are getting really old so just drop it please. And I am so sick of some photoshop fan boys coming around here constantly bashing GIMP because it's not an exact duplicate of their precious little jewel photoshop. Don't like the GIMP, I have a real simple answer for you: DON'T USE IT.
Incidentally, I find it delightfully ironic that every GIMP article some photoshop fan boys come out saying the that gui on the GIMP needs to be more like photoshop. Well, here's mud in your eye -- the ui on photoshop isn't perfect either. Hell, I've known that ever since I started using photoshop. Maybe you're just too indoctrinated in the Adobe way to notice any more.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Sorry, I don't agree GIMPshop's UI is superior.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
First, there are good window managers. The Mac OS X one is pretty good, for example, and the Gimp UI would fit perfectly in there (in fact, it's the same as the Mac version of Photoshop). There's no taskbar to screw up, the application menus appear at the top of the screen, and having each document in it's own window makes sense there. Bring a document window to the top, and all the tool windows come with it.
Linux WMs are OK, although in both Gnome and KDE you end up with a lot of useless entries in the window switcher, when you really only need one per document. The Gimp is fine on Linux, but not nearly as good as it can be on Mac OS X.
Windows' WM is an abomination - it does absolutely nothing, leaving the entire burden of managing windows with either the user, or the application developer. It's "optimized" for having one single program open at once, taking up the entire screen.
Second, the single window approach is terrible. It completely screws up multiple monitors by restricting the app to a single monitor, and prevents you from actually using more than one program at a time.
Trying to distill down the Adobe blog post to "they said their UI sucks" is at worst childish and at most a gross misinterpretation of what was said. Adobe has admitted to evaluating their program, it's features, how it's used, and how they can work to make the underlying features of the program more accessible within different workflows. This is something the GIMP developers have been asked to do for years. Yet, all they've ever shown is a lack of desire to adapt or a stubborn disregard of any constructive criticism that has been offered.
Did anyone else see the Adobe Notes thing? John Nack basically admits that Adobe's help system is useless and wants you to write notes to remind you how to do things in Photoshop.
Here's a practical example. Let's say you go into Photoshop's Unsharp Mask dialog box. "Amount" is straightforward, but what the hell do "Radius" and "Threshold" mean, exactly?
I don't know, but you know what should be able to tell me? The help system.
"I think what most Photoshop users don't like about the Gimp really is that the menu entries and shortcuts are so different from Photoshop so that they can't find anything. Well, tough. The Gimp menu structure is no worse than the Photoshop one, and Gimp users are used to it. At least the shortcuts are much easier to change on the Gimp than in Photoshop."
Tough? There are a lot more people using programs like Photoshop than using GIMP. If the goal is to have them switch, you have to address their needs. GIMP is not successful because it's a superior product, it's "successful" because it's free, and people are willing to make sacrifices to save money (and yes, I'm sure there are five people who'd love to point out that they switched because they think GIMP is better, but that's hardly helpful). GIMP will be surpassed by a more user-friendly program if the attitude is "we have all the users we want". Unlike Firefox, which was always commended for its ease of use, GIMP has long been criticized for its interface (even by its own users). Oh, and for the record, I hate Photoshop's interface as much as I hate GIMP's (I'm a long-time Paint Shop Pro user).
G
. In fact, I see no indication that the Gimp needs a "complete redesign". What it needs is dockable palettes and better multi-window handling.
That's what window managers are for.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Gimp is not the same as photoshop on OSX! It isn't the windows, it is the clunkiness of the tools. The tools are unresponsive and the floating windows interfere with each-other making it hard to work. Placement is BAD!
Gimp and Photoshop should both take a look at Paint.net It is open source and should be ported to other OSes. It is by far the best photo editor for the novice to prosumer. I can do most things I commonly need to do professionally with it. Even though it isn't a replacement for photoshop yet, I can see how it could be in the future.
Sure, it has some problems of its own, but comparing the development time, the Gimp Developers should be ashamed of themselves and the Photoshop folks should be retired by now.
Your soon to be -5 Friend,
Datapharmer
Get a web developer