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...
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 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.
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.
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.
( 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.
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
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