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.""

Comments

Adobe knows UI design?

[Waccoon]

I'm still using 5.5 most of the time because I didn't like the last major overhaul with 6.0.

Re:Adobe knows UI design?

[solios]

I've been using 5.5 for the last several years - a forced upgrade from 5.0, as 5.0's SMP support didn't work under the G5, and 5.5's did. Now I'm forced to make a hard choice : Upgrade to OS X 10.5 and trade Photoshop 5.5 for Photoshop CS (forget CS2 or CS3, I like the idea that photoshop should load sometime today), or stick with OS X 10.4 and Classic, which gives me Photoshop 5.5, Illustrator 9, and a couple of other apps that just are not nearly as fast in "native" versions.

I hate the hell out of the PS 6+ interface - the top bar, the fact you have to reconfigure tablet settings for each individual brush if you make the mistake of clicking on a different sized one instead of dragging the slider, the POINTLESS changes to keyboard shortcuts, Adobe's petulant refusal to follow the OS X HIG and actually listen to apple-H by default (you can force Photoshop CS to actually "hide" with the proper command, but other Adobe apps aren't so lucky - After Effects, to name one), the fact that swapping or saving with a huge (a few hundred megs to a gig or so) file will make iTunes or VLC skip (doesn't happen with 5.5 in Classic, in part because Classic's memory limitations won't allow the app to eat anything over a gig, no matter what it's doing)..... and the type tool (in CS, at any rate) is horribly, horribly buggy under OS X. It worked fine on my coworker's box for months but then suddenly started behaving like my install has all along - it'll show the first few characters of text during editing, but if you actually want to see the type you're inputting, you have to stop editing and treat it like a layer.

Oh, and on top of all of that, CS does one thing that 5.5 doesn't - it crashes.

Never mind a new UI

[CrackedButter]

Allow photoshop to multitask. I cannot believe that still in 2007, with my Macbook Core 2duo with 3GB of RAM, I cannot edit images while I am using my scanner. Why can't photoshop scan negatives in the background while I work on other images in the foreground?

Re:Never mind a new UI

[TheNetAvenger]

Allow photoshop to multitask. I cannot believe that still in 2007, with my Macbook Core 2duo with 3GB of RAM, I cannot edit images while I am using my scanner. Why can't photoshop scan negatives in the background while I work on other images in the foreground?


Why are you using Photoshop to scan images in? Use another tool like iPhoto, Windows Scanner, etc to scan in your images so you can continue to do other work in Photoshop.

I know a lot of imaging applications like Photoshop provide direct 'import/scanning' options, but with OS built in utilities that do scanning automatically, why 'reach through photoshop' to get to your scanner.

PS I agree more of Photoshop needs to be threaded out better with its UI and is one reason I often find myself in other applications for simple edits.

Another thing that 'kills' me is that Photoshop won't allow itself to run multiple copies at a time. This is like some crazy hold over from the 1980s single application metaphor.

Less powerful editing software like Corel Photo-Paint behaves like a modern application, and I sometimes will go back to it because I can have 5 or 6 copies of it running at the same time and working between them. What is so hard about the idea of having more than one copy of Photoshop running at a time?

Re:Never mind a new UI

[fbjon]

There is no reason at all to have several copies of the exact same exacutable code run on the same processor(s). It's much better to reuse the code, and let it run on different data, in separate threads if you need. Having several copies of the same app in memory is merely an ugly hack to gain functionality that already should be in one copy app itself.

Re:Never mind a new UI

[TheNetAvenger]

There is no reason at all to have several copies of the exact same exacutable code run on the same processor(s). It's much better to reuse the code, and let it run on different data, in separate threads if you need. Having several copies of the same app in memory is merely an ugly hack to gain functionality that already should be in one copy app itself.


I both agree and disagree. There are applications that YOU SPECIFICALLY want running in their own process space. For example a buggy application, to even simple constructs that are batch processing thumbnails to other tasks.

As for Adobe Photoshop, yes Adobe COULD design the Application to break the MDI interface so that it could run multiple copies and tie to the original applicaiton loaded in RAM. Many products do this that HAVE broken away from older MDI concepts like MS Word, Excel, etc. They run multiple instances, and yet share portions with the 'initial' instance ran.

Not everyone works the same, and people are acting like wanting a few copies of an application running is a crazy request, when in fact the whole multi-application UI design of modern OSes 'encourages' this behavior, as it is more intuitive for newer UI concepts that users are just starting to move to, even though OS/2 and Win95 tried to get users out of the old Application to Document mentality and move to a Document mentality with Applications seen as tools that attach or work with the documents.

Just like the world processor days, everyone saved their documents inside the word processor folder and their spreadsheet files inside the spreadsheet applicaiton folder. People are FINALLY moving away from this concept, but there is STILL a long way to go.

If you understand this, then you don't open your wordprocesser to type a letter, your create a black 'document' on your desktop, name it and then open it, and whatever word processor you are using launches for you. You should never even see or use save or open dialog boxes 99.9% of the time. And this was something Win95 tried to move people towards, and yet today the majority don't get this simple idea or shift in thinking.

PS Running multiple copies of program are not ugly hacks, this is in fact an essential part of OSes like NT and UNIX. If you look at it from a server standpoint, there is a reason why code processors launch separate and multiple instances of themselves, so one users script or html page won't be crashing another users.

Understand?

please don't

[deathtopaulw]

this is a bad idea for 2 reasons:
1) those who use it for real/business reasons will have to completely relearn the interface
2) it will make it easier for untalented idiots to post their bullshit "art" all over the internet

John Nack is correct

[eebra82]

John Nack's ideas are correct. Photoshop still has a lot of problems but the UI is definitely the worst part. Today, this application is where Office 2003 stood a few years ago. Everything was cluttered and Microsoft needed to redesign it badly. They did a great job with Office 2007, and I picture something similar with the next Photoshop.

I sincerely hope they will implement a skinnable UI. Not that I dislike the current theme, but somtimes when I work with really dark pictures, I would prefer a black menu, not grey. In fact, it would make sense if the UI could adapt its colors to the picture you're working on (user's choice function only, of course). Sometimes the menus are incredibly disturbing because they break the pattern.

Re:Just don't change shortcuts

[AgNO3]

No GIMP SUCKS I try it every new version. Please you can't even easily change brush sizes and spacing without digging down through several windows. F that. I do this all day every day. I try all the new programs. I even used Film Gimp on a couple of movies because it was my only choice to paint in 32bpc. F THAT. I am so sick on NON PROFESSIONALS saying how good gimp is. OK maybe for some web bullshit but not for real retouching, pre-press or video work. Jesus I can load film clips right into photoshop now do my paint fixes on my FRAMES in a video layer then kick them back out and right into SHAKE OR NUKE OR FUSION OR FLAME. Do that in Gimp. Obviously for pre-press its useless since no CMYK OR SPOT COLOR support. Really just shut the fuck up I am sick of reading this bull shit. I have been doing retouching longer then anyone on slashdot I would bet. Started doing physical image retouching with perless water colors in the 80's then Imaginator workstations in 1988. GIMP BLOWS. I hate adobe I still use Live picture as much as I can. I was part of the Design Team for xRes at Macromedia. I know what I am talking about.

Photoshops UI, from an Expert.

[killmofasta]

ok. I want to quality myself as an expert. I have used Photoshop since it was Barney Scan XP. I have been certified twice to teach photoshop, and have taught classes on expert photshop. ( Color models, the layers interface and channels ). I had a hand in the design of the UI for a photoshop competitor, and worked for a year doing UI design/QA on it. ( and compairing to how photoshop worked and/or didnt work. )

The interface for photoshop has devolved to the point that when they bring out a new version, You NEED to buy the help book. Hell, I do! Things just are so far from being intuitivly obivious, and the guys doing UI design, they used to be good. The early versions from 1.0.7 to 5.5.1 were all fine, but 5.5.1 started to get a bit messy. By CS1(PS8) they were a bit cleaner, but you spent most of your time, thinking that the tool was somewhere else. I remember that I put a note on my wall, as to where I would find things just to rememind me how they had changed. Dont forget that Photoshop 6s color models were extrodinarlly powerfull. You can still do wonders with color control though the workflow, but again, they missed on the UI/explaination. Integration of ImageReady was a tragic mistake.

So many things could have been made easier, and now a simpler UI is a feature? Sucks Less? Suck how much less? Why did tney screw it up in the first place? FEATURE BLOAT, just like Microsoft word. How hard is it to manage a system of alacarte appliations? Its like Linux trying to integrade the webserver into everything, Like I.E.s integration into windows. Im going to stop here, beause I feel like smashing my computer.

You want to see simple? Look at Coyote Linux. Simple, small does its job well. a 4k web server!

Adobe get a CLUE! But the only way they make money is to redecorate the feature list...exactly how car companies sell new cars with diffrent tail lights. every year... diffrent tail lights.

Cocoa?

[lisaparratt]

I wonder if this has been catalysed by the need to move from Carbon to Cocoa for future versions of OS X?

Re:Good News

[NekSnappa]

My first reaction to your post was, "but command lines don't work well with graphics programs." But then I thought about how I use Autocad. I've been using Autocad since 1988 or so. At the time there was a side menu, and a command line. The side menu could be turned off to free up screen space (a 17" EGA monitor was a still a pretty big deal on a PC back then), and since every command was available through the command line you were still good to go. Now over the years with the conversion to GUI based versions on windows, and the people coming into the trade who have only ever used GUI based OS'es. They all want to do everything by clicking on a menu to get at the command. While I still know all of the 2 letter shortcuts for the most used commands. I keep my right hand on the mouse, my left on the keyboard, and can work away without having to keep moving the cursor away from the part of the screen where I'm working. Makes things so much faster. Oh yea, and now I've got dual 19" displays.

Re:Don't let him near it!

[4D6963]

This guy uses underlines for things other than links on his web site.

Haha, despite how irrelevant this comment sounds, I had to think the same thing. That guy had me rolling over his underlined text to make sure these weren't links, and he's talking about rethinking a UI.

By the way, is it just me or is Photoshop CS3's interface perfectly fine and that guy sees issues where there aren't any?

Re:Inspiration for new UI

[kiddygrinder]

gimp doesn't need a redesign, it just needs a more moddable interface, that way everyone can be happy.

Re:Good News

[Anonymous Coward]

Not showing the user functionality they don't need is good IMHO.

My years of work in a college computer lab can tell you that you're wrong. As the user sees it: if there isn't a menu entry for it, it can't be done. Nobody will "search" for things they don't believe are possible. Now, a search option might help the user navigate menus in order to find a feature that they've seen before, but if they've never seen it, they won't know to search for it.

Re:Inspiration for new UI

[keithius]

I agree. For all the MS bashing that we all do, they did put a lot of work and UI research into designing the ribbon. I mean, they tracked what people were using, what buttons (of the multiple buttons/menus/keyboard combos that could be used) they clicked, and so forth.

That counts as more than due diligence in my book, and is a great example on how to re-design a UI for a mature product with lots of features. Look at what people are actually using and then figure out ways to make it easier and more intuitive to do these things. (And then test the hell out of each design iteration with real users and large-scale public betas.)

If Adobe took the time & effort to actually research their user base before re-designing the UI, I think it would be a good thing, regardless of whether they used an Office 2007-style ribbon or not.

At this point, anything would be an improvement... IMHO, of course.

Re:Inspiration for new UI

[GiMP]

I'm repeatedly annoyed by these calls for an "easier" interface. As others have said, the Gimp 's interface is quite 'moddable', tearable menus, tearable toolbars, configurable shortcuts... In my opinion, a lot of the "improvements" made to appease the Photoshop users have largely made Gimp 2.4 an unusable mess compared to earlier versions, especially for long-time Gimp users.

If I had to complain about the Gimp compared to photoshop, the interface would be the *last* thing I would change. The first thing would be adding CYMK, the second thing would be layer effects (ala photoshop's layer shadows, etc)

-- A gimp user since 0.99

Re:Inspiration for new UI

[freemywrld]

I'd like to know if any industry professionals are using Gimp, just like professional programmers use open source development tools. I've never heard of such a thing...

I used to work for a small design firm. All the graphics and web folks (including myself) had Photoshop because it was central to our jobs, however, other groups like Marketing were switched to GIMP in order to reduce costs. It was decided by management that paying for under-utilized Photoshop licenses was a waste of money. Everyone would have swtiched to GIMP if it offered the needed capacity and features of Photoshop that were needed by the design groups.

Photoshop, my love....

[PhantomHarlock]

I learned very early on that Photoshop's current UI is excellent if you have two monitors. It is horrible on one monitor. This is a critical point that most people trying to use it on one monitor seem to miss. You need one screen for your image and the other screen for EVERYTHING ELSE.

I have a nice workspace saved with all the winlets / pallettes broken out and filling up the second screen. Even the new top bar that they have in CSx I put on the right screen across the top, since it is detachable / dockable.

As another user commented, I am surprised by how good and how well thought out Office 2007's interface is. Usually when you try to contextualize stuff you end up making it frustrating for power users. This has not been the case with Office so far, and I could see Photoshop trying something like that.

The big pitfall to avoid is making it difficult for power users to have access to all the features all at once. I have every palette activated and arranged on the second monitor, so I have instant access to anything I want at any time. The most used pallettes are on the left, near the edge of the screen that crosses over to the primary monitor.

Keyboard shortcuts are also key with photoshop, as others have mentioned. There are some REALLY obscure ones, such as CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-E to put a flattened copy of active layers into the current layer, but I use that one ALL THE TIME, less so now with the advent of adjustment layers but still frequently.

I have used Photoshop for everything from broadcast television graphics to high end photo retouching and photo collage work / print layout design. It's like an extension of my being at this point. It will be interesting to see where they go with it. :)

--Mike