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.""

67 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. Inspiration for new UI by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Inspiration for new UI can be found here

    (I kid, I kid)

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Inspiration for new UI by mpathy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Inspiration for new UI by budgenator · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
      They did and you got it backwards, they made the GTK, Gimp Tool KitMiguel de Icaza, used that for the basis for Gnome. De Icaza used GTK because it was GPLed and the Qt toolkit from Trolltech was free as in free beer at the time. The Gnome supporters started a Holy-war against KDE because of this and now de Icaza is a Microsoft shill, ain't life strange?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Inspiration for new UI by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh god, OH GOD--don't do this to me!

      I've spend over 15 years figuring out; they can't spring a new interface on me just like that!

    4. Re:Inspiration for new UI by moogs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?
    5. Re:Inspiration for new UI by m2943 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Inspiration for new UI by MonoSynth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But they want to stay with their window policy which is IMHO unusable for a image manipulation program. They depend on a non-existent window manager that actually manages windows with distinctions between main windows and toolboxes and menus and stuff. I understand (and agree with) their ideals, but I hate their naivity. Window managers suck, so you need to make your own inside a window if your app demands a good one.
    7. Re:Inspiration for new UI by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 tried to use GIMPshop, but I couldn't use the windows decently. Scaling the windows across multiple monitors required to maximize the window across each monitor. I couldn't set specific windows to stay ontop of other applications or below like I can normally under KDE with the original gimp. It was a utter mess and ended up slowing me down.

      Sorry, I don't agree GIMPshop's UI is superior.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    8. Re:Inspiration for new UI by kiddygrinder · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    9. Re:Inspiration for new UI by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      Between trivially-reassignable shortcuts and tearable menus, the GIMP UI is already pretty darned "moddable".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Inspiration for new UI by Quarters · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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. Yes, yes it would have. If you would read the guy's full blog post you'll see that he's saying the Photoshop UI fails *now*, not that it failed (*now* - x years) ago. GIMP isn't on feature parity with Photoshop 6, let alone CS3. Along with that feature disparity it is encumbered with a clumsy UI. If GIMP would adopt even some of the current Photoshop UI paradigms the adoption rate of the software would go up. Then at some point in the future, when hopefully it has many more useful features, they could consider redesigning the UI to fit that version of the program.

      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.

    11. Re:Inspiration for new UI by glpierce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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
    12. Re:Inspiration for new UI by keithius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Programming is the fine art of making a machine that has absolutely no intelligence act as though it does."
    13. Re:Inspiration for new UI by GiMP · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    14. Re:Inspiration for new UI by datapharmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    15. Re:Inspiration for new UI by freemywrld · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
  2. Good by SnowZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good, now can you do Acrobat next?

    1. Re:Good by mtmra70 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you used the latest version of Acrobat? It is VERY different than any other version.

    2. Re:Good by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hang firefox regularly?

  3. yes, they need to make it more like the GIMP :-) by dominux · · Score: 5, Funny

    the Photoshop UI always confuses folk like me. They should drop CMYK support while they are at it.

  4. Adobe knows UI design? by Waccoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Adobe knows UI design? by solios · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  5. Never mind a new UI by CrackedButter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Never mind a new UI by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Another thing that 'kills' me is that Photoshop won't allow itself to run multiple copies at a time. Photoshop takes up A LOT of memory. It does not just take it - it reserves it for its own personal use.
      Where are you going to get that other 95% of physical memory for your next instance of Photoshop?

      Running multiple Photoshops for multiple images... that is insane. Or running multiple PhotoPaints. Those are not Word or Notepad.
      Those are heavy-duty graphic editing programs.

      You do know that you can open and work on more then one file at a time?

      5-6 copies of PhotoPaint at once?
      Fuck... I have to print this - nobody will fucking believe me.
      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:Never mind a new UI by killmofasta · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reason to run multiple copies is to scan and work at the same time. ( Scan, Edit, Print ). I run multiple copies at the same time, on diffrent machines. ( image production stations are set ups as ( fast littke hD space for scanning( I used the bunduled scanner softwarem, but there is also an educational versions there, from when I was a studient), EDIT is the fastest( 1st copy of photoshop upgraded from 1.0.7, Medium HD space, Print is slowest( Second copy of Photoshop purchased new ver 5.0.4), and a slow machine with an increadible amount of space for versions, backups, and FTP. ( No copy ).

      I can scan and print while Im editing. and clients can browse the FTP site and can see work in progress.

      Set yourself up right, and you can do a lot. ( Oh.. btw, the scanbox, printbox and server are all 1U sustems. They all fit under the 10/100 hub. ) The EDIT station is a 4U unit, and its all rack mounted. My Main screen is a SONY 21" and my tools pallette is some old bezarre IBM flat screen.

      I am thinking of upgradeing to Photoshop CS2, but they want a lot for the upgrade, and I figure that IF I need to do raw color work, more than I am, I can get CS2 for like $250.

      Did you ver think to scan into Photoshop Elements? or have ImageReady still installed?

      Oh.. The reason you cannot run multiple copies of Photoshop at the same time? Two actually, 1. When its running it has to have full access to the graphic drivers for performance reasons. You want Photoshop to run as fast as possible right? When you switch it to backround, it freezes the GDI, and realeases its exclusive hold. Same with the file system your swap drive is on. It takes almost direct control of the filesystem on the swap drive, again for performance reasons.

      Also scanning. Oh Jeez this is going to get technical...ok...There are two types of Photoshop Plugins, PIMI and PITI. The PIMI plugins all run inside of Photoshops memory space. A PITI plug in can allocate memory space outside photoshos memory space. It used to be that KPT powertools, and Mr Sa'ki's plugins were the only PITI plugins besides... ready? Scanner plugins. Scanner Plugins and the TWAIN interface have to be PITI plugins because when an image is being scanned, photoshop cannot allocate the memory for it from its space beforehand. Its left for the PITI plugin to allocate memory dynamically while its scanning. Ever notice how scanning a file, and saving it is a LOT slower than opening a file and saving it? And its not just the scanning part thats slower. its because a PITI plugin does not have full access to the filesystem. Did you get all that?
      There are now 4 plugin types. but its not pertinant to this discussion.

      BTW, everything I know about this technology I learned from the author of Mr Sa'ki's plugins.

      You are running a seperate HD for swap space arent you? Yes?

    3. Re:Never mind a new UI by fbjon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    4. Re:Never mind a new UI by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

  6. Good News by bazald · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. Re:Good News by wrook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sure if this is really on topic, but I fee like rambling...

      With respect to forcing users to switch between different modes, one of the things I find irritating about modern software UI design is that... well, that it's *designed*. Some guy (or girl or whatever) sits in a room and decides what I'm going to be doing.

      In the (good) old days, there was no fancy pants GUI. You had a command line and a shell. And you chained together useful tasks through the shell. When you were in "find a file" mode, you just used "find" and piped it through some filters to do what you wanted.

      My feeling is that these large applications are cluttered and bulky *because* they are designed to work in an integrated way. Instead, the functionality should be separated and the *user* should choose what they want to see and when. If the user wants a "photo touch up" mode then the user can create a mode for it and put all the "photo touch up" tools in it.

      But this becomes very complicated. Asking the user to create modes from thousands of features is ridiculous. So the application shouldn't show the user anything that they don't already know how to do. When the user wants to do something new, the application should teach them how to do it, and then the functionality should be available. Before that, it's invisible. Once the user knows how to use the functionality, they should put it somewhere.

      "Modes" and "known functionality" should be transportable with a configuration file that the user can take with them on a USB key. That way you can go to your mate's desk and have it work the same way it worked on your desk.

      I guess the key for me is that my software should work like my kitchen. I should have the tools I want, where I want them, when I want them. I don't care how great a kitchen designer you are. My kitchen is set up how *I* want it. Maybe I'll hire you to come in and give me pointers. But I *don't* want a predesigned kitchen with tools that can only go in one place.

    2. Re:Good News by NekSnappa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    3. Re:Good News by Illserve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the application shouldn't show the user anything that they don't already know how to do. When the user wants to do something new

      MS Office does this, with menus that hide unused menu options.

      It is THE WORST innovation in UI design that I can think of, off the top of my head.

      The user wants consistancy more than anything else. The UI should not evolve or change with the user because invariably, the developer will change it in ways the user doesn't expect.

    4. Re:Good News by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I can certainly understand why you might want to work that way yourself, I think there might be a few practical difficulties with applying your reasoning more generally.

      For one thing, you mentioned effectively training the user on demand when they need to do new things, but both before-the-fact training and after-the-fact on-line help or support calls work much better if the context is consistent. I notice that the Microsoft Office team — who, for all their sins, are pretty careful about their user interface and actively collect feedback — have moved in exactly the opposite direction. The magic hiding menus feature was pretty much universally slammed, and with Office 2007 they've gone for something much less customisable than before. And despite the bitching on Slashdot because they're Microsoft and they changed something, I've yet to meet someone in the real world who didn't say they preferred the new version after a little time getting used to it.

      A related point is that for all the UI customisability in many modern applications, almost no-one actually uses it. Simple things like setting up styles and templates in word processors or presentation packages are ignored in favour of ad-hoc formatting. Personally, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that UIs make it easier to just click the big, bold B than to go through several steps to create a style called "strong emphasis" and ultimately... click a big, bold B to define what that style means. This doesn't mean that styles aren't much more powerful. It doesn't mean the facility isn't important: try finding any large business that doesn't require some Marketing-designed official company template be used to give a consistent look to their slideshows! But it does illustrate that a typical user today prefers simple tools they can readily understand to more powerful tools they have to configure first. It would be a brave company that designed a user interface against that principle. They might become a spectacularly successful company if they got it right, but they'd still be brave to try!

      For what it's worth, I think the hardest point of designing a user interface for any widely used application is balancing the learning curve with ease of use for power users. You can make everything use hand-holding wizards and one-step commands, but that gets in the way of experienced users who already know they want a certain combination of effects without spelling them out every time. On the other hand, even if something is easy to use and much more powerful once it's been configured the first time, requiring that configuration step can be a big hurdle for the novice. I've always thought the ideal approach would be to have the powerful underlying model based on configuration, and then to make the hand-holding stuff for new users just a front-end that leads naturally into doing everything the more powerful way, so as users gain experience it becomes the normal way to do things without there being some specific point when you switch from "novice" to "power user". Of course, I don't get to design user interfaces for products that make half my company's entire revenue stream and have hundreds of millions of users so I'm a little unqualified to comment on the practicality of this theory. :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Good News by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On that note, from TFA:

      "By leading people to best practices, we can start deprecating (and later removing) outmoded functionality."

      I totally HATE when apps do that. It's exactly like you say about mutating menus -- what they hide or remove is invariably something I use every day, but now have to either dumbster-dive** for, or find a workaround to replace. This is one major reason why I've become very reluctant to upgrade my major apps.

      ** "Dumbster-dive": having to root around in the bowels of the UI to find the necessities they've hidden from us in the name of dumbing it down for their notion of "typical" users. Here's a clue, folks -- some apps, and I suspect Photoshop is one of them, have NO "typical" users, because everyone uses it for slightly different jobs, along different workflow paths. And some users do so many different things that they have NO "typical" workflow, so no matter how the menus mutate, they will ALWAYS be wrong for the use of the moment.

      (This is why one of the first things I do with WinXP is turn off the fucking "customized start menu" shit!)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  7. please don't by deathtopaulw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:please don't by RuBLed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

  8. Ribbon by Poorcku · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since I started with Word 2007 (using it on a daily basis) i must say, the ribbon is one of the best new features of Office. It saves me a lot of trouble and it is very intuitive. Maybe that is a good place to start. (now bash me for my Office simphaty :)

    --
    I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
  9. Re:Those design thoughts in brief by afd8856 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    #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...
  10. Finally, it happens... by inflex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Must have been all the people in their forums bitching that their interface needed to be more "GIMP" like ;)

  11. I've always wanted... by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What I've always wanted is for Photoshop to use several windows for editing! One for tools, another for layers, another for the image, etc. The way Photoshop is, I can't use my window manager to manage the different components of the interface, and that bugs me. I'm unaware of any graphics editing software that does this.

  12. Re:No one? by coldcell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Holding chairs? Modern taskmasters hurl chairs. Far more efficient.

    --
    Launchy.net changed my world.
  13. because real software giants by wwmedia · · Score: 2, Funny

    use a ribbons!

  14. Just don't change shortcuts by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Just don't change shortcuts by AgNO3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    2. Re:Just don't change shortcuts by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could you please reword that, without accusations or obscenities, so that your complaints may be addressed? I'll even file the bugs if you'd like.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  15. Keyboard shortcuts? by ThePhilips · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. needs more wizards by binarybum · · Score: 3, Funny

    yes, photoshop is lacking in the wizards department. A few random wizards that pop up second-guessing what you're trying to do and that ask a bunch of silly questions ultimately resulting in the automatic execution of only two or three possible outcomes. Maybe they could even hire clippy to solicit help by drawing upon a database of five or six different help-topics incessantly.

    --
    ôó
  17. Back to basics? by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Back to basics? by Doctor+O · · Score: 2, Informative

      The whole floating windows and palettes system is fiddly and pointless. Quoth the guy who obviously is working on a single-screen layout. Most professionals use two or three screens, and if I can't place the palettes on the second screen, all that space is unused. Floating palettes are *good*, but I agree it should be an option for those left in the dark ages or working on the road on their Macbooks.

      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. To get fullscreen in Photoshop, press F. Hide/show palettes with Tab. I'm sure there are menu entries, but I do most commands via the keyboard.

      Professional systems in the past have had this approach, full screen canvass with a palette. Think Quantel Paintbox and the like. And Photoshop, see above. Then again, comparing Photoshop to a Paintbox is like comparing a Lada to a Ferrari.

      An artist does not want to have to keep shifting windows around. I agree, and I haven't seen anyone shifting windows around for years, except for the initial setup after getting a new machine with a new version of Photoshop. Then again, I'm only working with professionals who have professional screen setups. Even the road warriors with their notebooks leave their preferred palette positions alone and switch them on/off via Tab.
      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
  18. Long, long overdue... by owlnation · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  19. John Nack is correct by eebra82 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  20. Re:That is not Photoshop - that is your computer by jimicus · · Score: 3, Funny

    To you, "dual core" is what you've got left over after you've eaten two apples.

  21. Re:PaintShopPro? by mingle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  22. Photoshops UI, from an Expert. by killmofasta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  23. Take a note from Flash by Kamineko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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. ._.

  24. Don't stop at the UI. by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."
  25. You have leftovers from your apples? by denzacar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kids these days...

    In my time, we were lucky if we had any apples, let alone two.
    Two apples? Only for a birthday. If you have been good the whole year. Maybe.

    Throwing away perfectly good apple core? Vandalism!

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  26. Cocoa? by lisaparratt · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  27. Re:User configurable image editing? Ah, yes... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh yes, it certainly is "offtopic" to talk about an already existing configurable interface on a commercial image editing program in an article about a commercial image editing program's luminary writing about contemplating and preparing for a change to a configurable interface. Um-hmm. The humor is beyond the moderators, I'm sure. :-)

    But what is even funnier is that this post, which describes exactly how Winimages works, is modded +3 insightful. Yet when I posted that we had already done this along with an invitation to try it for free... zap. You gotta love the mouth-breathers.

    This, people, is precisely why you need to read slashdot at -1. It certainly is why I read at -1.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  28. If I didn't need it for work... by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  29. And we shall cal it... by monopole · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...PhotoGIMP!

  30. Top 2 reasons I do not use Photoshop by mtmra70 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    #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.

  31. Sounds like an excuse by DJoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ( 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.

  32. Re:Don't let him near it! by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  33. Adobe Notes or, (write the) Help Yourself by andrewagill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:Wht would they drop CMYK ? by segedunum · · Score: 4, Funny

    ---> You










    ---> Sarcasm.

  35. oh jesus flash UI by Peganthyrus · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you dig a little, it sounds like they're planning to rewrite most of the UI in Flash. Say goodbye to performance and to looking like a native citizen of your machine. Flash itself went down this route and its CPU requirements have increased astronomically.

    I am really, really keeping an eye on the emerging world of OSX-only lightweight image editors that leverage Core Image. The first one to merge a decent UI (which rules out Pixelmator and its fetish for illegibly-transparent palettes) with something akin to PS's adjustment layers will get my $30-75.

    --
    egypt urnash minimal art.
  36. Photoshop, my love.... by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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