Adobe to Unclutter Photoshop UI 403
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.""
Inspiration for new UI (Score:4, Funny)
(I kid, I kid)
Re:Inspiration for new UI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inspiration for new UI (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Inspiration for new UI (Score:5, 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.
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.
Re:Inspiration for new UI (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Inspiration for new UI (Score:5, Informative)
Between trivially-reassignable shortcuts and tearable menus, the GIMP UI is already pretty darned "moddable".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inspiration for new UI (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I had to complain about the Gimp compared to photoshop, the interface would be the *last* thing I would change. The first thing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inspiration for new UI (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And we shall cal it... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Inspiration for new UI (Score:4, Funny)
I've spend over 15 years figuring out; they can't spring a new interface on me just like that!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, they need to make it more like the GIMP :-) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wht would they drop CMYK ? (Score:5, Funny)
---> Sarcasm.
Adobe knows UI design? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate the hell out of the PS
Never mind a new UI (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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/scanni
Re:Never mind a new UI (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I can really see why thanks to that post.
The Gimp doesnt chew nearly enough memory to be the best photo editor.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 sim
Re:Never mind a new UI (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
A well-designed app today should not be modal; it should be multi-threaded, be capable of performing multiple tasks at once, and never bug the user with confirmation dialogs when an undo
Re:That is not Photoshop - that is your computer (Score:4, Funny)
You have leftovers from your apples? (Score:2, Funny)
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!
That is not Photoshop - that's your computer...not (Score:2)
Photoshop's scanning seems to be modal for arbitrary reasons. Whether you want to scan to disk or scan and edit then with f
Re: (Score:2)
Modal dialogs are there for when you don't want the user doing two things at once (e.g. "no you can't edit the image because I'm still in the middle of saving it"). If you're working on image A then why shouldn't you be allowed to have image B scanning in the backg
Good News (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good News (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the answer to this simply to have sensible defaults pre-set? The power users will figure everything out. For everyone else, start them off with a static solution that's been pre-designed to be easily comprehensible.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good News (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not showing the user functionality they don't need is good IMHO. Not allowing the user to put it somewhere where the user wants is bad. Moving it on them every 30 seconds is insane. The key is that searching for functionality is fundame
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, Photoshop has several different modes and I believe they can be modified and new modes can be added. Those modes remove certain functionality a
Re: (Score:3, 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
Those design thoughts in brief (Score:2)
Yes, no, yes, no, yes, yes. Unfortunately 3. and 4. are direct contradictions
The Original comments [adobe.com]
Re:Those design thoughts in brief (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
please don't (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:please don't (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Ribbon (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried office 2007 beta, and really liked it. I don't see why I should replace my current office XP though, since that still does everything I want.
That's the problem I think, good as it is, it's expensive, and thus for most people, not good enough to warrant dumping something that still works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing about it that I haven't seen prior art for is that these tabs replace the menus(sometimes badly). Plenty of people have shown prior art for tabbed toolbars from several programs though. Whether or not it can hold up in court is totally dependent on the judges bias though isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be "sympathy".
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like the "Add Fonts" dialog in Windows? I think they've forgotten about it since 3.1. When I had Vista installed, I didn't check - did they update it?
Finally, it happens... (Score:5, Funny)
I've always wanted... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
because real software giants (Score:2, Funny)
Just don't change shortcuts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
MOD PARENT TROLL (Score:2, Insightful)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Only one or two graphic designers ever need to do anything in CMYK or need to use Spot colors...
Keyboard shortcuts? (Score:5, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
needs more wizards (Score:4, Funny)
Back to basics? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 agai
Re: (Score:2)
+1 inf
@GP, flexibility is always going to be more important with such things, if you don't want to move your pallets don't, but what about all the people that do. No one should be so arrogant as to assume that their way is best for everyone, give people choice whenever you can.
I did regularly have to move pallets around to work properly, testing the new CS3 UI I found I didn't have to as much, they really did a good job with that.
Photoshop is used for countless
Long, long overdue... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
John Nack is correct (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Easy fix... (Score:2)
PaintShopPro? (Score:2)
The interface isn't very good at all, but that's what I know, and once you get used to a system you get used to it. Many end-users (including businesses) don't have the time and/or effort (as has been stated previously) to adapt to a new interface. However, the marketing department is always looking for new customers often moreso than supporting the existi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I'm mainly using PSP-X myself. The GUI is, at least, nicely consistent. The fact that PSP-X's scripting/macro system is all Python is very handy too if you happen to be a Python programmer
I do find though that when aunts/uncles/grandparents want to do a little dabbling in image processing, PSP-7 is a very good bet. Not the most powerful beastie for sure, but the interface is relatively non-threatening and, in my experience, n
Photoshops UI, from an Expert. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Take a note from Flash (Score:3, Insightful)
UNLIKE FLASH MX.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the context sensitive rubbish that the later Flashes added; I liked my tools to stay where they were, and I also liked to set unapplicable properties when I have a certain object selected. (I think that you can't change some of the stroke properties or fill properties before you select the
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Naked Light (Score:2)
Apple only unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks
If I didn't need it for work... (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.
Forget Photoshop, work on the newly acquired (Score:2)
Top 2 reasons I do not use Photoshop (Score:2, Insightful)
#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.
Sounds like an excuse (Score:3, Insightful)
Adobe Notes or, (write the) Help Yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
oh jesus flash UI (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Photoshop, my love.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, 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 [slashdot.org], which describes exactly how Winimages works, is modded +3 insightful. Yet when I posted that we had already done this along wit
Re: (Score:3, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
I really, really hate the current Photoshop UI and I use it nearly everyday.