Comments on: Putting video inside the Photoshop UI

By: Martin Briley

Martin Briley — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:11:38 +0000

It’s not that this feature doesn’t have potential; but it shouldn’t be necessary much of the time. A well designed GUI does not require video to show you how to use it, yet the most basic tasks in Photoshop are often buried in obscurity.
[Examples would be helpful. In any case, Photoshop is used for an enormous variety of tasks. Its tools and commands can be combined into an essentially unlimited number of combinations. It's unrealistic to think that all of these would be self-evident through the GUI at a glance. --J.]
And there should be a moratorium on new features until THE UPDATERS ARE FIXED once and for all. Then again, that’s a Mac-version-only problem, so we won’t hold our breath…
[No, it isn't Mac only. The {series of profanities} installers and updaters are an embarrassment. --J.]

By: T. Schmidt

T. Schmidt — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:37:17 +0000

In the prep guide it says you get a welcome kit, eventhough it’s a re-certification?

By: T. Schmidt

T. Schmidt — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:23:23 +0000

The main problem with being new at Ps is that the “Help Viewer” isn’t very well done, missing many terms Ps uses entirely. How bout working on that first?
[We are. --J.]
CS2′s “Help Center” was at least speedier, automatically entering the searched term in the Cmd+F box, to help the user finding the actual content on a crowded page of the help text. Another example for Ps’s declining usability. Put your videos in there and out of the app that’s dear to us. Oh and what’s up with deleting File>Jump To?
[We didn't want to keep throwing resources at testing integration with a discontinued app. --J.]
Trying to make sure we can’t use ImageReady CS2 with PsCS3 so we are forced to buy Fireworks for Rollovers, animated gifs and such? A sad development.

By: Ann Shelbourne

Ann Shelbourne — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:48:56 +0000

Brilliant, Jim!
That exactly encapsulates my worst nightmare and I am much relieved to see that John has no intention of taking us down that route.
[And he had better not have …!]
:)

By: jimhere

jimhere — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 07:52:14 +0000

I actually agree that it's be OK to have learner-videos somewhere. I just hope that Adobe pays saleries to "healing Brush" type efforts first. I noticed that John replied to most of Anne S's points except he was silent on ...And if your plans include any thought of giving us a GUI that resembles Lightroom's in any way — just forget it right now! so I figured I'd see what it would look like. I just had a baby, [Congrats!! We're T-minus one month exactly. --J.] so I had some five-minute blocks over the weekend. I made this mockup of what I suspect PS wants to look like: http://homepage.mac.com/jimpogo/psLR/ It's Flash so it stretches and clicking or mousing over things show my comments. IS this the future, John? (I prefer CS2 obviously) [Hah--that's pretty funny, Jim. Short answer: No, we're not going to take a very general, flexible application and start inserting steps where they don't exist today. The PS and LR architectures are different, and PS isn't comprised of a series of modules. We can, however, offer the ability to show functionality based on context. We can make it far easier to say, "Okay, Photoshop, I want to perform the following; show me just what I need to get the job done." If people often feel overwhelmed & want to know "the right way" to get things done, we need to take those concerns seriously. That does not mean we have to tie the hands of people who like things as they are today. It also doesn't mean I'll be popping up in your toolbar! ;-P --J.]

By: T. Schmidt

T. Schmidt — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:04:41 +0000

Also want to add this:
1. Those happy with the new GUI, could you give concrete examples like us others do? I’ve never met any of you in real live.
2. J, I’d also like to put any appleness on my list, meaning I want to be able to turn transparent panels, grey area around the panels, shiney stuff, fading windows and other new planned clutter off. Give us some right to decide what we need, please. Pro tools don’t have to look futuristic.

By: T. Schmidt

T. Schmidt — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:55:38 +0000

Phil, I agree with you, that Ps is not designed for one person and that’s why I talk to other users constantly and you are an exception (one person, just like me).
J, the perfect way to make us all happy is to get a professional mode or CS2ish mode with the well, no icons, no pop ups (as a heavy user I can decide what I want, when I want it, don’t need ANY pop ups), no additional Screen Mode. Then you could stuff all the help things into one newbie or learning mode but save us others lots of time.
As a heavy user I’d like to see more customizability towards simplicity, meaning being able to turn all the junk off either at once or better yet separately (well on/off, icons on/off, etc.). This way you’ll have a bigger chance to get your new ideas out as a proposul instead of a must.
Every keyboard shortcut should be customizeable in a pro mode (even shift tab for window switching). Every Screen Mode should be optional. Then I’d only have to customize my workspace once and never worry about it again (which is the basic idea anyway).
The pro mode should be the standard mode of course.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:42:39 +0000

The discussion derailed a bit! It’s not about Photoshop UI, it’s about Photoshop extensibility! :)
The video tutorial in Photoshop is just a commonly understandable exemple of what could be possible with this technology.
It maybe doesnt mean much to most of the users but it’s really a desirable thing for third-party developpers… wich in the end could be developping tools that you will not be able to live without!
As a developper (and also a power user) working on complex project, it is one of my concern that the tools i create for our production needs are not too difficult and use the adequate UI controls for the task(who really likes to enter hexadecimal color in a field box instead of using color picker?). And a it’s a real plus if i can integrate the tool seamlessly in the software (not everybody have 30′ screen).
For my own work, it’s important that i’m able to adress such need without having to go through heavy software developpement cycle (production is now.. not next year) developping a interface in flash is way easier than using ADM in the C++ SDK (or what’s available with Javascript api). More than that, if the interface can be done in flash… the designer i’m developping the tool for can help design the interface at his own taste! Now, it’s interessing!:)
Sure, being able to do such thing (in flash) will not help very much with UI consistency: we know HOW CREATIVE interface designers can be with flash. Too much! But personnaly i think that anything is better than having to switch to desktop and have to double-click on a script! (having scripts in Menu or accesible in a script palette is already an improvement.. but is missing alot of flexibility).
Sure, you can already drive photoshop and have complex user interface by using Visual Basic or Cocoa environnement, but you only get another application OUTSIDE photoshop, just like bridge.
Having a palette (non-modal) in the software is way better and that is why i personnaly see this upcomming feature with great enthousiasm. I surely know what i could do with this!
It’s true that there isnt alot of very high quality exemple available (production worthy) of what’s possible with extensibility (aside from pluggins world).
But to give a exemple from flash world (flash extensibility), go have a look at Grant Skinner work: http://www.gskinner.com/products/gProject/about.php. That is showing a great concern on usability, design and also productivity. I also really wonder why such feature was not implemented in flash already!
As a last exemple, imagine you would have a project (in photoshop) involving documents with few hundreds layers. A search tool could be usefull, no?
What if you could have a developper do it for you in few days (or better download it from someone that did it before) instead of waiting for Adobe to do it (not like you want) in CS8?
There is alot that can be done already (scripted automation/Pluggin SDK had been there for years)… but there definitively a place for more. I almost dream of it.
And hopefully the tool that will be created (with better Photoshop extensibility) will bring back a smile to those that are not enjoying photoshop anymore! ah! ah! :)

By: Troy Stein

Troy Stein — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:21:04 +0000

News flash: you and I may not be an average user.
Consider for a second that we may be different from the average user. I am product manager at another software company. I see computer novices using pro software all the time. They buy pro-level software because *they want to be* a pro. Not because they are one.
I think John’s idea is very well intended to help people become pros like you. Yes a better UI might help them be even more pro-ficient. But, given the size and resources of PS dev team, I think his team could do both.
I for one love the concept. I think video (flash) communicates more clearly and precisely than text does. If only I had an image or video to convey this message, then you could have saved all this time reading. ;-)

By: Ric Cohn

Ric Cohn — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:14:49 +0000

I’ve posted lengthy critiques of the new GUI on the Photoshop Feature Request site, so I won’t repeat them here. I have also listed a few things I actually like about the new pallets (basically that they adjust themselves). I don’t think it’s impossible to improve on CS2, but I completely agree with those who complain that the new GUI is a time drag on many “Photoshop-pro” users. I have heard many complaints and very few Kudos from other professional photographers and retouchers that I have spoken about this with.
Before anyone gets bent out of shape because they don’t hate the new GUI and don’t consider themselves amateurs I’ll qualify what I mean by “pro”. I’m a commercial photographer and a retoucher. I frequently have to sit down at a new computer and start right in using Photoshop. I bring along a USB Drive with my Keyboard Shortcuts and some Actions and Workspaces to help me get around some of the problems with the GUI. It’s not always possible to load these, and it would be better if the defaults for Photoshop hadn’t been so badly broken. In a production environment I need to be fast and efficient so I can concentrate on what I’m really trying to do which is make images. When a program slows me down (even a little) in doing something that is repeated many times in a day it’s annoying. When it used to be better and gets worse it’s very annoying! When problems are pointed out in a “Beta” stage and there’s no chance of fixing things it makes you wonder what a Public Beta (and a Feature Request forum) are for. I’m hoping the feedback I see here will be acted on. Thanks for hosting it.

By: Phil Brown

Phil Brown — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:58:15 +0000

T – I agree that you don’t want to spend more time, but not everyone is spending more time. I find my workflow improved, as do many other pros I know. I’m sure that’s not the case for everyone, but neither is it true that things are worse across the board.
Sure, there’s time spent learning new ways of doing things, but once learned, they are often better / faster / easier. Sometimes they’re not and that’s worth making some noise about (for example, loss of sticky print settings under Windows, which was returned in the 10.0.1 update).
I can assure you that I use PS a lot, both for my full time job (3rd level technical related) and my part time (photography), but certainly not as much as some people (and probably not as much as you).
Once again, I think it needs stressing that this is not an app designed for an individual, but what John is fairly clearly saying is that they want to provide the ability for that to be the case – you will be able to work in various ways, with various preferences and options, and have them saved for you. In effect, you’d be running PS-T.Schmidt while Anne would have PS.Anne and I would have PS.Phil.
Surely that’s worth doing? The alternative is that they need to balance the wants and desires of all users and provide a single path. When that happens, you typically have 2 choices – a general path that doesn’t suit anyone too much, but isn’t too horrible either, or a specific path that suits one group and another not at all.
It *must* be better to go the way of customisation and allowing users to choose their own path through the app, surely?
Anyway, I’m taking up a too much of John’s blog of late, so enough from me except to say: Jim, nice analogy – well said :-)

By: Ann Shelbourne

Ann Shelbourne — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:16:00 +0000

>Meanwhile, the things that we really NEED to have addressed:
(like putting all of the palettes (except Curves) back to the way that they were in CS2;
>[You can't just drag them out (so that they float, if that's what you want), then save a workspace? --J.]
I know that (and do so with Layers, History and Info) but what I would like to see is a return to the “traffic lights”
palette-closing buttons of CS2 or the replacement of the badly designed minuscule palette-controls in the RHS top corners of CS3 palettes.
I also would like to see the return of the Well.
But the most irksome item to me for the way that I work is the design of the history palette. If it is really beyond the capabilities of your programmers to insert a second set of scrollers, please could the Snapshots have their own palette separately from the History States palette. (Obviously the extra Scroller would be the preferable solution.)

By: Ann Shelbourne

Ann Shelbourne — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:33:58 +0000

>Trying to make it easier to use doesn’t mean that Photoshop shouldn’t also grow easier, however.>
What I fear is that your attempts to “make it easier to use” is going to slow Photoshop down;
[I hear you, and we take that concern very seriously. --J.]
put road-blocks (like your abysmal “Maximized Screen Mode” in our way; and fill our hard drives with uncalled-for “Bloat” from built-in Flash tutorials.
[This point bears repeating: I'm talking about customizability. The whole point is to let you bring forward what you care about while removing what you consider "bloat"--and to do so very, very easily. --J.]
Meanwhile, the things that we really NEED to have addressed:
(like putting all of the palettes (except Curves) back to the way that they were in CS2;
[You can't just drag them out (so that they float, if that's what you want), then save a workspace? --J.]
allowing multiple selection of Paths and Channels;
and giving the History Palette that long-overdue second Scroller (so that States and Snapshots can be scrolled individually);
will continue to be ignored.
[Believe it or not, things that seem simple (such as having two scrollers in History) frequently aren't. That's not to say that they shouldn't happen, but sometimes we have to invest a fair bit in the underlying architecture in order to get there, and that's what we're doing. --J.]
And if your plans include any thought of giving us a GUI that resembles Lightroom’s in any way — just forget it right now!
Or give us a way to set our Prefs so that we NEVER have to endure: “Maximized” and its Panels;
a Lightroom-type GUI with dark palettes;
or Flash movie tutorials.

By: T. Schmidt

T. Schmidt — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:42:34 +0000

J, I understand that you THINK the new GUI makes Ps simpler but the problem is, that it doesn't. The one's who haven't used it, can't tell and the one's who've used Ps lose lots of time getting around it. Like already mentioned by others I get the impression that you are less of a Ps user and more of a business man and promoter (and you're probably really good at that). [I wouldn't necessarily agree with either assertion. ;-) I started using Photoshop with v2.5 and spent four years using it professionally every day before I came to Adobe. Since then it's true that I don't get to live in the app as I once did, but I try to carve out as much time as possible to use it (mainly for photography these days). --J.] Can you explain why you force us to use your beginner gimmicks, instead of putting them into a Basic mode? [I don't know what "basic" gimmicks we've added. --J.] You asked for examples: The new Screen Mode, good for nothing, takes additional F hit to avoid. The Tool bar hiding the Ruler origin (0/0) which I need a lot, so I always have to tab it off. The icons, look cute but do nothing else than the Palette well did in a much better less cluttering way, now completely wasted room. [The design is a work in progress. The move from palette well to consistent side-stashing of panels will become a clearer win over time. I grant that there are currently pros and cons. --J.] Panels pop up WHILE drawing a selection line with the Polygonal lasso on both sides of the screen. Why would I want to use a panel WHILE I'm drawing a line? [Good point. We need to add a preference to suppress the auto-reveal of panels, and we should always suppress it while you're drawing. --J.] The curser then adds another symbol and so on and so on. It's not possible to compare images like it used to be, with one image in FS mode and one in Standard window mode. Why did you do all that (each)? Thanks. [I'm typing this from the floor of the Vegas convention center and can't get into all the specifics right now. I know a lot of work went into trying to balance consistency across the apps against each app's particular needs and history. (We catch a beating in either direction.) --J.] Of course Smart Filters are highly appreciated but do I have to give up usability for the balance? Can't you understand that when you work with Spot Colors everyday for years and always hope for an upgrade or at leat the possibility to select more than one channel, that it's kind of strange to see so much effort going into gimmicks? Lightroom is full of that nonsence with skinning and tatooing little Yin Yang symbols all over the app but please not Ps. Stuff that into Elements and Lightroom. [Would you feel better if I said that we're not going to devote time to putting any "tramp stamps" into PS? :-) --J.]

By: jimhere

jimhere — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:40:24 +0000

Sorry about my tone, I suppose PS matters too much to me (what would my 20th century self have thought?). As Socrates would say, no one is a complete Photoshop expert. John and Phil Brown are right -- If there are those who need the extra help, go for it. I (obviously) worry that work on image-editing tools would fall behind because people would be put on this project instead. 'Philosopher' is not a swipe (someone has to think big). I don't work for a software company so I probably don't really know what a 'PM' is. So I sometimes think John is loosing the trees for the sake of the forest (sorry about the cliche). Keep a little Aristotle in there with those other two Greek guys. [Don't worry; I'm in here making out with the trees every day! I do appreciate the follow up. --J.] Bust seriously -- I'm not being sarcastic here -- what is the difference supposed to be between PS and PS Elements? I truly thought that Elements was for entry-level users. [Elements is for hobbyists who don't need or want the full power of Photoshop. Trying to make it easier to use doesn't mean that Photoshop shouldn't also grow easier, however. --J.]