Photoshop user experience (Re: Can I Get a Hallelujah?)

[rogerhoward at rogerroger.org]

On Dec 15, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote:

>
> On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Roger Howard wrote:
>
>> I guess I don't see it as a lowest-common-denominator approach; if  
>> they
>> only used controls or features available on both platforms then  
>> maybe, but
>> Adobe builds their own UI with their own controls, so it's not  
>> limited by
>> what's available on the lesser platform.
>
> It sounds like you've already made up your mind about this, so I'm  
> not going to expend too much energy on it. But let me give you a  
> quick synopsis.
>
> I've been using Photoshop for about ten years, and Illustrator for  
> nearly as long. Neither has undergone any sort of serious UI revamp  
> in that time, even though ideals about software have changed quite  
> a lot.

I don't disagree on any of these points. I've long been a critic of  
Photoshop, as much as it's one of my favorite apps, and I've probably  
logged at least 10 times more hours in Photoshop than any other third- 
party software in my life.

> Specifically, overall experience and production values are now much  
> more important. I think there's also a shift in thinking that more  
> features doesn't necessarily mean more value. Focusing on a reduced  
> set of more useful, more polished features is generally thought of  
> as better, at least on Mac OS X.

Yes, but while that works for new products, it's rare - essentially  
unheard of - for a major "kitchen sink", ubiquitous product like  
Photoshop to undergo any major overhaul that scales its scope back.  
Believe me, I would certainly agree Photoshop could use a major  
rethink,  but I've given up hope that it'll happen. Ever.
> It seems Photoshop's engineering efforts are still built around  
> adding individual features. Maybe I think of this as being more  
> "Windowsy" because the feature-centric design still seems to be the  
> prevailing ethic at Microsoft too.
>
> I don't think this is lack of skill on the part of Adobe's  
> engineers and designers, but just the result of priorities set by  
> management. I have no doubt that if Adobe believed a better user  
> experience would sell more copies of Photoshop, they'd make it a  
> priority.

Absolutely; in fact I would extend this to say that if Adobe didn't  
think that a major user experience overhaul wouldn't *threaten* sales  
they would do it. They have no real need, from a sales perspective,  
to make sweeping changes, and a lot of reasons not to go in radical,  
new directions no matter how superior they might be. Ultimately this  
could be Adobe's greatest weakness - the built-in check against  
extreme innovation, but right now they are quite secure in their  
monopoly.


>> Care to give any examples of where it's clearly limited by having to
>> pander to Windows too, versus just being limited by their own UI  
>> concepts?
>
> I think if Adobe wasn't so concerned about platform parity, they'd  
> be much more willing to create a Mac-centric design. I don't know  
> how to easily break that down into an analysis of specific dialogs  
> or features. I also might be wrong -- that Adobe apps would be the  
> same without Windows.

I think this is the only place we might be disagreeing; I'm simply  
saying that I believe that Photoshop isn't the way it is (good, bad  
and ugly) because of some lowest-common-denominator approach. I don't  
believe for a moment that *if* Windows XP offered all the same  
imaging capabilities as OSX that Photoshop would somehow be less held  
back by Windows - I would expect Adobe would still be doing exactly  
what they are doing - building essentially the entire product from  
the ground up, giving them an enormous degree of control over the  
engine and all the layers above, and still leveraging very few  
capabilities from the underlying OS.

As for UI, the basic trimming don't bother me, and I do think CS3 is  
a big improvement in some areas (and those aren't using Windows *or*  
OSX concepts). What bothers me is the organically grown mess of  
features - it's not just a Swiss Army Knife, it's one with 25  
variations of the same tool for no better reason that Adobe is afraid  
of ever removing anything once they've added it. For instance, as  
they'd added non-destructive editing tools (adjustment layers, type  
layers, etc) they've not done the right thing and removed the  
destructive versions of the same. This allows people to continue  
*bad* habits. A good app teaches the user the *right* way to do  
things, and in this regard Photoshop is a failure.

I think we agree more than it might have seemed,R




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061215/d2683fda/attachment.html