The many sliders of Photoshop CS4
mrgan.tumblr.com
mrgan.tumblr.com
I mean, sure, some specialized implementations are useful (e.g., picking a color/hue), but this is a bit excessive. Somebody must have written all these implementations. Somebody needs to maintain them. This costs real money... why would you want to do that?
Marketing guys pressuring devs for new features. Enough late nights and you just stop caring about those details. Unless you have an ethos of good design like Apple.
* Copy-paste code reuse
* Existing implementations aren't in a common library location, making them hard to find/nobody knows about them
* Lack of knowledge about the relevant platform built-in implementation
* Corporate organization is not set up to make information sharing easy
* Product team organization doesn't include a core UI assets team
* Product teams organized by feature and don't communicate
Several different styles of sliders are the least of Photoshop's UI's problems. It still doesn't have some features we've been taking for granted even back in the 90s. I hope customizable toolbars and palettes finally made it into CS4 because in CS3 my screen is full of buttons that serve as nothing but a visual distraction. Also, looking my current PS layout, I can count FIVE different places where I can change the selected color and not all of them behave the same.
It looked like things were getting better when they finally implemented Corel-style context sensitive toolbars a while back, but of course they got it wrong by hardcoding them and only including certain commands based on who knows what criteria. But my (least) favorite f*ckup was when they introduced customizable shortcuts but couldn't be bothered to remove all the hardcoded ones first. This meant that some of your custom shortcuts would do something completely unexpected, like launch the scripting window.
I really don't understand people who go on and on about how amazing Phostoshop's UI is. For me, using PS has always been a highly frustrating experience.
It is true that having such a diversity of styles is a bit absurd. They could do certainly do with no more than 4 or 5 styles, all mostly visually similar. Still, the actual behavior of all these sliders is pretty solid, in my experience, and I'm not really bothered too much, as a long-time user, that consolidating widget appearance isn't Adobe's top priority.
Nope. They don't even have one string object or math library.
When I talked to a guy who worked on Mac stuff for Adobe, he said that pretty much anything that could be shared, isn't. Every flagship product is independent, and most were the result of at least one acquisition (some circular!). Pretty much every effort they've made to rationalize things into a coherent suite has just resulted in regressions, as none of the object models line up.
The engineers at Adobe know full well how shitty their flagship products are. Lightroom is what they can produce in green-field development, and it is awesome both in implementation (mostly Lua) and usability (no bloat). Apple's Aperture had a significant public first start, and was still quickly beaten with a superior product. Quite unexpected.
But your main point is spot on.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/05/some_thoughts_about_psd...
A key phrase is "And it's not at all clear that the benefits here would outweigh the costs.". Whose costs, and whose benefits? Obviously it wouldn't be great for Adobe to have to re-write their file format, and they wouldn't get that many happy customers initially.
In particular, layer blender, threshold, and color balance would suffer if it was more like the default.
Now, if you could a laptop with ten knobs on the side of it AND an API to use them, then sliders in an app would be cool.
For a competitor to be successful, it would likely just have to copy PS. I'm not sure cleaning up the UI would work for a startup beyond just unifying the sliders and widgets and buttons under a common scheme. But they'd all have to be in the same place and do the same stuff.
(it's not like the space isn't full of competitors right now anyway)
I think the opportunities lie more in creating niche tools. Just look at all the tools created the last few years for photographers, the top one perhaps being Adobe Lightroom. It contains most of the image editing tools from PS that a photographer needs, but is built more around the photographer's workflow.
I think it would be very difficult for a startup to make a replacement photoshop, but that shouldn't really be anyone's goal (photoshop already exists), and with actual novel ideas about how editing should be done, I think there are quite reasonable opportunities: it's always difficult to make quality software, but image editors and their market aren't inherently worse in this respect than email clients, say, or word processors, or many types of games, etc.
> considerable competition from open source/free programs like GIMP and Paint.Net
Really? I don't know anyone who uses these for serious work. I understand the GIMP gets used in particular niches, such as among free software ideologues, but I don't think competition from these would be a real problem for anyone trying to make a serious image editor.
> It contains most of the image editing tools from PS that a photographer needs
Not really. Most Lightroom users also use Photoshop, and Lightroom's goals as a product are completely different from Photoshop's (image organization, selection, comparison, rather than careful editing): they're complementary, not competitors.
The only times I've needed anything else have been because the printers say "we only accept a PSD" or "files must be from Corel 9" or whatever. They always take something else in the end. Actually it's more often I need to use AI files and Inkscape's not doing to bad on that.
Exact colour match (pantones, etc.) doesn't matter for me; my target market couldn't generally care less that the shade is ever so slightly out and in most print situations the colour is either off at print (newspapers) or off by the point of viewing (eg magazine in a rack that's faded for a month).
When you say “production of advertising materials” what do you mean? You work for an ad agency? Or you sometimes wear a “design hat” in addition to your other roles at your company? Because if you were spending 40 hours a week on design work, buying and learning and using Photoshop instead of the GIMP would pay for itself quite quickly.
I should have been clearer. I'm sure there exist people who use the GIMP, even though I don’t know them. I do not, however, think the GIMP provides “considerable competition” in the image editing space by any reasonable definition of “considerable”. I don’t have any solid numbers of my own, and really have no idea how I’d look for any, but if we just judge by, for instance, relative numbers of books offered for sale about each product, Photoshop has a simply crushing market-share advantage.
> quality demands seem so low in the print media industry
I don’t work in print media (I’m a political science student), but this seems like a pretty cheap shot. One could take similar shots at programmers, musicians, scientists, etc.
It's my opinion. There seems to be a lot more typos and grammatical errors that should have been caught in proof stages, a lot more poor "it'll do" type photo-shopping than in the past. This may be because I've become more focussed and more observant with respect to print media given that I'm using it for inspiration for online work and to suggest what the zeitgeist might be.
Incidentally, as you note, this probably is true in other fields too.
Edit: typo, lol!