FYI, by the time the new "modern interface" was released to the public, it had already been released to us beta testers, who nearly universally panned it...with the same complaints users have.   Usually, Adobe's in-house team of UX designers does the GUI facelifts. I don't know which end-users they interviewed or what data/statistics they referenced when that team came up with the new interface design.   Honestly, I don't think that team understands the different types of users who use Acrobat. In our work consulting with government agencies, corporations, academic institutions, and the printing/graphic arts industry, it breaks down to this: Acrobat PRO is used by professionals who must create, review, or edit PDFs in these industries: publishing, communications, printing/graphic arts, marketing/advertising, accessibility, academia, corporate/industry, finance and banking.  They are heavy users of Acrobat and usually do their work on larger screens, such as desktops and larger laptops. And they usually don't use touch screens because "touch" isn't accurate enough for their particular tasks. These users often have multiple monitors with multiple PDFs and documents visible at the same time in order to do their jobs. No one who wants to keep their paycheck would use a smartphone to do these professional tasks. This user group depends on Acrobat Pro, and there are no alternative programs from anyone else with these tools. Acrobat Standard is used by most employees for their daily communications. They are creating PDFs from standard office software (like MS Office) to distribute to customers, fellow employees, and the general public. They are moderate users and their jobs don't require the pro tools for printing/graphic arts or accessibility. They generally don't use touch screens but often do when reading/editing PDFs for internal communications. They might have multiple monitors with multiple files visible. This user group can easily use a competitor's program for their PDF tasks... [3rd party app link removed by moderator] Acrobat Reader is used by the general public to view, print, and add comments to (not edit) the PDF. They work on everything from desktops to smartphones. Acrobat Mobile for smartphones is also a good choice for their needs. With browsers now beginning to provide functionality for PDFs, Reader just isn't needed by anyone anymore, except for more advanced PDFs such as those for accessibility and forms.   I think that the "modern viewer" that Adobe just dumped on us was the design team not understanding who exactly they were designing for, and they thought designing it with hamburger menus and icons (theories that dominant on small screens) would work for all of its user groups.   Obviously, that isn't the case! Most pro-users aren't going to work on dozens (or even hundreds) of PDFs a day with their smartphones.   Pro users need a professional tool with an interface and functions that work for their daily jobs, not a causal tool for end users on smartphones.   Just my 2 cents' worth! —Bevi ... View more

As an Acrobat beta tester, I've hated it from the first beta several months ago. For my shop's work, which primarily is accessible PDFs, it's a nightmare. I STILL don't know what most of the microscopic grey icons mean.   I need to get work done, so I've turned it off on my production computer. I suggest you do, too.   To answer the question why did Adobe do this? Because someone in marketing decided the interface had to be modernized. It appears that the person/team assigned to do the redesign 1) has no experience in actually using Acrobat in different work settings (prepress, graphic design, office docs, accessibility, etc.), 2) has no data on what users need, and 3) has little experience in UX design.   Complete failure.   ... View more