P: New user interface lacks contrast and many usability cues, lots of other problems

@74350 Tristam



I've created the above graphic to help explain an important UX concept your team doesn't seem to understand. I'm focusing on the dropdown box, but I really want it to be clear that this isn't the sole problem. The new iconography itself is too similar to each other and vague. I've been using Photoshop since version 6 and with every new UI change I've either really liked it or hardly noticed. But I've NEVER had issues finding something that hasn't moved before.

While making the above image I had enough time to say out loud "Where's the paint brush at", as I scanned over the general location that I'm used to finding it under. Several times I thought it was the History Brush, or perhaps hidden behind another tool. For some reason the design of the new icons cause my focus to be drawn away from that area.

Iconography is a very difficult task and it typically only works after training someone on the meaning that those symbols are meant to represent. What you have is decades of training on how to recognize the symbolism of the application destroyed for trendy styles that will NEED to be replaced again in a year when they look dated and old. Changing them gives no benefit to the user, and in fact is detrimental as it forces you to re-train loyal customers on a worse version.



I'll note that when the toolbar is in single-column mode, it's much easier to find things that are difficult to find in two-column mode. But I will NEVER be in single column mode. The overall context of icon grouping is better conveyed in two columns and it worked great in every one of the previous versions.

There are no redeemable features to this change except perhaps a technical foundation for better supporting different HDPI resolutions. But the visual affordances lost do not assist in this gain. The harder to visually digest icons, do not have any bearing on this (seriously, no one would know that's a bandaid or eraser, just awful). The lower contrast does not help you on a technical level. The loss of identifier cues used to differentiate modes, like Quick Mask, don't help you on a technical level.

Everything about this update needs revised. Hire me to do UX for Adobe. I will work cheap, and you guys obviously need a sanity check in the room.

I reinstalled PS 2014 after a day or so of frustration and annoyance with the new interface. The capper was how the frame and image sizing (CTRL-0, CTRL-minus key) work differently--I do a lot of cropping, so the 2015 way of doing things was really, really annoying. Also, it now appears I can't drag images from another application (e.g., Explorer), and drop them into PS. WHY? This does not improve my workflow, it hinders it.

I've been using PS since 1998, and can't understand why Adobe had to fix something that wasn't broken--particularly with something so critical to their users--the interface and the way it functions.

All true, Andrew. While we're at it, I want to point out another area in which Adobe veers wildly off course from Mac OS in their effort to unify their code base. The issue I'm referring to is locating files within the Adobe apps.

Have you noticed how Adobe apps frequently lose track of where your files are located on your hard drive?

Try this in an app that is programmed to MacOS standards: Pixelmator. Let's say you create your Pixelmator document and save it to the Desktop. Switch to Finder and drag the file to anywhere you want, including a cloud location like Dropbox or iCloud, then go back into Pixelmator. Cmd click the titlebar and you'll see that the app has instantly found the new location of the file. That's because file-tracking is a Mac OS level feature and app developers need not concern themselves with it.

Try the same thing in any Adobe app. Try moving your files from say, your documents folder, to a different folder in Finder, Adobe apps go completely nuts. They instantly lose the file location and you must manually relink the files inside of Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, etc..

There is just no justification for this. It's _extra_ work for the dev team to write their own file location code and it doesn't work as well as the code you get for free from Apple.

I want to also thank David for giving us some insight into the development issues and results. After reading his post, it occurs to me that what were experiencing is Adobe's business problem and the fact that also they 'listen to their customers', theyre decisions are Adobe centric and not user or pro-user centric.

The recent carving out of a new user UI that is Adobe based is the first example of how Adobe has decided to act as a third rail between two major OS systems, I saw it creep into Acrobat Pro, and that product has become very frustrating to deal with especially when it comes to interacting with the Mac OS. Multiple steps are needs to open and save documents now, wheras before, it was tightly integrated with Apple's GUI standards.

Secondly, we can see Adobe in general, just ignoring the voices in the forum thread, and they've been growing for some time. The appearance of programs like Pixemator and Affinity are a testament to a desire for what Adobe programs excelled at, and they are surpassing Adobe in terms of customer interaction and developing features and add-ons that INTEGRATE with OS advantages, not compete with them.

Lastly, I'll simply address the business itself. Adobe has excellent , mature products that need constant attention to comply and work flawlessly with OS changes. However, they seem to have taken a posture to decided that they will innovate and make integration decisions regardless of their impact on the community. This I believe is their own acknowledgement that they really have little new to offer that isn't in the mobile app space and an acknowledgement that their internal teams 'need to innovate for the sake of innovation' versus innovate to actually solve a problem or fulfill a need.

Affinity just came out with 6 plugins for OS X Photos integration. Now there's a need that is being solved. Are you on the ground, Adobe or more comfortable in the corporate fortress?

Thanks for your comment David. You talk about much design work and planning, and I'm ok with that, but what about user testing? Considering that, from what I've been reading over the internet and from my own experience with the software, I'd say that the 90% of the user base is unsatisfied with the latest update. Who are those users that tested it?

Moreover, "Some other changes were made to make the UI more touch friendly". Who asked for it? Is the touch-based user base so important? More than the pro-user base?

The UI that makes us happy is the UI we are used to. Period. This is not a joke and I think this is the first time that a UI change has got such a huge dissatisfaction.

Thank you.

I also thank you for your input, David. But I must agree with Robert entirely. I'm sure that you as a team didn't come with this for the fun of it. However, the absolute need to blend into the operating system as much as possible should be one of your major goals. None of us are doing this kind of thing for fun. We're working, and for that we're ready to pay month after month for good software.

I can understand that you want to accommodate users that work with touch friendly devices. But I, for one, a working with two 30 in monitors that absolutely nobody has any right to touch. Nobody. Precise work is done with a Wacom tablet. This is the kind of setup many pro photoshop users will use. Your product is for professionals, don't forget it.

I have already gone back to 16.0.1 which is OK. If I'm OK for a year or two with this one, and as long as it goes well with my workflow. I will not update, I cannot take the chance, I've lot enough time over this already.

You'll need to get the support folder too Robert, rather than just the Photoshop app itself.

Good luck - it's a very simple procedure using Time Machine.

I'll echo those thanks too David, but how on Earth did this abomination ever get out into the wild? I've rolled-back to 16.0.1 via Time Machine and I've never had to do anything like that before with any software programme in 20 years of pro use.

If this issue hasn't yet caught the gaze of people who have the influence to improve things at Adobe, could you please make sure they do.
Many thanks again for taking the time.
Bob

Good idea, Roger. Do you just need to enter TimeMachine from the Applications folder and roll back in time, or do you also need to do the same thing for the Application Support folder, too?

And if you're a Mac user, you've got an even more precise way. By using Time Machine, you can go back to any version you want - including CC 2015 version 16.0.1, which is more recent and has the same interface as 15.0.