P: Transform rotate handle click zone is too small (for auto-commit change)

Of all the changes I find this one to be the most disruptive to my workflow. 90% of the time I try to rotate, I end up auto-committing. Super frustrating. Auto-commit is a fine idea, but please give us some ability to adjust the spacing or an on/off setting for those of us that actually used that space to rotate images, which I would imagine is a strong majority. Hitting the enter key was not that hard to commit.

I think I have noticed that I do have to be slightly closer to the transform box in order to rotate, but I did not find it to be a deal breaker. It's just being a bit more accurate, which depending on task may slow you down a fraction.

I do hope that we aren't breaking old school ways of working too much, as some of us started on the 1st photoshop and some of the more standard workhorse tools have workflow that we are extremely accustomed to and are a part of our efficiency at work. Like, this can be a slippery slope.

That what I thought up in other post. It would be best to have every 3 years additional Ps release where everything is fixed and no stuff implemented until next few years when we have enough many new features to create another such Photoshop. Then all who want to be uptodate and sad because something got changed or doesn't work would follow fresh releases while others wait everything is going to be sorted out that Ps is not so modern, but at least friendly.

I'm not saying to wait bugs get fixed for current release as CC 2018 was an example thatn even after 8 months that wasn't done, while something like Device Preview (that I never used) needed people to use CC 2017 for it only. Anyway it's marketing so they will care of income in first instance that we can't dream a day of distinct Ps versions will ever come...

I know I'd like legacy options for something like proportional scale and even whether or not we auto-commit. A great use of the Properties panel, perhaps, to put all our legacy commands there.<G>

But I'll play devil's advocate here for a second. Despite that I  don't like auto-commit for Text that's been around for awhile, and don't like using the Shift key to distort a transformation, it won't take very long for them to have to support two separate program within PS—one for all the "new" behaviors, and one for all the legacy behaviors. I don't know who uses the legacy Brightness/Contrast checkbox, but I'll bet if they eliminated it, and support for it, we'd find out soon enough whose workflows were just fatally disrupted.<G>

So while if they'd asked me, I'd have said "don't change it!," they asked others who said it made it nearly impossible for them to enjoy using PS—probably all of those who came over from other image editing apps quite recently, or who use PS only occasionally. . . but nevertheless, I do kind of get why they aren't building in legacy for every function. I've had to work at feeling this way about the changes to Transform (and Type earlier, as I keep saying and have NOT forgotten that I dislike it<G>) but I really doubt they're  simply messing with us because it's a fun thing to do. (Could be wrong—think of the power they hold! LOL) They are probably looking ahead and realizing just how many legacy features and behaviors we have after some 20 + years. (And I'd still cheer if they found a way to accommodate both groups for Transform on the Options bar.)

At least we still get a legacy setting for the old New Document dialog. . . avoiding that new New Document dialog is a big one!

they have plenty of evidence. for example there was a live demo recently and the person kept having to click it away and said out right said how annoying it was. oh well.

this is definitely more complicated but I feel like they need to allow legacy options just like all the other ux changes they've made. especially for muscle memory tasks like this and proportional transform (on by default now).

> They still haven't given us the option to disable the "too large to export clipboard" warning,>

Doesn't that prove my point that they won't change for the sake of change? ROFL

Maybe they're waiting for their user base to volunteer to them how awful that one is. I do think it probably doesn't take much support to add a do not show again checkbox. This auto-commit thing definitely isn't a copy-paste code and forget about it JDI. They had to think about how much room to give us to click without auto-committing, while still making it possible for the rest who like it to figure out how far makes sense with  "click further away."   '-}

but if they found that wasn't true for a large segment of their user base (they wouldn't change it for the sake of change)

I dunno about that. They still haven't given us the option to disable the "too large to export clipboard" warning, and I can't imagine anyone not wanting the option to disable that.

Having to click in a much smaller zone is intended to accommodate the auto-commit function. You can't fix it or revert to the way it used to be. You have to watch your cursor to see if you're in range. What you can do is click close to your object and then drag the cursor out further away, if you're used to controlling the "spin" by using a longer lever. 

They did that before with Type and I've never quite gotten used to it, but maybe if there's consistency with all auto-commit functions, we eventually will. We have to hope, anyway, since auto-commit by clicking away from the object appears here to stay. I personally thought we had plenty of ways to commit, but if they found that wasn't true for a large segment of their user base (they wouldn't change it for the sake of change), then we need to just think "click closer." '-}