P: Refresh the User Interface

"Anyone who is more worried about subjective notions of UI"

People could easily make while generalizations about people making this type of statement as well. Again, perhaps speak for yourself rather than potentially attempting to speak for everyone, when many continue to say what you are saying about them does not represent their thoughts.

And again.. the author and others did not say the UI is more important than features, etc (you are saying that for them). They are saying that like every other software Adobe has ever released, they have been able to focus on features and keeping the app design up to date. And when users want a modern UI, that goes hand and hand with major performance improvements since developers rarely ever do a full modern redesign without updating the underlying code. So when if every Adobe updates the app, you can be sure it will go hand and hand with a full rewrite as they did with Lightroom and their other apps and thus result in significant performance improvements like we see with Lightroom CC. 

A bad UI certainly can get in the way of functionality, but nobody on this thread has yet identified a single instance of Lr's UI actually doing that

Again Lightroom is relatively slow compared to Lightroom CC because it uses an old code base that the UI is attached too. Adobe will never rebuild the backend to a complete modern code based and leave the design dated, as the design UI elements are highly correlated to the code used.  We want a modern user interface and all that comes with  that including improvements to the code that result in being able to more quickly adopt the latest hardware and IS software features that available.

So others can state as a fact - and without a shred of evidence - that the Lr UI is flawed, and I can't express a counter view?

That may be more you unwillingness to listen to people providing evidence of that. As noted again, ever piece of Adobe has been updated so that is what Adobe believes is appropriate for their software, and Adobe is more financially successful than ever in history so customers overall support that direction as well. If keeping the design overall the same for 10-15 years was what Adobe and their customers wanted then they would, since Adobe will do what makes the most money since they are a for profit company. But again realize many people do not like change, and not matter how much we explain the benefits they still do not want it. That is completely fine, but hopefully you will be able to respect others point of view as well even if it is different from yours and not to generalize their views especially when it does not represent their beliefs or views. 

"You have no idea their priorities, just as they know not yours. "

Anyone who is more worried about subjective notions of UI, over the performance and efficiency of the programme, has the wrong priorities: we're not using Lr because it looks pretty, we use it because of what it can do for us. 

"So you may do better sharing your opinion than attempting to speak for others who have a different view point."

So others can state as a fact - and without a shred of evidence - that the Lr UI is flawed, and I can't express a counter view?

Good to know...

"UI certainly gets in the way of functionality"

A bad UI certainly can get in the way of functionality, but nobody on this thread has yet identified a single instance of Lr's UI actually doing that.

QED. 

Again: it's about priorities. There's a world of difference between "I don't much like how this bit of  Lr looks..." and "This fundamentally stops me from using Lr the way I should be able to..." And anyone more wrapped up in the former than the latter is missing the point.

Every single image editor or RAW converter I've ever used (and it's a lot) has attracted complaints about their UI: the only rational approach is to filter out this abitrary, subjective noise as an irrelevance (we can't all be right...) and focus on what they can do, because at least that can (to a greater or lesser extent) be objectively considered and quantified, unlike UI. 

Then I suggest you have your priorities all wrong.

 

As long as the UI does't actively get in the way of the functionality - and let's be clear, it absolutely does not - then it's doing its job perfectly well.

 

You have no idea their priorities, just as they know not yours. So you may do better sharing your opinion than attempting to speak for others who have a different view point. I and other supporters do not appear to be saying UI is their number one priority. Rather they love they app, but wish it had a modern UI, like every single other Adobe app. All of those apps like Photoshop have had lots of priorities but Adobe has been able to managing to keep their app design updated with the times in all of them while continuing to release major feature updates. 

UI certainly gets in the way of functionality since the user interface is literally what the user users to carry out the features of the app. How much it effects it varies. Such as having a dated dropshadow on text can be an eye sore but on the surface wouldn't seem to effect productivity, until one thinks how apps with dated UI most often have dated backends with significantly slower performance. As new apps that embrace newer frameworks get the benefit of the updated UI elements. I have a 100K library in Lightroom Classic and Cloud, and Cloud is drastically faster as it was completely rewritten code base and subsequently a modern design. Of course feature wise Cloud still is far behind the workhorse of Classic, but it could have feature parity with it's modern design, but Adobe is aiming towards a wider audience, since modern design is are more accessible to users. 

The longer Adobe neglects updating the app design the more likely it is eventually Adobe will stop supporting Classic and only support the Cloud product is which drastically more lucrative since it requires using their storage. Apple had Aperture, but they stopped updating the UI and then slowing down features until eventually switched to Apple Photos solely because there is such a larger market. Other than C1, Lightroom is all we really have as Pros, so hope Classic continues, and an updated design would certainly signal they are invested it keeping it around in parallel with the Cloud app, rather than simply updating it until enough people switch to the Cloud offering.

"but I hate every bit of it."

Then I suggest you have your priorities all wrong.

As long as the UI does't actively get in the way of the functionality - and let's be clear, it absolutely does not - then it's doing its job perfectly well.

Complaints about it are then simply arbitrary, subjective personal preference - possibly exacerbated by your self-proclaimed "UX designer" interest in the topic, which may well make you believe that your opinion of "better" is somehow validated by your expertise.

Just for context on that last: "UX designers" have decided, the world over, that the best UI for image editing and RAW conversion programmes should include a dark background with white or light grey text: personally I agree, but on every forum I've ever been active on - this one; Capture One; ON1; Affinity Photo; ACDSee, to name but a few - there are constant complaints that this colour combination doesn't work. 

And yet, we've got it anyway - purely because UX experts have decided that it's the way to go.

It's reasonable to assume that Adobe has a few such folk on the payroll, too. I don't doubt that Lr Classic's look and feel will evolve, but to acknowledge that is not to accept that there is an inherent here problem that needs fixing... 

I agree 100% - I am a passionate photographer and a UX designer. I love the UI of Lightroom (not the classic version). It is so much simpler, untuive and effecient, as well as clean and elegant. I whish I could use that, but I need the local storage and the access to plugins, so I am kind of stuck with Lightroom classic, but I hate every bit of it.

I don’t, companies like Adobe and Apple for instance do which is why they upgrading all their os and products to modern ui’s then customers get to decide since if it’s not better overall then people won’t use and won’t be successful and then companies will change and go with a financial profitable design. Adobe chose a modern design for all their countless other apps and the company is flourishing. But again, most people don’t like change which is why all the users who would love to see the app finally with the ui updated aren’t likely to comment here since often met with hostility. But I’ll let comments speak for themselves in that regards.

Agree big time. More so than an update the UI feels like it's weighted while using the application on a variety of machines in a variety of use cases. Of all the beta products available for adobe products, this one is in need of it's own to get feedback from end users.

"because people, especially commenters don't like a lot of change even for the better."

I don't think you get to decide what's "for the better" as far as other people's opinions of UI are concerned.

"Neglecting the most basic UI updates signals to me as a user that Adobe doesn’t care that much about Lr Classic."

You're reading motiviatons for the current situation that there's simply no evidence for - did Denoise AI pass you by?

At the best of times, UI is subjective, and yet most of us (I confidently assert, despite having no evidence either) are probably more interested in actual functionality improvements, rather than arbitrary changes to look and feel.

"The Lightroom Classic desktop UI looks incredibly outdated."

I flat-out disagree. And that's kinda my whole point. It's like arguing that blue is a better colour than red.

100% agree. However, just like if you suggested this on a Photoshop or Premiere forum before their UI was modernized you would have got equal pushback because people, especially commenters don't like a lot of change even for the better. 

In regards to why the UI hasn't been updated but every other Adobe app has is because presumably they launched LR CC. When they did they could have called it Lightroom Pro and Lightroom Cloud, but instead choose the new version to be the new Lightroom and the previous to be "Classic" which by nature means the old version. Adobe I'm sure would love to have a single app, however making drastic changes to the LRC would cause an uproar, but at the same time, Apple also decided to abandon Aperture for Photos because their is a much larger market for a simplified app. Unlike Apple, Adobe knows they can't drop classic, because all the pros will switch to another app, and once they do prosumers would also follow eventually.

The long term goal one can imagine is that there is enough feature parity that most will have switched to LR Cloud, and then sunsetting Classic won't be too disruptive. But in the meantime I expect they will continue to focus on new features for Cloud (which they will also add to Classic) other than UI improvements since doing a UI update would signal LRC will be around forever and alongside LR Cloud. But while that's probably the thought process now, if droves of pros stick with Classic, like they are now, then perhaps there plans will change and some day it will be updated and even rebranded as Lightroom Pro or such. And remember with LR Cloud you must use their storage which as people's libraries grow which much more money for the company vs LRC. Adobe stock has been doing amazing since switching to subscriptions, so while many may hate subscriptions and cloud storage, its proving successful so probably the future.