P: Ability to update/edit brush presets [2011]

I never said it was hard - it is just too logically flawed, because it is based on a lack of knowledge of how things actually work (thinking things are MUCH simpler than they really are, or that the complications don't have a reason for existing).

Users can imagine many things that are impossible. That does not mean that we should spend our time implementing the impossible. Sometimes we have to tell the user "no, this does not work.", and move on to better ideas.

It is not a UX problem at all, it is a basic logic problem. The idea does not work for multiple reasons, which I have tried to simplify here (the details are too complex to easily write down). Yes, if you don't understand the problem, a really simplistic solution would be to update the presets -- which sounds great if you have absolutely no idea what is really involved. But it's a lot like saying that you can breathe on the moon because you can breathe on Earth and don't think it is any different from driving across town. Pursuing that could end up costing you a lot of time and effort for an end result that you most certainly don't want.

And yes, I am quite familiar with UX/UI design principles (and read Joel's books/blog as well).

Yes, we have a UX team and UI designers -- but they do know that many of their "pie in the sky" ideas have to face reality, and that sometimes the details are a lot more complicated than they realize from the outside.

But I do know more about the issues, the designs, and how the presets and tools work -- and am trying to tell you that this idea has serious flaws. Even if you think about the basics of how brushes and presets work in Photoshop, you should see that this idea cannot work well.

It's a UX problem and Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to be in UX and don't seem to be interested in UX solutions so I'll give you the solution for what you presented, free of charge. I know UX very well since I do that sort of thing professionally...

If you take the preset organization idea, with the folders, redundant brushes are not an issue--they are saved into folders. That gets rid of your organization problem. Ask how and why--see how other programs do it--defer the costs to Adobe--you should have your competitor programs up in your offices anyway. (Marketing, anyone?)

You are thinking about eliminating menus. Don't do it. Keep it redundant the Jakob Neilsen way. He has a free website to UX issues. Redundancy is good, keep it , get the user acclimated, then eliminate the redundancy later on as needed. (It's under how to build a game theory in the UX world... you get the user acclimated before making it harder for them.)

Other UX you can read: : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/... (programmer for you)

I also suggest instead of refuting from the outset using the users here who come from many walks of life to solve the issues for you--maybe they can pound out a simpler implementation than you are thinking in your head (The programmers I know tend to complicate solutions). They use the program, sometimes every day, they might understand how it works better than you think. Programmers, website designers, website programmers also use Photoshop.

Doesn't Adobe have UX people on its team....? If you don't you should. Because your complaint is a UX problem, not a programming one. Have them write replies to what you perceive to be UX issues. Anthropologists and Sociologists are prime for this.

But you, personally, Chris as a senior computer scientist representative of Adobe spend a lot of time on these boards saying, "it's too hard, we can't, we know better." and "We do so much for you, what do you want anyway." I know programmers--I'm related to a few, so I understand where you are coming from. But your priorities seem to be towards programming not UX, making me wonder if you took any UX classes. (Website designers have to worry about it professionally all the time... Steve Jobs was a UX master, BTW.)

Ask questions. Ask how the user would implement it, present the whole problem--there are programmers, UX people, Website designers, artists and photoshop users among you. Don't say it's hard work and what do you want from us?

Because UX is functionality. It's not a minor thing. It's workflow, it's time management. Shinies are fun to program--I get it, but it doesn't always make the user happier. (That's why it's called User Experience, not programmer experience.)

'It is not a minor thing. '
>> compared to the new perspective tool, it is

"Presets (like brushes) are settings you save (not modify, hence the term "pre-set"), "
>> I don't understand the point of playing with words. In many other software, presets can be modified and they still call them presets.

"which have an identity that can be referenced by actions, scripts, and the rest of the preset management code. If you modify them, then the action or script cannot reproduce it's effect because the preset has changed out from under the script. Because you copy from the preset to the active tool settings, there is no real "current" preset to save back to (even though we highlight the last selected preset as a convenience) - you would always be saving a new preset.
There are more complications under the hood, because the implementation is more complex than you seem to realize (this is not a bad thing, it just means that we make a lot of complicated stuff easy to use). "
>> I don't see here any complication. The users still modify presets, but in a painful manner, so all these users would have had these problems you describe. I never heard of them neither had one myself ( And I use/make actions and scripts )

"Most of the workflow you describe in the original post is already in Photoshop, except for the "modify an existing preset" part. Yes, you might end up creating 2 brush presets while creating a new tip and settings. That is because the tip and the brush don't exist independently -- and making them completely independent would make the brush UI much more complex - we looked at doing that several years ago. "
>>yeah, most of the workflow but not the "update/modify" part, which is indeed the title of this request. I don't understand the second part, seems unrelated to me (?)

"We listen to the feature requests, but sometimes the requested ideas just don't match the reality we have to work with, or the request doesn't take into account the features that already exist."
>>Again, since ALL the user ( I mean users that really use brushes ) want this, I don't really understand where exactly it doesn't match the reality ?

We constantly update the UI to improve efficiency. But sometimes things that you think might improve your efficiency would actually complicate the UI, or cause problems for other users that you don't realize.

We have to take all the users, all the functions, and all the issues into account before changing the functionality of Photoshop (and still sometimes get it wrong).

Just because we say that one particular request is not a good idea (or sometimes not even possible) does not mean that we are not listening to requests, or not implementing other requests and improvements.

It is not a minor thing.
Presets (like brushes) are settings you save (not modify, hence the term "pre-set"), which have an identity that can be referenced by actions, scripts, and the rest of the preset management code. If you modify them, then the action or script cannot reproduce it's effect because the preset has changed out from under the script. Because you copy from the preset to the active tool settings, there is no real "current" preset to save back to (even though we highlight the last selected preset as a convenience) - you would always be saving a new preset.
There are more complications under the hood, because the implementation is more complex than you seem to realize (this is not a bad thing, it just means that we make a lot of complicated stuff easy to use).

Most of the workflow you describe in the original post is already in Photoshop, except for the "modify an existing preset" part. Yes, you might end up creating 2 brush presets while creating a new tip and settings. That is because the tip and the brush don't exist independently -- and making them completely independent would make the brush UI much more complex - we looked at doing that several years ago.

We listen to the feature requests, but sometimes the requested ideas just don't match the reality we have to work with, or the request doesn't take into account the features that already exist.

Brilliant comment. I couldn't have said better myself. The fact is, that a new feature opens up new possibilities for us users, and some may turn into valuable parts of our workflow, while others will never make it in there (3D is such an example for me - I'll just use Maya or Rhino if I want 3D).

However, improvement to core workflow features benefit everyone, and translate instantly into $$ for the end user (in an industry where time == money). It's also the little things that let loyal users (I've been using Photoshop since it was called "Fast Eddie") know that Adobe is looking out for them, that you have their interests at heart, and that Adobe is always looking for ways to make things a little bit better. These things have a huge impact, even though they don't make the headlines.

Programs are more than new shiny features. They are about being able to meet the expectations of the end user and make it more efficient to use.

For example, when Photoshop made it so you didn't have to double click a layer, which opened a dialogue box and then click enter to rename it, that feature got a ton of cheers, because it was a routine thing. The fact that Photoshop plans on not making this application more user friendly in this manner where you don't have to go through an extra dialogue box to do similar functions saddens me.

To me, it's the same kind of effect that you guys got when you redid the layers naming process to be just a simple click. Sometimes the UX things get more cheers than the brand new shinies. Sometimes fixing an old bug or giving simple organization, or reducing the amount of clicks i.e. UX gets more cheers than coming up with a new doodad.

Brushes are part of the user's every day function--it's a basic component of Photoshop--it came out with version 1. So why not pay attention to the UX? And why not pay attention to your major competitors who are ahead in that fashion and have done it anyway?

Sometimes improving basic functions makes life easier. Brushes is one of them.

I can't believe the status of this item is "Not Planned"!

It's such a minor thing, with so many possible solutions.

Don't you wish Photoshop were open source? Heck, I'd write the darned patch myself. They keep working on "big picture" marquee features, instead of making our daily work tool more ergonomic and efficient.

I don't know why I keep giving Adobe my monthly CC subscription. They just don't seem to listen to their users.