We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
Besides the fact that using multiple views was something that was not ONLY used for 3D cameras...Besides THAT. Where things are in a UI is something that's very important to users.
We develope muscle and eye memory of where to move our hand and eyes to reach and see what we need to. DONT * with the UI if you do not need to. Out of all the stupid things Adobe has done over the past 6 years this one REALLY pisses me off. Either explain to me WHY YOU DID THIS or PUT IT the * back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want someone to explain to me the reasoning behind the decision to make this change. Why was the thought process?
Yo, can you imagine working on a product all day and reading your response? Do you realize there are human beings working on this? With feelings?
Here's a thought, try reading back your comment thinking you are actually part of the development team saying this to your coworker. Would you? With the caps lock and everything?
Regardless, your critism is valid and if you think there should be an easier way to split views keep posting about it, but from a developer prespective it's much easier to listen to your problems when you actually explain why it hurts you as a user, and not why it makes you mad.
I DID explain why it hurts as a user. Keywords: Muscle memory, Useful outside of 3D. As for an easier way to split views...NONE WAS NEEDED. That's my point. If YOU know of a reason WHY it needed to be changed than tell me.
How would feel as a dev? If I was a dev I would have spoke up at the time and said "Hey, this is a stupid idea and people are going to get pissed. Don't do it."
Now, every time I look to see what frame I'm on (which is very, very often) I'm reminded of the STUPID decision to change the interface in this way when IT WAS NOT NEEDED at all. An easier way?!!!! None was needed. As for you. You ask me to explain why it was a bad idea when I clearly did in the priginal post which means either you didn;t read it or you're too thick to understand so do me a favor stay out of my way. I'm in a foul mood. How's that for "professional"?
I can tell your in a full fould mood, I just don't want you to be. It's just a software.
We can talk nicely about this thing without hating each other.
I did read your original post, what I meant was that going more in depth about why it is a major issue is more valuable than capslocking and cursing.
As I said, I think your critisism is valuable and they should fix it, but I would not say they did it for no good reason.
You can clearly tell they are entering a phase of doing changes to After-Effects, this means rethinking the UI for some parts of it. I am not saying limiting the view splitting to 3D objects was smart, but it seems like they wanted to make the viewer options section less cluttered and more focused. Change is hard for old users who are used to the og layout but it is good for new ones, and for the future.
Keeping the viewer options bar shorter is better for less screen space / split views. In the new version:
the entire row is visible for both views. In the old version:
there are a bunch of hidden icons and more clutter.
Is this the final shape and form? who knows. But keeping it simple is the way to go imo.
Anyway, I don't know you and I both give zero * about each other, I mostly wanted to say critisism is better heard when someone is respecting your hard work and understand where you come from. After-Effects is going through a lot of changes recently and they also announced they are going to put a lot of effort on the 3D workflow in the coming years as (from what I understand) they're going to intergrate a real 3D render solution inside After Effects. They are probably rethinking the UI that makes sense the most for this which could be part of the changes they made to the viewer layout. Although these are just my speculations, sometimes you make small changes like this because it's a part of a bigger thought and that's why it can look stupid to you because you don't realise the real scope of the change.
I have a lot of critisism for Adobe, trust me, I understnad your feelings. I'm just saying there are ways to discuss it
Understood and for the record i do NOT respect hard work. I respect good work and even moreso SMART work.
If someone works 30 hours a day and the result is an unstable, bloated product that is worse than it was 10 years ago then those people need to be let go, regardless of how "hard" they work.
For the last 30 years of my "traditional" employment I was a supervisor and manager at several companies.
When people did good work i let them know. When people did garbage work they were gone. Although i admit that the companies I worked for were concerned more with a quality product and keeping their long time customers happy...rather than appeasing shareholders and enticing new users whos personal information can be sold to analytics companies.
I have no expectation of them chanigning it back and all of their greater "vision" over the last years have done nothing but hurt performance and productivity. And they have heard plenty from users about it and done nothing to change course because their priorities have NOT been in fixing the issues but rather infiltrating mobile devices and the deep dark recesses of people personal computers.
Who will be hearing from me about Adobe, as they have in the past is my representitives in Washington DC with yet another letter explaining to THEM why Adobe needs to be broken up into competing comapanies. The size of the company and it's lack of competition is hurting consumers and the economy as a whole. Everyone is talking about Google and Facebook. Adobe is the one that needs a spanking.
You made some good points.
I don't so much agree on others, but it's much better having this discussion than an angry one.
I understnad your furstration, I work with Adobe software everyday for the past ~15 years, I do agree that for a long time it felt like the user experience was not priorotized. However there have been multiple discussion recently in these forums talking about the shift happening in recent years, and in general the After-Effects team is relatively small despite how many think it's huge, and consists of ultra nice and talented people.
Again, the problems remains, it is still a legacy software in many ways and over the years many new problems were introduced. It makes me feel bad too paying so much for software that gets worse and that's why I understand your critisism. However I have no reason to believe they do it on purpose although it does make it annoying, especially because when they don't fix a long lasting problem they tend to not share a lot about why, or where they are heading with it. And as you said, these all relate to the nature of Adobe being a big company with financial interests that don't always align with the users, which sucks.
On a positive note, introducing multithreading is a big deal not just because of what it is, but because it shows that they are willing to dig down the rabbit hole of solving a very complex problem by rewriting parts of a very very very large software that runs on multiple OS's and still succeed in it. If they keep going this path and slowly introduce more modren code chunk by chunk in a few years After-Effects could improve a lot, and I agree it should. I can imagine getting a "go" on rewriting the rendering infrastructure for a product that is already up and running and selling was probably hard but they did manage to do it and the results indicate on a positive change.
It is all up to them, you should definitely give this podcast a listen:
mostly because it's really easy to dehumanize people when they are out of our sights and we only judge the product, but Victoria in this article is ultra nice and make some good points about where they want to go.
Adobe should and could be a better company, at least from a customer prespective. I think they know this too.
But I do see a very positive change. Regardless, there are only two options, either After-Effects is gonna sink and better software from other companies will replace it, or it is going to improve and reinvent itself slowly which will be a long painful proccess for everyone.
With all due respect you're making irrelevant points that have nothing to do with anything.
And they can be the nicest people in the world, that's fine. I'm not concerned with that. It's not personal, it's business.
I deal with other companies that are small teams, smaller than the AE so that's no excuse.
And how reassuring it is for you tell me they're not screwing it up on purpose.
Did you really think that's what I think?
And six years after removing multi-threading support they're issuing PR releases that they're working on putting it back?
How wonderful of them? Looks like that "overhaul" they started back in 2014 is finally gaining speed?
BTW there's a third option from the two you listed...:
Adobe continues to release borked program run by a committe of
investors who stifle innovation by buying up emergent technology
and companies who pose a competition.
I think maybe you're a bit naive about business.
Why do you think the small talented team stays with Adobe rather than leaving and starting their own company to compete with Adobe? Because they care so much about the "product", right?
They're doin it for the paycheck,. And they'll do whatever they;re told to do.
And if they don't Adobe will can them and replace them with someone who will
Sheesh,.. You talk about it like it's some Mom & Pop Shop or something
Don;t be a fool.
And you think I'd make a great voice actor?
I think you'd make great defense attorney or politician. Or maybe an Evangelist?
You're a fantastic BS'r who talks alot while essentially saying nothing,.
Yeah, this ain't going anywhere. Wish you the best
Just to be clear. My issue is with the Generals, not the soldiers. The team is given marching orders and they simply carry those orders out. It's the direction of the team My issue is with and I do NOT beleive Sylvia or anyone on the AE is ultimately in control of that. However they ARE the liasons. It's them who are responsible of taking the message to the brass.
Your implications that i am unaware that they are human and have feelings is foolish.
In addition to knowing they are humans and imperfect I am also well aware of the complexities of the problems they face which is why I am absolutely FURIOUS about them making cosmestic changes, adding features on top of broken features and releasing new versions every year which continue to introduce new problems on top of old. Am I wrong? NOPE.
But these are not a new complaints nor complaints Adobe is unaware of. Adobe knows how its users feel. They care enough to do PR, to "rebrand", to make UI changes, etc., etc but not enough to change what users WANT changed, which is the constant releases piling problems on top of problems. As if WE are so stupid that we would rage if they stopped the perpetual beta state of their software. Its what we want!!! So how long or how often should we be polite about it? That's a rhetorical question.
I'm NOT saying the coding is bad or sloppy or that they're bad people.
NOBODY could produce stable software under such direction.
And I'm NOT talking about Sylvia. This direction was in place LONG before
Sylvia came on.
Doing dumb things is a very, VERY human thing to do. People do dumb things. We all do. I do. When multiple people tell me what I did was stupid I don't get all egotistical and defensive as you've assumed the devs would be after reading my comment. I know I am imperfect and therefore it's very easy for me to accept the fact that I occassionally make stupid decisions. I don;t take it personally because...I'm human. But, I do attempt to fix it.
But I doubt anyone on the team takes my comments personally anyway as YOU have "projected". If they have then "they" should get over themselves. Their imperfection is perfectly normal and...human. If me telling "them" it was a dumb decision makes them feel, as YOU claim, ashamed, that's on them.
If they feel shame (as YOU have claimed) the correction necessary lies with them, not with me. This what I meant when spoke about the value of feeling ashamed. When YOU feel ashamed it's because there's something about YOU that YOU are unhappy with. It hasn't a single thing to do with me, not one single thing.
So...to repeat my request to YOU from my initial response in slightly different words:
If all you have to say is..."It's complex software" & "They're only human" & "They're really nice people" then do me a solid, one human to another, and don't say anything at all. I already knew, or assumed, they were human. They're human? Really? Thanks for the invaluable contribution but: Either tell me something i don't know or quit wasting my time with your brilliant observations.
Also..please don't consider me a representitive of the majority or even of a minority of this community. I can be mean. I know it. I'm no politician and I never took a weekend seminar on how to effectively endear and manipulate my employees/co-workers/customers/etc. And I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I'm not ashamed about it. My problem is that I'm also usually right. That makes me even more likeable. 🙂