I feel so sorry, I knew those reactions would happen.

I used a color picker panel called "Coolorus" which is Flash-based for my daily work all the time and I know a lot of fellow illustrators used this one or similar panels too. Adobe's decision to eliminate this kind of panels makes the new version not usable for me for nowe. So much for "spring cleaning" and the productivity of individuals. For now I will have to stick with the the old version and load the new version in case I need one of the new features. I don't think that this is the way Adobe wants users to handle their products.

Not a good decision in my opinion.

I came to this thread, sadly, because this morning's update to Photoshop CC 2014 broke the custom panel of my top 20 tools that I've used and considered a time saver for several years now.  Of course, it also broke GuideGuide and Coolorus, too.  To me, this just represents a further fragmenting of the Photoshop ecosystem, with more reasons for people to be running older versions of Adobe software, instead of the promise offered by CC at it's rollout that it would make it more likely for more users to be running the latest and greatest version of everything.  In general, I love HTML5, and am not a big fan of Flash, but this change in compatibility had better have significant upside that is not readily apparent, because otherwise, I'm having a hard time getting behind it as a good thing.

I've carefully read all the posts here and would like to give my feedback on the whole question. I'm a professional retoucher and a teacher as well, and during my professional carrer I've built dozens of panels.

I do really take advantage of boosting my productivity with any customized panel, as automation is something that adds speed, reliability and dramatically reduce errors during repetitive tasks. Therefore, I can't live without it.

Now, I  understand why Adobe wants to move towards HTML 5, but please give us the ability to keep our work at the same level of efficiency we currently have. Photoshop is not for amateurs, it's a professional software. And professionals must keep their productivity, for sure they can't afford any loss of it, especially in these times!

Moving from Flash to HTML 5  means rebuilding all the existing panels from scratch: how much this will cost to us in terms of time (and money) if we could have an HTML 5 version of Configurator? And how much, if we don't have a tool like Configurator at all? Three times, ten times as much? Maybe Adobe knows the answer, not me, I'm not a coder. But I'd like to know this answer.

Further, picture this: I've taught several classes for at least  five intercontinental companies on how to build actions and organize them into panels for improving their productivity. Every time the response was the same: BOOM!

They had a huge speed improvement in their daily workflows, and started to build dozens of panels by themselves for any possibile use. It was like opening a Pandora's box for them (their words).

Every one who attended my classes, have taught the same topic inside their company and the reaction was always the same. So now, in every company in which I've taught building panels and actions, there are hundreds of panels for many different uses, all over the world. Of course, as 100% of them were specifically built for internal use, they shared the panels among them, but not outside their company.

Many of them who are now mid-advanced users, have written to me asking how they could keep their panels working correctly in the next CC version of Photoshop. I have no solution for them, unless many of them become coders. That's a bad answer, I must admit, but no way out right now.

Their reply to me was very straight: "well, we won't upgrade any copy of Photoshop until we can keep our panels working correctly for sure. For us is much more important being productive and efficient than upgrading to the latest version, if this means to lower our performance, no doubt."

Adobe wanted to integrate all their softwares into the Creative Cloud. So far so good, I'm for it. But when you decide to integrate everything saying to the world that "it's for the sake of a better productivity", then you must really integrate them. Otherwise people will think that it was only a commercial move. So why we can't build panels for the applications inside Muse, for example? It was introduced to allow people to build  websites quickly and efficiently using HTML 5, taking care about the layout instead of investing too much time in coding.

Exactly what Configurator allowed to do. Focus on the result with minimal time cost, aka money cost.

World is running faster, therefore we need to work faster too. And without Configurator we won't. I can't disagree with all the people that won't upgrade Photoshop, if this means that they'll work slower because they can't use their panels carefully made by themselves. Photoshop is a tool for producing ideas and other nice stuff, like any software. The faster it is, the most people will like it, the better will sold. A simple truth. Think about what happened to Apple Finalcut ProX and how many users switched to Premiere. Photoshop has no competitors except new versions of itself.

And this does not apply only the CC users. Look at the bigger picture: how many users still using CS6 with all their fully working panels won't upgrade to CC if they know they'll reduce their productivity?

Think about the answer. Carefully.

My first response: Thank goodness I didn't fall into the Configurator abyss a year and a half ago. Queerly, "Configurator 3" is still listed at one of the tools to produce content for Adobe Exchange ... but more on that in a moment.

As one who teaches people how to use Photoshop, I can ony imagine the moaning and consternation that "hundreds of panels" would create as a barrier to people learning an already complex tool.  While configurability makes the tool easier for SOME people, it makes it harder to actually share "recipes" and discoveries because your panel doesn't look like my panel.

Not having full forward and backward compatibility without scads of additional developer work is also a problem.  When the entire world converges on CC the effort will make more sense and have a better chance of success.

Getting back to Adobe Exchange. Here you have a tool that: a> Is NOT included in the product, b> is not well known c> is not available to "older" versions of Photoshop and d> has a high barrier to entry because: it requires the user to also install the Adobe Extension Manager which is also not included with the (Photoshop) product. 

For Photoshop if I choose to create a zxp it will cause my user(s) to endure all the extra loading required (something as as seller I'll have to explain to them or hope they will figure out) AND it will also eliminates perhaps 30% of my market (CS2, 3, and 4 users). That's a pretty big disincentive.

My experience with Extension manager and Exchange manager is they are both buggy and painful to install on Windows 7/64. Much like the Creative Cloud desktop manager which fails to install on two of my machines every time there is a newer version. Additional disincentive for a developer: why create content that causes more anguish for customers?

I see little hope for Adobe to overcome any of this since the current tactic is to bundle less and less. I see where that's an interesting strategy for Adobe, but it increases the pain for the user, especially the non-expert user.  Think of it this way: where do you think someone is more likely to find my super snazzy actions?  by opening a product, installing a product that requires another product to be installed before you can do a search? or via a Google?

Here's another way to look at it: I can search for Mac or iPhone apps without installing anything - just a browser. But even if I *knew* what I wanted was in Adobe Exchange, https://www.adobeexchange.com/ provides no search.  In fact, I have to buy and install an expensive Adobe Product just to find out!  I think there is probably a way to Search the Exchange Store for this, but no body bothered to put it on the front page of the site!

I'm sorry I spent so much time on Adobe Exchange, but I think the Exchange failures and the Configurator failure share some common themes: incomplete execution. Even if people DID build hundreds of panels... there was never a decently simple way for the builder to distribute it or the consumer to find out about it and install it.

I agree with AnthonyK that for most of us, our panels are made for our own workflow and not something that we write for the purpose of sharing publicly. I share some of my panels with participants in the automation workshops I've taught - but otherwise just use them myself. Just like my Actions, and even scripts that I've either mashed together myself, or hired script writers to create for me.

Basing useage on the number of publicly shared panels doesn't make sense - basing it on the number of downloads of Configurator and of publicly available panels would be the more accurate way to judge the level of usage. Those downloading Configurator are building panels - very likely to help their own workflow. Those downloading publicly available panels are taking advantage of the panels that others have made and may not be dreating their own.

I don't know anything about whether there is a reason to move from Flash to HTML5 panels for Adobe - but I assume there is, or they wouldn't be doing so. What I would hope is that Adobe can invest the resources, from the billions of dollars in annual sales, to create a product that allows us non-coders to continue to build custom panels in a manner that is as least as easy as with Configurator, and that has at least as many features.

This measuring of useage on the number of publicly shared files reminds me of something Kodak did in the 1990's. I worked as a consultant for them at the time, and they went from having one Law Enforcement Representative in the US to 14 in a period of a few years. Management realized that they needed to measure the return on this investment so they created specific SKUs for law enforcement products - they had special law enforcement film (it was the same as their standard film but different packaging), they had specialized packaging for their digital cameras, etc. These products were only available through a small handful of dealers, and the prices were higher than the consumer counterparts. So, law enforcement agencies were being asked to purchase only through specific dealers and to pay higher prices, which of course, they didn't (although they were buying Kodak products). Kodak management didn't see the law enforcement SKU numbers that they thought that they should and they eliminated their support. They measured sales the wrong way and lost a large amount of the law enforcement market over the following years. I hope Adobe will understand that many of us who download Configurator are using it and finding it an important part of our workflow - but we're simply not sharing our panels publicly.

George Reis

Hi Tony,

I'm afriad that supporting HTML5 panels would involve essentially a complete rewrite of Configurator and it's a massive amount of work. If we can see that lots and lots of panels are being created by Configurator then that would hopefully provide justification and revisiting the decision to stop any further work on Configurator. We need to see usage of Configurator and the best way to do that is to submit your panels (free or paid) to Adobe Exchange. You can create an account for free here:

http://adobeexchange.com/producer

Remember you can also sell panels by setting up an account with our payment vendor FastSpring, there is a link in the Account page on Adobe Exchange.

I hope that helps.

Jonathan Ferman | Product Manager

According to John Nack, configurator is pretty much dead: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2013/09/build-html5-based-extension-for-photoshop-more.html#comments I think it might be wise posting your panels on the Adobe Echange to show that it is useful for you.