Back to intuitive - Old ideas

[DTP-1984]

Recently I took a look at https://infinitemac.org/1998/ and ran into a much much simpler time with very intuitive software. It's an era I came from starting for me in 1985.  Through the years software has become more difficult to use (and don't give me that "it's more powerful" guff).  Take a look at UltraPaint yourself and just start to draw things.  There is NO software in this day that is as easy to use as Ultra-Paint, SuperPaint etc. 

Anyway, back then there was Typestyler, Typetwister (which Adobe killed) and Now Utilities,

1. Now Utilities: Allowed you to make your own custom font menus, in the order and colour you'd like them in. And not show fonts you didn't want to show. Seems like a simple thing that made things much quicker and easier even though our computers were far less powerful, 

2. TypeStyler (which is dead again) but even more so TypeTwister which Aldus had and Adobe bought and never used, was a KIDS program for fooling around with font styles. Curves, layers of outlines etc. There were preset designs and if you customized some you could save them and easily use them. 

These simple very very OLD ways of doing things so simply, are a shame we've lost them. It seems like two such simple features to add to the Adobe line up.  I know Illustrator warps text and Adobe has some font menu settings that make things a bit easier... kind of... not really. Not if you've used Now Utilities and Typetwister.... and Superpaint.  

This isn't some old guy saying that the good old days were better.  OS9 and earlier crashed and bombed. Also of note, with these ''''fast''' new computers.. why isn't everything instant yet? Bloating bloat bloat... beachball. I could go on about that. It seems planned obsolescence is a way to keep the big companies churning profit at the cost of us all and the landfills and recycle depots. 

[rayek.elfin]

I am a child of the 80s and I lament the demise of the Amiga up till this very day. I loved DeluxePaint, and rendered images in the first 3d apps. I worked with the very first versions of Photoshop.

Yet I am also a realist and we should be aware of nostalgic feelings dominating our perception of the past. Many people feel that the past was better somehow than current times. Obviously this is flawed thinking.

What I can do now for free in Blender utterly blows anything away I did in the 80s and 90s in paid software. The speed at which I can render scenes is mind-blowing. It's almost magic. And it gets better each year.

Free open source software like Krita and Blender allow me to create beautiful art that was just plain impossible in the 80s and 90s. I remember paid-for applications from that time, and I shudder at the thought of how limiting they were. No layers. Max 16/32 colours. If we were lucky we had 256 colours at our disposal.

And the hardware we had to put up with: remember the 640 by 400 pixels resolution and 16 colours? On a flickering 14" CRT that was painful to look at? Now I am working on three large 27" high resolution screens, no flicker in sight, amazing picture quality. And everything works so FAST and smooth. Of course it depends somewhat on the hardware: I have a reasonably powerful machine. Browsers fire up in a second. I can work with graphics files of several gigabytes, and they load up faster than low-res 32 colour imagery on my old Amigas.

I feel honoured to have been part of the rise of home computers since the beginning of the 80s. I love retro computing, and I still run an Amstrad 6128 for fun. But make no mistake: I wouldn't go back to using those for real work.

As for TypeStyler: it still exists. https://typestyler.com/index.html

As for Ultra-Paint or SuperPaint: sorry, there are scores of great intuitive painting apps out there that do a better job that those two (like ArtRage, SketchBook, Realistic Paint Studio, and others). And mobile platforms feature a number of very good and simple to use ones (such as Procreate for the iPad).

For example, when I am not painting in Krita or ClipStudio, I like to doodle in Realistic Paint Studio, which is a fun art program that emulates a physical drawing/painting experience. It's super simple to use -- anyone can pick it up in minutes. And loads of fun! Check it out:

UltraPaint or SuperPaint just don't compare: neither on usability / easy of use nor on features. But I do agree that sometimes I grow tired of Krita or Photoshop and their more technical GUIs. Which is why I fire up RPStudio for a reprieve. Or grab a drawingpad and a real pencil 😉

Regarding TypeTwister: I recall this software. Looking back it produced (sorry) pretty campy looking type effects with insufficient control over the final look. At the time focused applications and utilities that concentrated on a very particular effect or job were more popular. Which makes sense since graphics software wasn't nearly as feature rich as it is nowadays.

In short, those smaller utility tools were pushed out of the market for the simple reason that design software grew up to accommodate the requirements of professional artists and users. And in my opinion I'd rather have those tools integreated in the main design software.

That said, you'd only have to look online for legions of web-apps and services that provide in similar "anyone can design a <<fill in your design project>>" with gazillions of pre-made templates and presets. Do they look good? Sometimes. Do they look generic? More often than not.

Anyway, I do understand where you are coming from: the 80s seemed a simpler time for computing and design apps. And in a way that is true. But please: let's not forget how limited those tools and the supporting hardware actually were. I disagree that simple design software is no longer available - quite the contrary. Art software has never been more accessible, for all ages, and for all skill levels. Free and commercial software too! It's never been better!

[DTP-1984]

Typestyler is dead again. It was amazing. Typetwister like you say was messy but my point is it was simple and had presets and customs. Alsobim not talking about copying typetwisters old look, obviously in 2023 they'd fix it up.   Illustrator has no presets last time I looked. (Maybe now) and InDesign has no typetwister, period.  Because old software was a brand new thing some designers thought it out very well. Now things are bloated and you need to google or YouTube most things to find out how to do it. Especially Adobe. Ya I know they now have 1000 times more features.

I'll check out some of the software you mention. But none I found has the old patterns you can use for halftones. I mean dots, not shades.  I use sketchbook on my iPad every week for cartoons and it's the best I've found.  But it has no patterns. Only shades. 

[Steve Werner]

The truth can sometimes be hard to accept:

You can only live in the PRESENT. The past is like a memory (or a cancelled check).

[rayek.elfin]

Well, strictly spoken we always live in the past: our brains have to process the incoming information from our senses, and that takes a while. Living in the present is physically impossible!

One could say we cannot escape our past! 😉

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

I'll just note that, with a few exceptions, all these systems and software still run.

So, you're not using (or returning to them)... because?

[DTP-1984]

Because old machines don't work on the internet and my printers.   My post is to try and find new software that is as easy as the old.  One you don't need help learning. One with pattern fills (dots) like the old. Also an InDesign light version.  I agree with everyone here but I think you are missing the point. When I test drove my first ever computer.  Apple had a test drive promotion for a Mac 512.  We plugged it in.  Put a disk in. Saw the folder. Moved the mouse. Pushed the button. It opened. Clicked MacPaint and I drew a golf scene. It was one of the most amazing things we had ever seen up to that point. No dos codes or reading a book or googling or YouTubing. So simple a 4 year old could draw and type. Nothing is perfect but the macintosh and the software was close. User interface designers are highly paid because it's really hard to make things simple.  An example is CRM software.  All I've looked at is junk. So I use google sheets. It's not perfect but close. Someone just needs to add contacts and email. Seems simple but I guess not. 

[rob day]

It seems like two such simple features to add to the Adobe line up.

https://indesign.uservoice.com/forums/601021-adobe-indesign-feature-requests

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

I think you are (1) romanticizing what was, yes, something of a romantic era in personal computers; (2) overestimating those system's real power, as far ahead of their time as they might have been; and (3) somewhat overstimating, or at least mischaracterizing, how 'difficult' modern software is to use.

Just a few random points on those notions. First off, I am a writer, a historian, I've specifically written technological history, and I was an experienced small computer user by the time the breathless ads for the Amiga and Mac appeared. (Both became technoreligions like few other things I can point to, except maybe the iPhone.)

First, I don't think either box had anything like the power they are reputed to. Put in a modern workflow, they'd be at the level of relatively low-power graphics and designware, at best. Yes, this was freakin' amazing at the time, but so was the Delorean, which had a zero to sixty time of nearly 18 seconds. (I don't think there's an econobox sold today that won't do pretty close to 12 seconds, and most are well under 10... so.)

Easy to use? Sure. Consider that the software for each was mostly single-track: it did one thing and did it astonishingly well for the era. But if you opened an app, you could do one and only one thing with it, so of course it was simple and intuitive and had a gradual learning curve (at least, as such things go for tech-heads.)

Are the big Adobe apps a lot "harder to learn" and "less intuitive" and (especially ID) have "steep learning curves"? Yup. But each one can be used for an enormous number of end results, with no small amount of overlap. They are not one-function machines, nor single-purpose apps. So a "simple" startup mode and so forth would cripple them for every other use users might want to accomplish. Yes, you have to learn a passel of 'ground rules' and how to set up the overall workspace to accomplish a particular goal, and no, that's not easy. Compare Word and ID; Word does one and only one job, so you open it and start typing. ID has many, many alternatives for end results, so if you want to type a memo or a book, you have to spend some time setting up the file to do that. I don't see that as some kind of unnecessary complexity or just making the app hard to use compared to a 1989 one-purpose app.

So, yes, I think you very much are comparing Apples and oranges, along with any number of other opposites examples. And while that original software might be trapped on wholly obsolete platforms, there are many-many-many simple, E-Z-2-use apps that do all the individual paths the Adobe tools bundle into 3 or 4, so if you want a paint tool that requires no learning, there are half a dozen at your grasp. Ditto for pretty much everything, even 3D modeling and such. But having invested in that tool and climbed its gradual, grandma's learning curve... you can't do anything else with it.

Nothing wrong with being romantic over what was a great era in tech. But wishing an unworkable aspect of it would come back is... misguided.

Let me throw out a parallel example about usabity. Most gearheads know there are, loosely speaking, "American throttles" and "European throttles." Many if not most American cars respond to a middlin' push of the throttle with a roar and a belch and a patch of rubber. Most Euro cars respond to the same push with... stately acceleration. But... push the 'Murrican throttle a little more, and you realize you didn't push it halfway, but 80%. And push hte Euro throttle more, often through a secondary resistance spring, and you discover you'd only used about 30-40% of power. (The American model, like so many things, is designed to make first-time drivers, like on a test drive, think "Wow, this thing has ballz!" The Euro approach, like so many parallel things, is designed to save extremely expensive gas.)

Anyway, get the point? The 1990 tech would roar off the line in staggeringly impressive style, and for pretty much any user. But... that was it. There was no more to their act. Modern tech forces you to go slow, and learn basic things, and then work through a learning curve... to almost unlimited and once-unimaginable power.

But hey, sometimes I miss my Timex-Sinclair, too. 😄

[DTP-1984]

No romance going on here, sorry, 🙂 I'm just asking for good ideas to be added to new software. I know Apple has put in restrictions for use of something like Now Utilities (font menu) and YouControlFont menus. But I think Adobe could at least allow you to remove fonts from a menu... or even re-order them and colour code them.  Yes, I know you can favourite fonts and use that list. But it still is no where near as good as Now Utilities was. 

On the paint software - please find me a paint software that has the old pattern / half tone fills.  Yes this was bitmap software but that choice is gone. OK okay i admit I'm probably the only one asking for this tool, but as Steve Jobs said some people don't know what they want until you give it to them.  In my art world it was great to be able to add, dots, lines... even a brick pattern with one click to fill in an area. I use Sketchbook and like all other paint software I've looked at, they only have colours and shades/halftones. I want my cartoons to have dots or lines. Why? Because I vector them so they will show up nicely in a pdf.  Shades are not good in a pdf. Or get lost when I trace.  Am I a unicorn? Maybe.  Does Procreate do this? It's the only one I haven't tried. 

I agree with the car analogy.  I miss the floor button for the high beams. And the amazing floor windshield squirter you could push light for low pressure and hard to squirt someone tailgating. You can't do that now days. Prime example of something they could put in a NEW car... or... in a new computer / software. 

So no romanticizing here really, I'm just wanting some really smart people at Adobe or software companies to get with it.  An example of amazing new software with lots of thought gone into it is Sparkle web designer. Also Art Text is pretty good but a bit fragmented, in my opinion.  Typestyler was amazing but it not supported on new software once again. My guess is Apple keeps changing too much for one guy to keep up. Adobe should buy it and get it plugged in to InDesign and set up a simple Menu. 

Today I saw that Illustrator was updated and now had AI.  I looked for the AI button. Looked in the menu. Clicked the link Adobe put in the email and nothing.  What did I have to do to get to AI settings? draw a box then click on the arrow button and an AI popped up.  Simple? maybe.. but intuitive? NOT.  This is what I'm talking about. Really really bad UI designers that think inside their own box. Thinking they made it simple. Okay they kind of did.  Where was the tutorial?  I must have missed that link?  I typed in the help menu. Nothing.  duh !!!!   They need to hire a dumby like me to test their software.. haha!!!  

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

I think you want to eat your cake — or Toast — and have it, too. Without being tiresome, I have a broad background in all the elements of this, and there is no path from the UI/UX of those simple, one-function/one-purpose apps and a professional-grade UI/UX for massively functional apps such as ID/PS/AI.

To reach in to the analogy bin again, it's like saying anyone who ever wanted to be a bird should be able to sit down and fly an A380.

Don't get me wrong — I completely understand and empathize with your desires here. They're just not possible, not unless Adobe splits these three tools into twenty. As a start. Some things are absolutely, inescapably dependent on learning a set number of basics before you can get to "Hello, World."

[DTP-1984]

In 1984, the Mac helped the birds fly an A380.  If what you're saying is true, and I do admit I am not a coder, so do not understand much of what needs to be undertaken to add Now Utilities features to a font menu. But, it's been done.  I do not believe it's for these technical coding obstacles or making software even more bloated, I believe it's because they haven't thought of it.  They haven't looked back at the smart fellows that made Now Utilities font menu.  I do know that Apple's security restrictions are one big obstacle. But I also believe that Adobe has the engineers to pull it off.  If you have never used Now Utilities font menu functions, your 'broad background' isn't as broad as some.  I came from electronic publishing from day one in 1984.  I started with MacPublisher 1, Pagemaker, Ready,Set,Go and of course Superpaint. I somehow avoided Illustrator and Quark. Ran a printshop. So I know 'most' of what was good and bad.  So my original post was just to put a bug in the ear of Adobe and others that there really is/was a better way.  Much like the pencil in space instead of a pen. (ok now it's an ipad and that's better, so bad example, another point for you, lol) .  There are probably many 1000's of things that were better in the past that would still work better today.  Human's progress and forget. We all know that.  Much like how bad war is, because there is a new generation that didn't experience it.  I respect your expertise and you probably know a heck of lot more than me when it comes to 99% of computer knowledge.  Sincerely, thanks for your input, I enjoy the analogies. Steve Jobs was the best at it and, so i rest my case. lol

[rob day]

There is NO software in this day that is as easy to use as Ultra-Paint, SuperPaint etc....

From Wiki The SuperPaint system was a custom computer system built around a Data General Nova 800minicomputer CPU and a hand-wired shift register framebuffer. This system had 311,040 bytes of memory and was capable of storing 640 by 480 pixels of data with 8 bits of color depth.

It doesn’t matter if it was easy to use—a 640 x 480 pixel, flattened, 8-bit RGB image with no color management would be pretty much useless for today’s output requirements.

[DTP-1984]

It's pretty obvious I don't mean using an old computer. I mean using a new one and adding simple features and simpler usability to current or new software.  The new designers have lost touch with using the software.  Especially Now Utilities. If you haven't used it, how would you even know. I used it. There are so many things since 1985 that have been lost that were good ideas. 

[rob day]

You're in the wrong forum. It's unlikely anyone at Adobe is going to consider this thread-- this is a user to user forum.

Post here:

 https://indesign.uservoice.com/forums/601021-adobe-indesign-feature-requests

[DTP-1984]

true thanks. I've done that since 2005 and will request again.  Busy people.  Not a biggy, Affinity also fails more so than Adobe. InDesign is great really.  Some things in both are features I wouldn't think of, so.. good on them both. 

[DTP-1984]

I'm not the only one. I found this post online after looking at 'pattern' pallet in the latest Photoshop and only finding trees and useless patterns.  Look at MacPaint with the halftones right out front on the opening of the software.  I know new software has to hide things because it does 1000 times more than 1985.  Plust it's called Photoshop, not paint or draw. Illustrator is worse than Photoshop for being intuitive.  Long ago Adobe bragged about how InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop were getting very close to the same type of interface.  Yesterday I opened up the Settings.... in each. They are TOTALLY different. With the same settings in totally different places. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. How long would it take to make the settings closer to being the same in each program?  I know they can't be the same because they do different things but if you look... there are some settings that are the same.. and in different places in different orders. In 2023.   

Here is MacPaint.  Even Superpaint and Ultrapaint hid some of the patterns if I remember correctly. MacPaint was a one trick pony.  Sorry it posts so small. Here is the link.  https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/87612/1bit-macpaint-style-dithering

Again I'm talking about simplicity. NOT going back to old computers or even lowering the features in software.  Nor being romantic about the old days. I'm talking UI people getting clever.  It's kind of like, we've been to the moon, but never been back. Kinda.  Now we want back... and find it really difficult.  because it is.  It's difficult to make something powerful yet simple and foolproof.

This is a post I found online of another person wanting much the same. I don't want dithering. Dithering was horible. But the fill patterns were great.  I could make them all in photoshop I guess. But I use Sketchbook and have asked them to add patterns.  

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

Okay. Let's make it simple.

List, in reasonable detail, five things you would change (with a magic wand — forget coding complexity or sunk costs or user base experience; you can do anything here) about InDesign to make it conform to this 1980s ideal.

Anything that makes another standard use of ID harder or impossible will be struck down.

[DTP-1984]

Only five? I admit it would be easier to name far more than five things that are way better in InDesign than 1980's software. Dozen's if not even one hundred things.

Five would be easy but I'll just leave this where it is because I've already named two.  I do use libraries with some pre-set curved text which kind of acts like the 'typetwister' but I don't think..?.. any adobe software adds as many outlines on text as typetwister did. NOT that I like ANY outlines on text these days.  

But the customizable font menu is very very impossible to not agree with me because it makes it far more time saving to just have your fonts where you know they are quickly.  Colour coded into SanSerif - Serif - Bolds - Script - Hand - or whatever the designer likes.  In fact back then the font menu was IN the menu and the user could just click and mouse down to where you knew the font you wanted was.  I guess you had to be there. Yes, now you can type the first letter and choose filters, faves and recents... good features but just not as fast or easy.  The InDesign menu is HELL with all the system fonts and foreign fonts no one needs. (if you aren't using faves). 

Well that's just one thing in detail.  One other that comes to mind was with Ready,Set,Go you could just double click a text box or image box and ALL the settings for that box popped up on a dialog box. I forget everything that was in tha box but I remember being frustrated with InDesign when I switched.  Also Ready,Set,Go was way better at linking text boxes throughout pages and each box.   Last time I used Ready,Set,Go was 2003 so I'm only remembering what frustrated me with InDesign.  Also!! Affinity Publisher opens PDFs and they are editable.  Just some examples of the ease, that can be done, to get us flying that A380.  Everything can be made better.  Everything. Yet you can't please everybody either.  If you change the pepperoni on your pizza, you'll tick off your current customers, and the ones that tried your pizza and didn't like the pepperoni when you opened, aren't coming back to try the new pepperoni because they hated your first pepperoni.   So many products are like this, especially software. I enjoy your chats. 

[rob day]

that can be done, to get us flying that A380

The value of intuition is limited. Professional design and print production takes a fair amount of skill and experience—I have no interest in being a passenger in a A380 being piloted via intuition, I really don’t care if the cockpit is well designed or not.

1990s DTP conjures up a vision of an amatuer noodling around with a Mac II, which was the case—in 1990 a decent color separation from Photoshop or Quark for an offset press was impossible. To make that happen Apple and Adobe had to develop a fairly complex color management system, and with that complexity comes an unavoidable learning curve.

[Peter Spier]

Yeah. I don't go back to 1990, but in the late 90s I was doing in-house art and prepress for a large-format service bureau. I hate to tell you how much time and paper was wasted trying to get a color match.

Today's color management and profiled and calibrated monitors make color matching pretty much a non-issue if you deal with printers who implement a color managed workflow.