When selecting a layer and dragging a corner handle with the shift (or alt-shift) key pressed, the resize proportion isn't constrained. This started with this most recent update.
Actually there are five posts in this theard about PSUserConfig.txt, and five more links to Adobe changes. But never too many when this discussion is still growing and new comers can't read it from beginning.
<<I agree that those engineers do not use Photoshop at all,>>
And I'm fairly certain that's just not true. The engineers do use PS. You're not thinking high enough. The guys that help us out here in the forum are not just glorified help line workers, either. They know what they're doing.
But in a big corporation with millions of customers, you get a management that is supposed to be expert in some things—statistics and demographics for Marketing, for instance, or finance—not in any of these apps. And they sit near the top of the food chain. They are trying their best—I'll say because I have no reason to believe otherwise—to figure out what people are asking for all over the world, or at specific locations that they think are "typical," or looking at the competition to see what people like there— and anything that the engineers and product managers would like to do has to get past Marketing and Finance, at the very least. Someone has to okay the cost and someone has to agree they can sell it to the public (or stockholders).
I am willing to guess that some of these features meet the broadest wish list of the greatest number of users, and meets their timetable (that I wish they would ignore more often), and comes in at or under budget for a first pass. Then they get very real feedback, and now the engineers have something solid to take back to those on high and try to get permission to "fix" or enhance it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but taking it out on the rank and file seems to me to not be seeing that there's a whole lot of people involved better placed than engineers and product managers to call the shots.
As for "visionaries," I've never met one of those. Are they like faeries and leprechauns? <g>
Following you I suggest something close to Properties panel like Preferences panel that we can customize to our needs to keep there only those preferences we're not sure / aware how they got set, or we often change (that would be too inconvinient to do that fastly by regular Preferences where we have to look for certain ones amongst all of them).
It's a stretch to say the engineers / propellerheads don't use Photoshop at all.
The problem is that they are not professional end-users. They have basic understanding of the software they are coding, enough to dabble, but they are not graphic artists using Photoshop (Illustrator, etc) as a graphics tool, so they don't understand the disruption they cause when they change interface, delete a critical feature (like Artwork Mode in Illustrator 5 back in the 90's), etc.
> but they are not graphic artists using Photoshop (Illustrator, etc) as a graphics tool>
Probably not, as most of us aren't programmers who understand what it takes to keep this creaky old tub afloat. But are you saying that those closest to all of us, those engineers and product managers whose job it is to listen to us, haven't been paying attention to our ranting about changes release after release? I can accept that they might not be able to judge accurately the disruption one change will bring versus another, but they do know we're likely going to complain about it.
And if 75% of their reports on "usability" say that Shift to constrain goes against all the other apps out there and disrupts workflows with people (of whatever skill level) trying to remember what to do, then they might think they should address it and not continue to be the outlier. Get it over with now and in another version, we'll all be used to it. Of course, I know I still remember things they took away or changed, along with what they've never done at all, but . . . '-}
IMO, it would have worked out a bit better if all the Adobe apps adopted the change at the same time, and if there weren't so many inconsistencies, and they even still gave us an opt out box to check — but my opinion is worth what they pay me for it.
I'll still say these engineers and product managers are pretty knowledgeable, and very likely use the software a deal more than we might think. As long as I've been using the software, some 20 years now, I often get in a rut with the methods I use—after all, I'm trying to get something done and don't always want to take the time to find what might be a better or more efficient method. I don't want to take the time to learn and train my my wee brain and weak muscles to change direction.
And when I'm reading about a problem someone is having, I read an Adobe person giving them a solution that I knew about, but had forgotten or not bothered to fully work through, or didn't realise worked that way at all. I'm learning from them still. So they might indeed think they're doing us a favor when we don't feel it's a favor.
I knew a designer who never had the time to learn to use Curves, but she could find time to pile on Levels adjustments that got her there in the end. It was actually faster to her to be using the least efficient method than time taken to make sense of the most efficient. Most of us, if we're honest, can relate to that on some level. Do we all use Vanishing Point to its fullest potential?
"IMO, it would have worked out a bit better if all the Adobe apps adopted the change at the same time, and if there weren't so many inconsistencies, and they even still gave us an opt out box to check — but my opinion is worth what they pay me for it."
It'd work out a bit better if someone at Adobe who actually used the program often enough and deep enough or consulted with those who do really thought about WHY they are about to make a sea change in the way certain tools work. So far I have yet to see a single explanation that passes the smell test - y'know - one that's not from someone linked to Adobe that tells us WHY someone thought this was really a good idea, where it came from and who approved it. When I see Adobe employees defending the indefensible it just reminds me of the presidential press secretary doing the same.
Loll I was giving other examples like enforcing left handed to act like right handed after whole life beeing that first or running forward from now on while you're turned back to your usual direction.
btw what do you mean by 'A true "but ours goes to 11" moment...' ?
I wouldn't say that is hard to make that checkbox in Options Bar (while they did much harder stuff!), so I feel like we don't have to do with big company but someone pretending to be seen so.
After further testing this little operation also seems to have fixed that absolutely stupid and idiotic behavior of committing your transform simply by dragging a guide in mid process. This is huge. It fixes almost everything that was wrong. Of course, I've just scratched the surface so who knows what will pop up.
Those seconds are ironicaly people who come with ideas, but it doesn't seem try them in practise. Regarding first issue testing the product happnes for sure, but if that was also used by people who made this stuff we had not so much inconsistency refered to only one feature. If you agree to be a beta tester in alpha phase then okey, pay for it, but I wouldn't expect everyone is going to follow you. When I screw up that I done for others, a man that pays for it, is only me, not my customer.
Adobe does it other way, with their own caveat for situations they are guilty but accordingly to regulations not responsible for that they did wrong.
Defending or explaining them saying of marketing and all other sections means for me only that they are not able to do it right way. I agree everyone makes mistakes, but it happens to them too often, while million users has to deal with. Someone on their side should think to be replaced immediately, or that's simply their way for unrespectful bussines.
Yes, it is how that works. I'm coder too so I do my job, but when that is done I test it so long I know that's perfect. Of course that's me, single person, not a company that have people for every task in the long process. But when I have occasion I engage people who do that for me, who are freaks or everyday users that will do use that was made, and used so far in the previous form if that wasn't avialable yet in other version. Big Adobe could learn much from small, weak companies, but powerful by their profesionalism, as in their case that is be or not to be in the bussines.
"btw what do you mean by 'A true "but ours goes to 11" moment...' ?"
Reference to a gag in the movie This Is Spinal Tap.
One of the musicians points out how most amplifiers go to 10, but theirs goes to 11. When interviewer points out that that just means their "10" is louder, the musician says "but ours goes to 11".
This should show up and be fixed in Alpha - long before it ever gets to Beta. That it made it all the way to final release tells you a lot about the internal workings of the Ps team these days. There used to be something like fourteen or fifteen Alpha testers - y'all know the names - Andrew Rodney, Jeff Schewe, Bruce Fraser before he died, etc. How many are left and how many are active.
They have beta vers., I know it. Selected users are in, but maybe everyone is focused on something important only for himself, not on each feature Adobe introduces to Photoshop, or else not each of features is provided for those beta testers. Then is there some other inner group of people who test it as well but fail? Probably not.
>
This wasn't such a problem when Adobe had a formal beta program.>
And the cycle was at minimum 18 months and the whole industry moved a little slower and sometimes it seems that gave them time to do it better. Hard for me to really remember that accurately.
Personally, I wish the cycle were 18 months and we could get more features enhanced every release so they weren't a V1 for so long, and more little things fixed. Even though some of the stuff they've showed off at MAX would be awfully nice to have someday. If the one year cycle is working, or even needed by us users, I'm not seeing it. All the companies seem to have gone there, though. Apple releases an OS every year now, and drops support for older versions even faster than it used to. '-( I can only say that I also am not an insider, so don't know what's really going on.
I don't even know if they still have an alpha program. I have to wonder when they'd have time for that these days? But those who haven't died no doubt still have someone's ear.
Adobe stopped being so secretive. When they were hard at work, what they were working on, when a release was scheduled—all that was a secret, but those big names, along with Katrin Eismann, were at least an open secret in the Creative Suite era. I just can't remember exactly when.
They overuse CC program. When they are sure we are in with our money they don't care to release good product (one of those of CS era), so like politics after beeing elected forget their promises.
I knew Rodney in school thirty-five years ago. I used to talk to Schewe once in a while back in the late 90's. There used to be a ColorSync newslist I subscribed to (maybe there still is) and a lot of those folks would be on it. You could figure out who the Alpha testers were pretty easily. Being a Beta tester was pretty much a wasted of time as almost all the real work had been done in Alpha. Adobe got volunteers, and I emphasize that word - to Beta test for free. They expected that you'd put a certain number of hours a week basically looking for bugs and there were crappy little door prizes if you found one. A complete and utter waste of your time if you were a working pro, but I suppose it gave some a sense of prestige. I mean, if you were really lucky you might win a free license. Whoopdeefrickingdoo. If you just worked all the hours you put in for free, you'd have bought the thing many times over. The biggest point is that Beta testers had no say whatsoever in the feature set. That was done by the time it got to Beta. Bug chasin' was pretty much it. I was signed up somewhere around Ps 7.0 I think - y'know I think when you could first do layers in 16 bit and never participated because I immediately saw what a complete waste it was. But hey, they got a lot of folk to work for free. Good work if you can get it.
But. But. But... They have to do SOMETHING with my $53.00 a month that they suck out of my wallet. Before moving to subscription there was some corporate motivation to put out a good product because a crappy release could affect their bottom line. Now there's no reason at all and this is exactly what a lot of people predicted and why so many were so vociferously against subscriptions.
778
Replies
AdChoices