I don't like it.

[excited_Genie16B8]

Well, not surprisingly the Adobe team went and mucked up what I feel is the best forum on the Internet. They made it look like every other forum on the Internet, with just too much going on.

The clean, plain simple look of the current forums is superior to any other I've ever seen, and changing that is just not worth whatever new 'forum features' might come along. If you can't add new features with the current look, then just don't do anything.

Specifically, the original author of the post is a "who cares" type of thing. It's not needed in a message view. This is worse than what we now have.

Likewise the "views" and "replies" are not required information, and only serve to mess up the view. This is worse.

The message Subject has too little room to display, so it gets wrapped to a second line. This is worse.

Maybe it's not obvious, or not implemented yet, but I see no flags telling me there are replies that I haven't read yet. This is worse.

When you open a message thread, we have the familiar "forum look" which is very much worse than the very clean look we now enjoy.

Like the Home/End shortcuts, and the handling of subclips, Adobe went and 'fixed' something that wasn't broke, thus effectively breaking it.

[Cindy-]

I don't think they are listening. They consider complaints about moving to this new forum as just being contrary or over the top. It's really too bad.

[John T Smith]

>went and 'fixed' something that wasn't broke

Maybe not broke, but according to what I read elsewhere (too many messages lately to remember) the mandate is to have but ONE forum software running everything, and the current software isn't robust enough to do that

Given that Forum Operations was told to find new software... I guess something that looks a lot like all the other software was to be expected

I also prefer webx... but if webx can't grow to run the load, looks like we get something else, like it or not

[Guest]

They are not listening because SOMEONE fairly senior at Adobe has a PERSONAL Agenda for moving their Web sites to Jive.

I have suspected it for some time but now am absolutely convinced of it.

I just hope that he gets fired for his efforts.

[Cindy-]

> I also prefer webx... but if webx can't grow to run the load, looks like we get something else, like it or not

webx obviously does a more robust job than this new one does. It is dog slow.

So give me a hint Ann, who is it?

[Geoff the kiwi]

Is there anything you lot can see as a positive about the new software and interface??

[Bob_Peters]

Geoff:

Precious little, if anything.

[Cindy-]

> Is there anything you lot can see as a positive about the new software and interface??

Being able to style the text. But I would give that up in a flash just to have the forums as they stand.

People seem bent on having all those extras and those are the very things that make the forum cumbersome and slow.

I'm afraid the people behind this just don't get it. More is not better.

[Guest]

>So give me a hint Ann, who is it?

I can't answer that because I don't work on the top floor at Adobe or on any other floor at Adobe for that matter.

But I bet I am right because I cannot imagine that this ridiculous scheme would ever have gone this far if it wasn't in someone's personal financial interest to have propelled it forwards so relentlessly and with such total disregard for practicality.

It is not unknown for such things to happen in large corporations.

[Cindy-]

> It is not unknown for such things to happen in large corporations.

I know. I used to work for large corporations.

[~graffiti]

>I just hope that he gets fired for his efforts.

In reality, he'll probably get a large bonus.

[John T Smith]

>used to work for large corporations

As if a small company is any better... where just as soon as the owner's son graduates business school with a shiny new degree and no job experience, he takes over your division and the promotion you've worked for is not going to happen

Point is... as long as people run companies, there will be problems

Since I don't know anyone at Adobe, I don't know if anyone has a vested interest in selecting the new forum software

Ann could be right... or she could be wrong... even she says she can't answer "who"

[Guest]

> Is there anything you lot can see as a positive about the new software and interface?

Sure:

























Let me get back to you on that.

[Guest]

Ann, what also happens in large corporations is that they have a vision of what is in the corporation's overall interest.

There's not a shred of evidence to support your wild claims about "someone's personal financial interest". It would be equally valid for me to claim that you're being paid by WebX to fight a rearguard action (a claim which I wouldn't of course think of making - I appreciate that you simply have a passionate personal concern about the outcome of these matters).

Whether Adobe's vision for the way they interact on the internet with their customers (present and future) proves to be correct or not is another matter, of course, and time will tell. But while some here are saying "it's a mistake" or "it's a plot" it's equally valid to say "it's a plan". I don't know that - but it's within the range of possibilities.

[Guest]

"A Plan" could also be nefarious: we simply have no way of knowing if this one was but I don't discount the possibility.

Whether nefarious or just downright stupid some one has blundered.

[_Ian_Burton_]

Useful content is what makes these forums so good.

A long time ago I drove an AVIS rental care slowly from San Francisco airport to Cupertino because the safety brake was on. An old lady explained to me that there was a foot lever high and left of the steering wheel that once released would stop the smoke coming from the back wheels. Once I knew this I no longer had a problem. It was just an odd interface issue.

Same with the new look forums. It's just an interface issue. Perhaps it's a good idea that the new Adobe Forums look like many other user forums. Just like cars worldwide have the similar interfaces (except early 80s AVIS Cadilacs).

I agree to some small degree with the conspiracy theory. It's clear to me that the Adobe executive who allowed Premiere Elements to be released, with an interface that uses gray and mauve text on a dark purple background, has investments in companies selling spectacles. Could be there's something similar going on here, but it's very unlikely.

Grand plan is appealing as an idea. It would be comfortable to think that this new interface was planned by some one. Really it looks more like the work of a committee.

I married an English lady, then an Italian. Spent a lot of time with a Polish lady, and now I'm very happily married to a French lady. Varied experiences encourage us to adapt and appreciate difference for just that - difference.

So long as the Adobe forums continue to offer useful content, liking or not liking the interface will soon, I hope, become a side issue not even worth archiving.

I still do not like cars with safety brakes in obscure places. But whatever the interface to Adobe forums is finally like we'll all soon get used to it and learn to use it. Just remember that it's the content we're all here for. The rest is just decoration, or the boring journey to somewhere worth visiting.
FWIW
Ian

[Guest]

> Whether nefarious or just downright stupid some one has blundered.

It's only a blunder if we can say that we know something better and also viable could have been chosen. And we've been given valid reasons why the present situation had to change.

Hands up anyone who knows enough about the practical criteria to say what other package would have (a) been better in function and form, however you define that, and (b) up to the job in terms of handling the load etc.

Unless someone can authoritatively say that, logically one can't claim that a mistake has been made. Perhaps the best of a disappointing set of viable alternatives has been selected - and that's not a mistake.

[Guest]

I'm not impressed. I think the new forums are hideous and that being polite.

[Guest]

Hands-up anyone who believes that:

(a.): The WebX software could have been made to work with a bit more effort and determination;
or
(b.): The Jive software could have been made to comply with the format of the far superior Adobe Format with a bit more effort and determination.

So far, the New Forums warrant no better than a D- on both counts.

[Guest]

>the New Forums warrant no better than a D- on both counts.

that's being generous.

[Guest]

The problem is that the "safety brake"in the jive interface will remain permanently on even if the page loading speeds up considerably, the forums will be slow to navigate.

Since the MM people were happy with their situation and the Adobe people with theirs, why on earth were things not just left alone? The reasons given to move everything under one umbrella are totally unconvincing and smack of the post-decision rationalisation of a mistake. (Yet again!)

I will repeat what many loyal helpers are saying Adobe Inc. is crippling one of its most valuable and free support resources: the time and dedication of some of its more talented user base.

[_Phos_four_dots_]

> "Hands up anyone who knows enough about the practical criteria to say what other package would have (a) been better in function and form, however you define that, and (b) up to the job in terms of handling the load etc."

OZpeter...

You know I've praised you for your even temper, your calm way of presenting opposite points of view, and in the case of these forums, your supremely logical take on the currently evolving situation.

But in response to the quote above, I have simply the following to say, straight from my gut:

It's not my F*****G job to know, nor to do research nor provide answers to those questions! Nor is it the job of any non-employees here. Our "job" is to answer questions and guide people toward solutions as they relate to Adobe software.

Given the track record regarding actually making an impact on Adobe's collective ear, why would anyone even want to bother to offer help in making sure the baby's in the tub when the bathwater gets thrown out the window? They wouldn't take any of the vocal userbase's advice anyway.

It will be what it will be. Some will stay, some will leave. Some will bitch and grumble and deal with it the changes the best they know how.

Past is prelude, and so it goes. Praise pasta.

[Guest]

>It's not my F*****G job to know, nor to do research nor provide answers to those questions!

Phos, indeed I don't think it's your/our job. I asked the question in the context of Ann's confident statement that "Whether nefarious or just downright stupid some one has blundered." If Ann is confident that someone has blundered, she (or some like minded person) must be able to say what the better decision - overall - would or even might have been, based on some factual backup. She cannot say. Nobody here, I suspect, is likely to come up with answer justified in depth. And "no action" is not an answer that I for one would have expected Adobe to accept.

I have no problem at all with anyone saying "I don't like their decision" or that they feel that individual features or design points could be improved or whatever. To say that the overall choice is a blunder, when to say so represents a guess, seems to me to go too far.

Maybe I'm picking on Ann's exact words too much. When people get as passionate in their concerns as she evidently is, maybe one should feel the mood rather than focus on the precise statement.

[Bill12]

It would be interesting if a few forums (if not already done) where ported over to the test site. I wonder how long it would have taken my to scan this topic in the new format. It was a matter of simply turning the thumbwheel here with an easy read. My finger would probably be tired on the new layout (have to use page down).

So far my experience in the new forum setup is that I have to wait for everything. I thought that the Adobe forums were slow at times, but the new forums crawl by comparison. The editing on my machine is even slow. It takes extra time for the cursor to move. I wonder if the software requires a lot more memory and that is an issue or what? Too bad my Win 98 machine is not up so I could try it there.

[Guest]

> It would be interesting if a few forums (if not already done) where ported over to the test site.

Well, they all have been, but I think you mean that they should be run live there and set read only on the original site (where we are now)?

For me, the activity level at http://adobeforums.adobe.com/community/general/english_discussions?view=discussions is perfectly sufficient to get a feel for how interacting for real in the new forums will be. Yup, it takes a lot more clicking and scrolling and brainpower to use the new forum format than this one if your objective is, like mine, to read all posts in certain forums and do so with the minimum effort to determine what they are, and to bring them to view as efficiently as possible.

In that regard I would have thought that the WebX software makes it as efficient as it could possibly be - one click per topic, plus some scrolling to go past the first post and the last already read reply (which IMHO is not a bad idea to refresh one's memory of the context).

However, many other types of user do not necessarily use the forums that way. They might want to just ask one question, get a straightforward answer, and never darken these doors again. For that kind of use, very good search facilities makes a lot of difference in, hopefully, enabling that user to realise his/her question has already been asked and answered a dozen times already.

In that respect I'd say the Jive software wins hands down.

So straying back to the subject of overall choice of software, if your main concern is (rightly or wrongly) to avoid repeated questions on the same topic, or you want to enable the customers to immediately get help without even needing to ask a question and wait for a reply, then you'd weight your forum software selection in favour of search capability, and you'd be less concerned about how easily all discussions can be tracked by those wanting to do that.

It's that same old thing about striking a balance between the needs of questioners and the needs of regular answerers and hosts. Not easy.