Adobe Support Community

Report · Mar 20, 2009

As someone who belongs to many, many forums over the years, I've gone through a lot of forum software changes. Generally, the vocal majority raise heck about it, but eventually things settle down and people go about their regular forum use with little effort.

These new forums are so much "easier on the eyes" than the mind-numbing sea of text we currently have. Some like the new colors, some hate it. Some like avatars & signatures, and some don't. But the reason you come here is for the information, and this new software WILL make it easier to find what you're looking for.

Macworld.com switched to this very same software last year. They had an obscenely large user base, all of which voiced their opinions repeatedly, to the point where many simply stopped visiting until the switchover was complete. In general, those that don't like change tend to voice their opinions the loudest. The vast majority though, tend to keep quiet and roll with changes. Today, Macworld's forums are running just fine, offer a plethora of new features, and are more active than they ever were previously.

I have no heavy interest in what Adobe does with these forums because I rarely visit the current ones - mostly because I find them absolutely unreadable. But I'm also betting I'll be using them a whole lot more once this switchover is complete. In fact, I KNOW I will.

Rather than complaining about change in general, colors, icons, avatars, signatures, bloated code, or whatever silly reason some are coming up with, time would be better spent simply helping to find bugs with what is there. Once the bugs are worked out, Adobe will most likely start looking at "fine-tuning" the look & feel.

Report · Mar 20, 2009

"But the reason you come here is for the information"

Agreed. A concept I tried to explain, perhaps with too many words in post 15 of:

http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.59b84f6e

Report · Mar 20, 2009

> "But the reason you come here is for the information"

The point is that the new forum is in no way shape or form conducive to coming here to give that information , so there will be little incentive to come here for something that doesn't exit.

When you're hard up for information, you put up with anything to get that information. But the regulars who spend many hours giving out information, assistance and advice at all hours of the day and night will quickly tire of the inconveniences.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

>But the regulars who spend many hours giving out information, assistance and advice at all hours of the day and night will quickly tire of the inconveniences.

mayhap, me'boyo, mayhap.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

I believe there was a move title which covers the OP in this thread; Ah, yes. It was called "Minority Report" :)

Report · Mar 21, 2009

Ramon does not speak for all regulars.

I think the layout and look of the new forums is light years better than the old. I believe most people who wander in to the current adobe forums think they have gone through a way back machine to 1990 or something. It resembles early bbs's.

Regulars may be used to it, and they may be effecient for some, but they are hardly welcoming. This update is long overdue and I welcome it.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

Something, something, insect overlords...

Report · Mar 21, 2009

Predictions:
The new forum will replace the old forum.
Questions will be asked.
Questions will be answered. If not by "regulars", then irregulars.
It's a big world out there on the internets.

Now using Affinity Photo

Report · Mar 21, 2009

I predict that all Tom's predictions will come true.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

What I have noticed is that there is a totally different set of aesthetic values being exhibited here between the Users of the Adobe Professional Graphic Arts applications (Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign) and the people who are almost entirely geared to AV or to web site work and the use of the formerly Macromedia products (such as Dreamweaver).

Interesting.

And also a clue as to why it has been a major mistake to shoe-horn all of the Forums into the new MM-slanted format.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

> And also a clue as to why it has been a major mistake to shoe-horn all of the Forums into the new MM-slanted format.

I predict that will become more apparent as time goes on.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

> What I have noticed is that there is a totally different set of aesthetic values being exhibited here

Totally agreed!

Report · Mar 21, 2009

If you mean that some people are more concerned about function, and others more concerned about form, then I plead guilty to being first interested in functionality. Good function with good form would be nice of course. But if it looks great but doesn't address the functional requirement then there's a bigger problem, imho, than if it addresses the functional requirement but it's got visual design problems.

Some people have already posted third party tweaks for elements of the appearance. Nobody has, or probably can, provide tweaks for the functionality.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

It's the Lost Functionality that IS the problem!

The Development team have been so intent on adding frivolous bells and whistles that they have strangled the Functionality.

This could probably be solved by producing a Plain Vanilla Skin and by cleaning up their overly-complex CSS.

Look what Eric@MCA and Mark Boyd were able to do in just a couple of hours and the improvement in performance is amazing when you use their Scripts.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

As compared with the base software, what we're seeing in the test forum is considerably pared down in terms of what I suspect you'd describe as 'frivolous bells and whistles'. Nothing has been added by anyone at Adobe.

While I can see that the form can affect performance, it won't help with functions that are simply not provided by the software. That's my chief area of concern - because I like to read everything, once. Other users don't have that 'mission' here so they won't be so fussed about functions for the heavy users. There's the old saying about who you can please and how often...

Report · Mar 21, 2009

>Ramon does not speak for all regulars.

That applies a thousand fold to you, Curt boy.

Man, that tuxedo shot makes you look soooooooo lame :D

Report · Mar 22, 2009

c'mon. name calling and mocking people? jeez guys.

Report · Mar 22, 2009

> c'mon. name calling and mocking people?

Sometimes...it just seems like the right thing to do.

Report · Mar 22, 2009

> Man, that tuxedo shot makes you look soooooooo lame

What about the grinning ram then pray?

Pot, kettle, etc.

Report · Mar 22, 2009

Ann Shelbourne, ">>>> Thanks Adobe! I LOVE this new forum software!" #9, 21 Mar 2009 9:48 am

>What I have noticed is that there is a totally different set of aesthetic values being exhibited here between the Users of the Adobe Professional Graphic Arts applications (Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign) and the people who are almost entirely geared to [Professional] AV [applications] or to [Professional] web site work and the use of the formerly Macromedia [Professional] products (such as Dreamweaver[, Director and Fireworks]).

It seems to me that your observation boils down to the aesthetic values of those who design for print vs those who design for screen. Guess which medium the Web forum uses.

i (I'm not sure if I used the quote, link, and formatting features correctly.)

Report · Mar 22, 2009

The print version is much cleaner in a sense than the screen version. Just try the view in PDF format (when it works!). It is almost tempting to ask if Adobe has its own license to create the PDF (sorry, couldn\'t resist).

Report · Mar 22, 2009

> What I have noticed is that there is a totally different set of aesthetic values being exhibited here between the Users of the Adobe Professional Graphic Arts applications (Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign) and the people who are almost entirely geared to AV or to web site work and the use of the formerly Macromedia products (such as Dreamweaver).

Ann, you may be correct. But if functionality is truly the most important feature of Adobe Forums, the WebX format falls dramatically short for my own applications:

WebX screws any code or script posted, generally making it unusable. For this reason, the Script and Expression areas of the After Effects forum are virtually non-existent. Users go to other places to discuss these features, because it's not practical to do so on the current forums.

A picture tells a thousand words. When new users come to the WebX forums and want to post a screen grab of their problem project, it's embarrassing to tell them they need to use an external image host to do so.

Video tells ten thousand words. The ability to easily embed YouTube and other online video content into a post is not just a great convenience, it's a way to teach, inform and demonstrate within the forum, rather than sending users somewhere else mid-discussion.

I share a number of your criticisms about the Jive Forums, but for me and the community which uses my frequented forums, the Jive system also offers features which are essential for productive use. As I suspect the new system, like the old, will evolve over time, I'm happy to embrace the positives of the change, and hope that any major problems can be resolved in time.

Report · Mar 22, 2009

Andrew:

Even if you are able to post images and video directly into the New Forums, you might want to be very wary of doing so!

Regarding "User's Content" posted on Adobe's forums and other web sites (including both images and video clips as well as code); do be certain to re-read Adobe's TOS; and also these threads:

http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b85a13/
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b85ebb/
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b85627/

Report · Apr 06, 2009

I fail to see how "cleaning up the CSS" and "fixing the colors" will bring back any perceived lost functionality. In fact, I see nothing but MORE functionality now.