4 ms·

>> It's not unheard of (Firefox is a positive example in my book) Well, I'm not trying to say it's not without it's difficulties, but designing a browser's UI

>> It's not unheard of (Firefox is a positive example in my book) Well, I'm not trying to say it's not without it's difficulties, but designing a browser's UI is not even just not in the same court as putting together something like Photoshop, it's not even the same sport. Photoshop's UI/UX isn't...great, itself, I'd say. It's far from intuitive. I use the example of Photoshop when explaining software that really learns better when you have someone over your shoulder teaching you. I find people can't even 'get' photoshop until I sit them down, spend an hour and show them the basics of what's what. Then they can explore. This is...technically still good UI/UX. If, for such a 'pro' level tool, after an hour or less of slight instruction, a user can find their way around, that's cool - but I think the 'de facto' standard of UI/UX these days is 'pick up and instantly understand how to use'. PS doesn't translate to that, and GIMP could fill that void, and even create a better UI/UX, if they could find some dedicated, passionate people to do it. Lord knows I wish I had the time.

jacobolus 10y ago
The issue with Photoshop is that the core abstractions were built in 1990, for 1990 hardware and GUI conventions (based on ideas from software for 1970s graphics workstations). Over the years, additional features (sometimes gimmicky ones designed to demo well in 5 minutes) were piled on top of this core, but nothing was ever removed. So the end result is sort of like a junk drawer filled with weird kitchen appliances. You have your grandma’s beat-up cast iron skillet and rusty chef’s knife with some chips in the handle; these need some maintenance but are still your most flexible workhorse tools. Then you have a melon baller and potato peeler you picked up at a flea market 2000, a popcorn maker that you bought for your college dorm in 2003, a waffle iron you found abandoned when you moved into a new apartment in 2007 that makes waffles shaped like zoo animals, and just last year you were given a fancy bluetooth sous vide stick as a wedding present but the bluetooth is kind of flaky and sometimes you need to re-enter the settings 4 or 5 times before it works. After long experience, if you put everything together you can usually make whatever meal you want, but sometimes it takes some creative license with the recipes, and folks observing the process are mystified.

jacobolus 10y ago

The issue with Photoshop is that the core abstractions were built in 1990, for 1990 hardware and GUI conventions (based on ideas from software for 1970s graphics workstations). Over the years, additional features (sometimes gimmicky ones designed to demo well in 5 minutes) were piled on top of this core, but nothing was ever removed. So the end result is sort of like a junk drawer filled with weird kitchen appliances. You have your grandma’s beat-up cast iron skillet and rusty chef’s knife with some chips in the handle; these need some maintenance but are still your most flexible workhorse tools. Then you have a melon baller and potato peeler you picked up at a flea market 2000, a popcorn maker that you bought for your college dorm in 2003, a waffle iron you found abandoned when you moved into a new apartment in 2007 that makes waffles shaped like zoo animals, and just last year you were given a fancy bluetooth sous vide stick as a wedding present but the bluetooth is kind of flaky and sometimes you need to re-enter the settings 4 or 5 times before it works. After long experience, if you put everything together you can usually make whatever meal you want, but sometimes it takes some creative license with the recipes, and folks observing the process are mystified.