3 ms·

I'll do my work with layers like "Layer 0 copy copy" as long as they're grouped. That's shocking. That's like me as a developer naming my variables var1, var2,

by kamjam 15y ago

I'll do my work with layers like "Layer 0 copy copy" as long as they're grouped. That's shocking. That's like me as a developer naming my variables var1, var2, var3 etc. I'll get shot if I did that and would rightly do the same to anyone else that did that. I do some Photoshop work, mainly for personal purposes and naming those layers makes it easier for me when I need to revisit those files. Stop thinking here and now and start thinking about your follow colleague that needs to take your pile of junk on.

_johnny 15y ago
It's different than code. First of all, if the designer gets the job done without renaming layers, then it's his business. (In my experience, a lot of them don't need to name layers). Unless he hands over the design to someone else. I'm not sure how often it happens. Code is very often handed to different people. I doubt graphics need the same level of maintainability. But anyway, that's a thing between designers, and we're talking about designer vs. developers. The other difference is that in Photoshop you can easily find layer by using Move tool and CMD+clicking on the picture. And you can find text layers with Text tool.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  You don't rename anything, you name them correctly when you first create them. He's right, your behavior is shocking, and worse, you're trying to defend such bad practices.
  - _johnny 15y ago
    Sorry to be shocking :) I defend them because they're paid to do beautiful work and lack of layer names was never really an issue for me. Maybe just a couple of times. If the mess they left would be too big for me, then I'd complain. As long as I can deal with it, it's their decision whether they name layers or not. I definitely don't need every layer to have a name.
- kamjam 15y ago
  You say this now, but unless you have crystal ball you can't look into the future. I've worked in many places where something is designed, shelved, resurrected several months later, design tweeked, shelved, budget approved, resurrected... Anyway, we're not talking about a thing between designers alone, we're talking about the fact that a lot of designs are passed on to developers to then code in html. You yourself highlight the fact that designers may not be familiar with browser incompatibility. We they can't factor these into the design then IMO it's pointless having them create the html. That said, I agree with many points, like naming files properly (which costs almost nothing) So naming files costs almost nothing nothing, but naming a layer correctly in the first place is a pain in the arse/takes up too much time... not much consistency to your logic here. As I recall, hitting F2 will take you into rename mode. As gnaritas says, name it properly in the first place then there is no need to rename!
  - _johnny 15y ago
    > not much consistency to your logic here It is logical, because there are often hundreds of layers and presumably even more during the design process. Naming each one is a lot of work. There are much less files in the end so it's totally different.
talmand 15y ago
I don't find it shocking at all. That's what groups are for. Unless there are dozens of layers then a proper group name is all you really need. It's inefficient to name every layer of a group when there's only a handful of layers. Especially when sometimes the thumbnail of the layer gives an indication of the contents. Look at it in terms of arrays; sometimes you use an associative array and sometimes you just go with simple index numbering.

by kamjam 15y ago

_johnny 15y ago

It's different than code. First of all, if the designer gets the job done without renaming layers, then it's his business. (In my experience, a lot of them don't need to name layers). Unless he hands over the design to someone else. I'm not sure how often it happens. Code is very often handed to different people. I doubt graphics need the same level of maintainability. But anyway, that's a thing between designers, and we're talking about designer vs. developers. The other difference is that in Photoshop you can easily find layer by using Move tool and CMD+clicking on the picture. And you can find text layers with Text tool.

gnaritas 15y ago
You don't rename anything, you name them correctly when you first create them. He's right, your behavior is shocking, and worse, you're trying to defend such bad practices.
- _johnny 15y ago
  Sorry to be shocking :) I defend them because they're paid to do beautiful work and lack of layer names was never really an issue for me. Maybe just a couple of times. If the mess they left would be too big for me, then I'd complain. As long as I can deal with it, it's their decision whether they name layers or not. I definitely don't need every layer to have a name.
kamjam 15y ago
You say this now, but unless you have crystal ball you can't look into the future. I've worked in many places where something is designed, shelved, resurrected several months later, design tweeked, shelved, budget approved, resurrected... Anyway, we're not talking about a thing between designers alone, we're talking about the fact that a lot of designs are passed on to developers to then code in html. You yourself highlight the fact that designers may not be familiar with browser incompatibility. We they can't factor these into the design then IMO it's pointless having them create the html. That said, I agree with many points, like naming files properly (which costs almost nothing) So naming files costs almost nothing nothing, but naming a layer correctly in the first place is a pain in the arse/takes up too much time... not much consistency to your logic here. As I recall, hitting F2 will take you into rename mode. As gnaritas says, name it properly in the first place then there is no need to rename!
- _johnny 15y ago
  > not much consistency to your logic here It is logical, because there are often hundreds of layers and presumably even more during the design process. Naming each one is a lot of work. There are much less files in the end so it's totally different.

talmand 15y ago

I don't find it shocking at all. That's what groups are for. Unless there are dozens of layers then a proper group name is all you really need. It's inefficient to name every layer of a group when there's only a handful of layers. Especially when sometimes the thumbnail of the layer gives an indication of the contents. Look at it in terms of arrays; sometimes you use an associative array and sometimes you just go with simple index numbering.