The thing is, Photoshop didn't win the "graphics wars" in the 90s by having a good interface. It won by having an interface that's analogous to physical photo e

The thing is, Photoshop didn't win the "graphics wars" in the 90s by having a good interface. It won by having an interface that's analogous to physical photo editing and by having a bunch of the weird/fiddly things that professional need. The best from-the-ground-up interface for a graphics program imo is that of CorelDraw, which survives as the interface to Inkscape. Rather than a craptasm of random, physical-analogue tools, you have a small number of highly functional tools giving you a wide range of options at any one point. And yes, I'm "confusing" vector-graphics editors and bit-map editors. But imo they should be the same, the form of the image should be secondary. High film editors produce a script of editing operations to be done on the raw film. Bit-maps should also produce a sequence of operation that can be edited afterwards.