5 ms·

Nobody thinks Photoshop has a good UX, but that's not the point; the point is it's been consistent, with only small, helpful changes. If Adobe redesigned the P

by cmircea 13y ago

Nobody thinks Photoshop has a good UX, but that's not the point; the point is it's been consistent, with only small, helpful changes. If Adobe redesigned the Photoshop interface they'd instantly love half their market share, as people using software professionally don't like or have the time to learn something new just because it's better in some odd way. Microsoft did that with Office, the whole Ribbon fiasco, but to their defense: - Office 2003's UI was extremely complicated; GMail's new extra steps are nothing in comparison. - The Ribbon UI was well designed from the start. - All (or most) keyboard shortcuts stayed the same. - Microsoft actually did extensively test the new design and, being Microsoft, it will be supported for a long time. Adobe probably wouldn't be able to pull that off, and it looks like even Google can't anymore.

tomkarlo 13y ago
Yes, but Photoshop has a totally different target market from Gmail, which is why the article's comparison is nonsensical if not entirely wrong. Gmail is designed for everyone and has to support the full spectrum of users, in particular the new ones (because they're the ones picking new email accounts - consider that they're partially trying to target people who still don't have email). Photoshop is designed for a very select set of power users. Saying Gmail's interface is becoming less like Photoshop and that's bad makes no sense at all. You probably wouldn't recommend Photoshop to your Grandma - you'd tell her to use Picasa or iPhoto, both of which I suspect have far more users.
- ebbv 13y ago
  If your point is that his analogy wasn't great, I think we'll all concede that point.
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    Well, my point was that the analogy shows the problem with the rest of the post - he's applying a faulty standard to judging if the changes are good ones or not. If it's just griping that he doesn't like the changes, fine, but if his point is that these are bad changes that don't make sense for the product, then he needs to pick a better analogy. Everyone wants simpler, more intuitive products, unless it disrupts their particular workflow. http://xkcd.com/1172/ http://xkcd.com/1172/
    - ebbv 13y ago
      I think despite the weak analogy, his point is obviously valid and solid. Gmail has gotten shittier for everyone.
      - tomkarlo 13y ago
        That's a pretty broad statement. It seems like what he's written is that it's gotten worse for someone with his use cases, which I'm not arguing (and I fall in that camp.) But we're also not representative of the average email user, which we sometimes have a tendency to forget when judging product changes.
        taigeair 13y ago
        @tomkarlo Photoshop is extremely customisable and full-featured which is what I was getting at. Draw Something is fun and light which works well as a mobile app. I don't know about the average email user but after 10,000+ hours of using email, I feel like I'm pretty proficient at email :)
        tomkarlo 13y ago
        Understood... but all your points are about the negatives of that, and none are about the positives. It's pretty easy to come up with a bunch of arbitrary gripes about any major UX change. But you haven't made any effort to contemplate why these changes might make a lot of sense. For example, you're complaining about the need to do two clicks to make a link, but it seems to me that 90% of the time people just paste in a URL and gmail deals with it properly. Separately entering a link and URL is more like writing HTML and I don't expect regular users do that... and frankly, I'd rather just have the URL anyway. If you knew that users were only using the "add link" icon maybe 1% of the time, wouldn't you move it down a level as well? Or just get rid of it? I'm a super, super heavy Gmail user - I average ~6,000 emails a month received on my work account, and a smaller but similar flow on my personal gmail. I know and use the keyboard shortcuts. I generally find the mole and the new text formatting UX a bit annoying - but from a product usability perspective - not a design perspective - I can see why they make a lot of sense.
- recoiledsnake 13y ago
  >Gmail is designed for everyone and has to support the full spectrum of users, in particular the new ones (because they're the ones picking new email accounts - consider that they're partially trying to target people who still don't have email). If anything, the new Gmail with all the hiding and obfuscation going on is going affect the new users the most. The other users atleast know that something is possible and will hunt around for an option, but the new folks automatically assume that some things are just not possible. For example, editing subject when replying or forwarding.
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    You're assuming that most users want to edit the subject of ongoing threads (and thereby break the thread.) I have my doubts it even occurs to most them. So not having that option visible makes sense. I understand what you're saying about hidden options being unknown, but generally overall cognitive load is one of the biggest issues for new users and one of the best ways to mitigate that is to remove visual complexity.
    - davidsturnbull 13y ago
      Changing the subject should not break the thread. Thread displays should be generated by creating a tree out of References mail headers.
    - Ensorceled 13y ago
      That's another bug in Gmail. If I send two emails to two different people titled "Proposal" they get threaded. Thanks Gmail!
enneff 13y ago
But the Photoshop interface did change dramatically with CS, Au least more substantially than gmail ever has.
jimmaswell 13y ago
What exactly about Office 2003's interface was "extremely complicated"? It's been nothing but intuitive and helpful to me. The new versions of Office aren't hard to figure out either, though.
- ams6110 13y ago
  I haven't used Office in any significant way since the Ribbon. It was basically the final nail in the coffin for me. Even now, when I have to use a word processor or spreadsheet, I can easily find my way around LibreOffice menus, while Office's Ribbon is confounding every time.

by cmircea 13y ago

tomkarlo 13y ago

Yes, but Photoshop has a totally different target market from Gmail, which is why the article's comparison is nonsensical if not entirely wrong. Gmail is designed for everyone and has to support the full spectrum of users, in particular the new ones (because they're the ones picking new email accounts - consider that they're partially trying to target people who still don't have email). Photoshop is designed for a very select set of power users. Saying Gmail's interface is becoming less like Photoshop and that's bad makes no sense at all. You probably wouldn't recommend Photoshop to your Grandma - you'd tell her to use Picasa or iPhoto, both of which I suspect have far more users.

ebbv 13y ago
If your point is that his analogy wasn't great, I think we'll all concede that point.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  Well, my point was that the analogy shows the problem with the rest of the post - he's applying a faulty standard to judging if the changes are good ones or not. If it's just griping that he doesn't like the changes, fine, but if his point is that these are bad changes that don't make sense for the product, then he needs to pick a better analogy. Everyone wants simpler, more intuitive products, unless it disrupts their particular workflow. http://xkcd.com/1172/ http://xkcd.com/1172/
  - ebbv 13y ago
    I think despite the weak analogy, his point is obviously valid and solid. Gmail has gotten shittier for everyone.
    - tomkarlo 13y ago
      That's a pretty broad statement. It seems like what he's written is that it's gotten worse for someone with his use cases, which I'm not arguing (and I fall in that camp.) But we're also not representative of the average email user, which we sometimes have a tendency to forget when judging product changes.
      - taigeair 13y ago
        @tomkarlo Photoshop is extremely customisable and full-featured which is what I was getting at. Draw Something is fun and light which works well as a mobile app. I don't know about the average email user but after 10,000+ hours of using email, I feel like I'm pretty proficient at email :)
        tomkarlo 13y ago
        Understood... but all your points are about the negatives of that, and none are about the positives. It's pretty easy to come up with a bunch of arbitrary gripes about any major UX change. But you haven't made any effort to contemplate why these changes might make a lot of sense. For example, you're complaining about the need to do two clicks to make a link, but it seems to me that 90% of the time people just paste in a URL and gmail deals with it properly. Separately entering a link and URL is more like writing HTML and I don't expect regular users do that... and frankly, I'd rather just have the URL anyway. If you knew that users were only using the "add link" icon maybe 1% of the time, wouldn't you move it down a level as well? Or just get rid of it? I'm a super, super heavy Gmail user - I average ~6,000 emails a month received on my work account, and a smaller but similar flow on my personal gmail. I know and use the keyboard shortcuts. I generally find the mole and the new text formatting UX a bit annoying - but from a product usability perspective - not a design perspective - I can see why they make a lot of sense.
recoiledsnake 13y ago
>Gmail is designed for everyone and has to support the full spectrum of users, in particular the new ones (because they're the ones picking new email accounts - consider that they're partially trying to target people who still don't have email). If anything, the new Gmail with all the hiding and obfuscation going on is going affect the new users the most. The other users atleast know that something is possible and will hunt around for an option, but the new folks automatically assume that some things are just not possible. For example, editing subject when replying or forwarding.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  You're assuming that most users want to edit the subject of ongoing threads (and thereby break the thread.) I have my doubts it even occurs to most them. So not having that option visible makes sense. I understand what you're saying about hidden options being unknown, but generally overall cognitive load is one of the biggest issues for new users and one of the best ways to mitigate that is to remove visual complexity.
  - davidsturnbull 13y ago
    Changing the subject should not break the thread. Thread displays should be generated by creating a tree out of References mail headers.
  - Ensorceled 13y ago
    That's another bug in Gmail. If I send two emails to two different people titled "Proposal" they get threaded. Thanks Gmail!

enneff 13y ago

But the Photoshop interface did change dramatically with CS, Au least more substantially than gmail ever has.

jimmaswell 13y ago

What exactly about Office 2003's interface was "extremely complicated"? It's been nothing but intuitive and helpful to me. The new versions of Office aren't hard to figure out either, though.

ams6110 13y ago
I haven't used Office in any significant way since the Ribbon. It was basically the final nail in the coffin for me. Even now, when I have to use a word processor or spreadsheet, I can easily find my way around LibreOffice menus, while Office's Ribbon is confounding every time.