For an app that retails for $600 — an image editing app at that — some of the UI elements are REALLY sloppy. I’ve posted an image of the offending items on my web site. Is this stuff fixed in CS4?
Yes, it does say sloppy layout work. And if I were involved, I would have been sure to make these elements properly match. But, honest? I neither took the time nor noticed the differences over the past 18 months. It’s kinda like a venetian blind slat that doesn’t exactly match the tilt angle of the rest.
So bottom line: as far as being able to use the application, does it really matter?
honest? I neither took the time nor noticed the differences over the past 18 months. It’s kinda like a venetian blind slat that doesn’t exactly match the tilt angle of the rest.
So bottom line: as far as being able to use the application, does it really matter?
Jon tell Adobe maybe they’ll hire you to do continuity.
Then again maybe they won’t.
Personally I can’t be bothered to measure everything to see if its the same or not. The fact that it makes no difference in the finished product I’m creating makes it a non issue.
It matters in so far as it says something about the state of Adobe Q&A. One wonders if the coding is subjected to equally stringent standards.
How would you suggest Adobe Q&A troubleshoot issues with an operating system which Apple released almost a year after Adobe has released their products? You have that time machine handy for all of us to use?
The UI’s in all CS4 apps have been reworked from my understanding.
Also, I find it slightly ironic that someone who is so passionately concerned about the mere appearance of an Options Bar, chooses to work on a Windows machine.
Also, I find it slightly ironic that someone who is so passionately concerned about the mere appearance of an Options Bar, chooses to work on a Windows machine.
I was going to just drop it, but I’ll kick a dead horse a little longer.
Ann (and other Mac apostles),
I do, in fact, use a Mac in addition to Windows. I prefer the Mac. Ironically, Photoshop’s UI on the Mac is uglier than it is on Windows.
This I will tell you: your god Steve Jobs would never have settled for that shitum. I submit that one of the main, maybe THE main differentiator between the Mac and Windows is Apple’s relentless attention to detail.
Now I’m getting paranoid … I can’t tell if you’re being nice to me or not. But I’ll assume the best. Admittedly, I’m a little anal about this stuff, and maybe therapy would help.
But heck, if Adobe wants to send me a few bucks, I’ll line up the blasted combo boxes for them and then we’ll all be happy! 😉
I noticed that Thomas Knoll actually posts on these forums. That’s pretty amazing, really.
Here’s my current theory about the somewhat funky Options bar. It’s one of the few UI elements that departs from the CS3 Adobe UI widget look and feel. I wonder if the Options bar had not been converted in time for the CS3 release, so no more effort was expended on getting it to look "right."
Jon – before you complain about UI ugliness, you might want to familiarize yourself with Apple’s UI widgets, and the APIs available for them in Carbon and Cocoa. You’ll find control/widget metrics to be one of the larger holes in the API set.
My original post was needlessly obnoxious and this is obviously a cosmetic issue. So take my comments for what they’re worth.
I don’t claim to be the world’s greatest designer, but stuff like that does kind of stick out – to me anyway. It’s not that hard to line stuff up. I assume it’s simply a matter of typing Top and Left values into a Property box somewhere. It is curious that custom combo boxes were used as opposed to the standard Carbon combo boxes that are available in XCode. Although I suppose XCode was not used at all so as to keep the code base between Mac and Windows reasonably consistent.
But no matter, I withdraw my comments entirely lest I become permanently known as a "crank."
Mind the pennies, and the pounds (should) takes care of themselves.
And the devil (not to mention the glory) is in the details.
More and more, it’s the little things that seems to be left in the lurch, yet it’s those little details which indicate to many of us how much attention is being paid to the larger picture.
Just the night before last, people were complaindering over on the Windows PS forum <http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.59b6c215> about why they were seeing the "Stonehenge" (PS CS4’s beta codename) startup screen in the trial version they downloaded. A couple folks from Adobe chimed in to say that the proper version had been put it its place, and that people should go ahead and D/L that. And of coursebesides the fact that folks had to waste the time re-downloading a GB+ of files againthis led to questions about whether there’d be a hassle about removing the wrong version and installing the proper one; nightmares of the PS CS3 hassles are still fresh in people’s minds (Like mine…I never was able to get the AI CS3 trial to work, even after following ALL directions, and seeing the app load with no warnings), and that doesn’t bode well.
Something like that should have NEVER happened, and it’s those little things that should be given the attention they deserve, especially for a product which is ostensibly the best at what it does in the world.
So go ahead and keep picking the little stuff apart. I’m right there with you. Whether it’ll make any difference to write about it is another story entirely, but at least you’re likely to find that you’re not the only one who notices them problems.
If people follow the posted instructions and use the provided Clean-up Utility when installing the full version after using a beta or trial version, they should have no problems.
Failing to bother to read a ReadMe gets its own (thoroughly deserved!) reward!
I prepared properly, did a TON of research beforehand, had all the info I needed printed out, had a copy of the CS cleaner app, plus the instructions for the "hidden" clean-up functions.
AI CS3 downloaded without a hitch, installed without throwing up any errors/alerts, but as soon as I tried to run it, I was informed that the licensing had expired.
No amount of anything would get it to run.
I’m not going to hassle with it again until I get new hardware, and reinstall EVERYTHING on a dead-clean drive.
Jon – actually, it can be very difficult. Apple’s own controls don’t layout with the baselines matched, and Apple doesn’t provide metrics about the controls so we can automatically match the baselines. We have to measure offsets ourselves and force the controls to layout correctly — but then Apple likes to change the control sizes and layouts in various OS releases.
The Carbon and Cocoa widgets don’t always have the functionality we need — so sometimes we have to hack the controls, or just use our own. Sometimes we use the appearance of the Apple control, with our own behaviors behind it.
XCode is a development IDE (and now the name of the package of Apple’s development tools). Interface Builder is Apple’s primitive layout application – and what I think you were referring to. No, we don’t use that — too limiting, and doesn’t handle localization well at all.
We try to make this stuff work and look right, but we also have to spend a lot of time working around the limitations of the available OS widgets and APIs (this applies to all platforms).