Every single time they release new software, the one function I had just gotten used to is changed, removed, or consolidated along with something else. (Photoshop link feature in the new/next CS release is my latest gripe du jour.)
Photoshop, Flash, Quirck Xpress. Whatever. Damn, leave it alone! Who in the focus groups is making the requests to change what’s worked for the majority of users? Computer makers and software developers are the first ones to say they won’t make changes to satisfy only one tenth of one percent of their market. So why do they make bizarre changes to the functionality of programs to satisfy what surely must be a miniscule market segment? Have you looked at the release notes of an upgrade lately?
“Known issues fixed: seven foot, one-armed librarians working in the Polynesian isles can now pdf without crashing.”
Whew. Thank God we got that one fixed.
Now, I love a one-armed librarian from the Pacific as much as anyone, but why do developers go further and combine several other features into one? Contrary to what they may think, consolidation often times doesn’t make my life easier.
We’re funny peoples, these art directors. (Or as their genus identifies them: logus makus enormus.) We get into a groove. The last thing we need when we’re jamming late is to have to relearn something we learned already. That just slows things up. You guys getting this in Cupertino?
Great if you’re hourly/freelance - sucks if you’re on staff.
I used to have this theory that all the software we did, do and will ever need is in one room somewhere. All by itself. And that it could do everything we ever wanted it to. But then the developers aren’t releasing it because they would see their cash cow evaporate.
The upgrade cow that charges “Only $199” every four monthes for version whatever. Based on the money I spent on software so far, I’d gladly pay a one-time only fee of $19,999, just to have all the release versions in one. The set of install CDs would be REALLY huge, but hey, I can deal.
At least that’s what I told the focus group when they asked me.
2 comments:
Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill. I understand your rant about the changes in subsequent versions of software, particularly in design field. I find that, often times, the changes Adobe makes are quite logical. Quark, of course, has always been way out there.
But the company that really burns my @$$ is Microsoft. (Yes, being primarily Mac Users, we would like to avoid using such unitarian, totalitarian software. Yet, we often have no choice.) Microsoft is ALWAYS inconsistent in placement of its functions for each platform in the same versions of their software. For instance, if you are working with the current version of PowerPoint PC, and you decide to downsample all the images, you go to the Format Picture box. There is a nifty little button there to downsample the selected or all images in the document. Now, go to the same current version on the Mac. Where is it? It doesn't exist.
This happens with preferences, functions, editing tools, etc. all throughout Microsoft Office. Embed fonts is a preference in Mac, but a save option on PC. Something you find under the Edit pulldown menu on the Mac may turn up under Format on the PC. And that's if you're lucky. Frequently, the same functions/tools/transitions/etc. are not even available to both platforms.
Well, I guess that's Microsoft for you. We designers tend to hate them, and uderstandably so. But they are a great example of designing devoid of logic. Whatever happened to "Form follows function?" Louis Sullivan would turn in his grave, along with Le Corbusier, Gropius, and Mies van der Rohe. Okay, maybe they were architects, but design is design, wether you are working with a magazine, wesite, skyscraper or yes, a software interface.
Well, anyway, thtat's my 2 cents.
amen brother. amen.
Post a Comment