What's frustrating...

[cyclopsdx]

I've just been perusing the Adobe 'Products' section of their website because I have to purchase some new web-based software for some of my staff, and I counted 99 products on the Product list. Granted, there are software bundles incorporated as part of that list, but there are 8 Flash-based products, 6 Photoshop and 4 Acrobat, to name but a few by title.

I've also had the unpleasant experience of having to use InDesign CS5 recently and they've gone and added more Ai-type integration into it, i.e., more complex layers, to name but one 'gimmick'! Their products are becoming more and more similar in terms of toolsets, which begs the question - eventually, will they all end up having the same tools and palettes and doing the same tasks?

So, essentially, they're regurgitating all their products across multiple bundles and variations of products and expecting us to buy applications that will, probably, all end up doing the same things, yet they claim that FreeHand is redundant and unworthy of updating because it's too similar to their own product, Ai?

Words fail me.

[Head]

How true.

I’ve often contemplated the scenario where a software developer has engineered their flagship product to a point where it does everything needed by its users. What happens then? A company can’t live on OS-compatibility updates alone, so they have the choice to either add something new to their product line, ‘overdevelop’ their existing products, or turn their products sideways into something else.

Could it be that Adobe are all out of new ideas? Perhaps they’ve accepted that they’ve taken the CS suite as far as it can go as a set of individual applications, each with its own strengths, and are actually in something of a dilemma over where to go next.

The word ‘bloat’ has been often used to describe AI for some time, and the rest of Adobe’s suite now seems to be following suit, with the result that the individual products are indeed all becoming rather similar. If Adobe keep this up, they’ll very soon end up with one single application that does everything in the world but won’t work in practice because nobody will understand how to use it or have the computing power to process it.

And of course they’ll have bought up all the competition, leaving us with no choice but to sharpen our old scalpel blades.

Now, what Adobe really ought to do is take a complete u-turn, and embark on a process of stripping down each of their apps to streamline them into a set of individual tools that are powerful, efficient, easy to use and actually do what we all need.

And they could market FreeHand, just as it stands, as the first real-world example of this new groundbreaking approach to providing their customers with a set of design tools that actually work for those customers who live in the real world of commercial creativity and deadlines.

Hey, I'm serious! FreeHand has kept me alive for 20 years. And although I also use Illustrator when the need arises, I remember the day when it took me about an hour to figure out how to load a colour into the swatch list and then apply it to a line. Blimey, intuition has never been Adobe's strong point. But then that probably explains their convoluted approach to most of what they do. Including their attitude towards FreeHand.

Words don't often fail me, Cyclops, but like you, I'm finding them real hard to come by when I look at what's going on...

[cyclopsdx]

Good point about the 'bloated' app approach. I wonder what will happen once Adobe realise that we don't want more and more fancy options but all we want is fast, intuitive processes to support our creative workflow? I, for one, tend to customise my toolsets and palettes because I simply have no use for most of the 'gimmicks' they include - they have no monetary or creative value for me, which is why FreeHand will always win over Illustrator in my workplace.

Maybe we'll get to the point where they'll start to simplify their individual products? I can't see integration into one application because Adobe will lose most of their revenue stream

It will have to come to a head at some time in the future; they can't keep adding 'fluff' for each update (although, just solid, stable, working versions would be enough for me!). Unfortunately, most of the innovation for their apps has been emulated from their competitors - and we know what's happened to most of those.

Between creation and execution we have crashes, upgrades and convoluted processes. Sad that we can't just get on with the part of the job we love without all the hassle that goes with it!

[FFH Mark]

Hey guys, I'm not sure I have much to add since I found myself nodding my head to so much of what you already wrote. I once thought —many eons ago when Adobe acquired FreeHand— that Illustrator would become this super vector app on steroids; combining the speed and simplification of FreeHand with the best features of Ai using Adobe's programming muscle. But here we are now with this discussion instead.

Doing some research for the organization, I was scouring the Illustrator forum and no fiercer critic of this was post after post by JET. His intricate knowledge of vector apps is astounding but take a look at this excerpt of why Illustrator fails to become what it could:

The real problem, though, is the addiction of the AI-only user base to its mediocre feature set and its unnecessarily cumbersome interface, and their irrational emotional resistance to any change at all. Suggest a change of the things to which they are accustomed--even toward the demonstrably better--and a firestorm results. Until, of course, Adobe actually does it; then AI devotees reverse themselves, act like its the greatest thing ever, and seem to think Adobe came up with the idea. A rework of the interface basics is what Illustrator needs far more than the addition of new gee-whiz features.
But just make one simple, (and I mean, very modest) improvement toward streamlining this hideous interface, and alot of vocal AI-only users have a hissy fit. Example: The full set of Pathfinder buttons now behave the same way by default. This simple change toward very basic consistency makes some AI users rise up in arms, as if it's just the worst deal-breaking travesty ever committed.
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3678745#3678745

Read the rest of his post, or anything else written by JET, and you will see a die-hard FreeHand user who knows Illustrator inside-and-out and yet still feels what a waste of resources it has become. The clincher to this is he doesn't support our cause or want to be any part of it. He doesn't care one whit about a class action or any petition or activism to free FreeHand. It's odd but it makes him a bipartisan spokesman in this debate.

—Mark

Eddie, I use InDesign CS4 extensively and the same concerns over CS5 came up as you are saying. Beyond the digital publishing features, I have no reason to upgrade yet. When an Adobe manager made the remark to a group of us that "InDesign is everything I ever wanted FreeHand to become", the response was not what he may have expected. By the end of the discussion, even he had to admit that FreeHand couldn't be replaced (even with Illustrator thrown into the mix!)

[Monika Gause]

I've also had the unpleasant experience of having to use InDesign CS5 recently and they've gone and added more Ai-type integration into it, i.e., more complex layers, to name but one 'gimmick'!

You don't use InDesign for really complex work, do you? I'm referring to layouts with hundreds of pages containing hundreds of images, that are each grouped and anchored in the text. Typical images like in manuals with guides and lines and numbers in them.

Now imagine you have to edit one of those images and include more stuff in them, e.g. add another line or number or whatever.

Before CS5 you had to first cut the image out of the text, then paste it into the document, edit it (that is ungroup all), include the new elements, group again and re-anchor it in the text. Now that was a huge waste of time for the sometimes simple task to add another number.

In CS5 you can simply use the layer panel to drag the thing into the group no matter how deeply nested it may be. I use this feature each and any time I use InDesign. Been waiting for this for years. It's my personal number one timesaver.

So before you rant about stupid features, you should perhaps get informed.

[cyclopsdx]

I've also had the unpleasant experience of having to use InDesign CS5 recently and they've gone and added more Ai-type integration into it, i.e., more complex layers, to name but one 'gimmick'!

You don't use InDesign for really complex work, do you? I'm referring to layouts with hundreds of pages containing hundreds of images, that are each grouped and anchored in the text. Typical images like in manuals with guides and lines and numbers in them.

The main bulk of the work I do in ID is manual design and DVD inlays. I have been using ID since it was first released and I have been designing digitally since the early 1990s. I have a project open on my machine at present which consists of 84 layers due to the number of languages and third-party client logos which need to be on the project. This project is approximately 20 pages long (but we do work up to 180 pages). We obviously wouldn't work with so many layers on a larger project, but you should get my drift

Btw - this was a client-supplied template, so I don't have much control over the decision-making on the layout structure in this matter.

Clicking on just ONE of those layers in CS5 allows me to access 108 sub-layers containing various vector-based shapes and images. That's ONE layer. So I have to trawl through 108 generically-named sub-layers (which can then be sub-divided into additional drop-down layers too), just to try and find an image, let alone attempt to edit it? Where is the practical sense in that?

If I have an eps barcode on a layer, or a logo made up of letters and image, why would I want to break that down into separate items in ID? Those are tasks which should be executed before transitioning into a desktop publishing programme, should they not? Surely, that is part of the job Illustrator should be used for otherwise, what is the point of having both toolsets?

It is not the issue with layers in ID that I have - I just don't understand the need to further complicate the layer process to allow for further editing within the application.

Now imagine you have to edit one of those images and include more stuff in them, e.g. add another line or number or whatever.

That's easily done by clicking on the desired shape or area - or clicking off layers you don't need at that point in your design process. No need to add 108+ sublayers to a layer for additional editing 'flexibility'.

Before CS5 you had to first cut the image out of the text, then paste it into the document, edit it (that is ungroup all), include the new elements, group again and re-anchor it in the text. Now that was a huge waste of time for the sometimes simple task to add another number.


In CS5 you can simply use the layer panel to drag the thing into the group no matter how deeply nested it may be. I use this feature each and any time I use InDesign. Been waiting for this for years. It's my personal number one timesaver.

"deeply nested" is the operative word here - So deep that it can take minutes of your time to actually find the required shape? That saves time?

So before you rant about stupid features, you should perhaps get informed.

I've never claimed any feature to be 'stupid' - there are more constructive words for superfluous extras than that. And I've been using the following software for the last 20+ years of my career - Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, FreeHand, QuarkXpress, Final Cut, Fontographer, MS Office, Acrobat, Final Draft - numerous other apps I could mention - I think that gives me sufficient credentials to voice my personal opinion on a forum such as this and decide whether I'm 'informed' on whether I find an addition to CS5 to be a valuable commercial asset to my toolset or not.

The fact is, I don't find the new 'deeper' layer experience to be of any benefit to my company's design process whatsoever.

Why not at least allow those of us that find it a complete waste of time in our workflow to switch it off in 'Preferences', please? Or just leave it in Ai. And I'm praying they don't add it to Photoshop when they run out of ideas for the next version of CS...

Anyway - back to my 9,072 (potential) layered document...