I can't quite agree with the force of Orphyidian's complaint ........ but I can agree with the principle.
For whatever reason I do find AP's interface harder to read than PS. I am using CS6 and I think it has an exemplary interface. I find the CC interface rather primitive and less comprehensible by comparison. There is no doubt in my mind that AP's interface is, by far, the most subtle and attractive but sadly, for me, it is too subtle. It lacks clarity and contrast for my less than perfect vision. It is one of the reasons that, despite my longing to love it, I find AP more tiring to use than PS. For example the simple difference between selected and unselected tools could be much clearer. Such things should not be subtle they should be instantly and effortlessly evident! Good interface should not be about subtle and beautiful - it should be, first and foremost about legibility. There has been a lot of of brouhaha about the new light interface solving this for critics such as I. I am sorry, I don't subscribe to this! I don't want a light interface, I want a clearly legible dark one!
Its wonderful that AP is so stylish looking, but the interface is a key element in usability and I am tempted to suggest that the design of AP's interface is one of form over function instead of form deriving from function. It gives me the impression that it was developed by designers sitting in semi darkened rooms specifically adapted for long hours in front of the screen. User life isn't like that! We have to be ready to use your app in a wide variety of less than ideal circumstances. A 'good' interface should be ready to cope with that, even if it means sacrificing elegance for brutal functionality.
The examples posted by Orphydian are pretty brutal and dry - but they are instantly and clearly readable in a way that I would find very hard to ascribe to AP's interface.
Somewhere between the two there surely must be a proper compromise ............ ?
I fully appreciate that we are discussing probably the single most completely subjective aspect of AP here. So my opinion is little less than that - completely subjective. But I have sincerely tried to be objective in my comments and I do genuinely believe that Serif might better serve their customers by prioritising clarity before style.
I do agree the interface would benefit from a bit more work. I was delighted with the light UI in the recent AD beta release, which is a fine improvement. But the 'wares prestige will be built on the speed, reliability and scope. If the devs have some spare time down the road (!?what), perhaps they could build in an option to load various 3rd party interface graphics packs.
The creative web link brought me to an error 404.
I suppose you have a different version of GIMP, than I do, which is 2.8 Mac, tho' I don't know who put the package together. Finding the icon I want in GIMP is a PITA.
I have 2 different problems w. your argument. While the "flat" icon look makes sense in many situations, it does not seem to be a perfect solution. Yes, it looks stylish, and that sells. But the bigger issue I have is that the examples are too busy. Not cartoonish, but lots and lots of little lines for the icons, and masses of text to describe what the icons activate. Perhaps have a tooltip pop up in a local language so that everyone everywhere would learn to associate a particular shape w. a specific operation.
I'm unfamiliar w. the apps you reference any time in the last 10 years, I have to wonder how much screen space the dialogues take up. Will it work on an iPad w. finger tip control w/o obscuring the work?
