rethink UI for version 3 - user-centred design

[project_2501]

I recall when Affinity Photo was initially released and there was discussion about making it familiar to Photoshop users, but not being overly tied down by that ancient UI.

 

Myself and some of the people in my network do feel that since then the Affinity Photo UI has not been ideal.

 

I think for V3 Affinity should take the time to rethink the UI for all their apps - with some key principles in mind - for example:

• discoverability
• consistency and "no surprise" <- this is a big issue
• make easy and common tasks easy and quick
• self-explanatory as possible, minimise no need for a manual or documentation

 

I believe the Apple HIG design guidelines from decades ago are still considered a solid foundation for good UI design.

 

---

 

For example, there is no excuse in 2024 for having 2 "blur" options in the menu. If they are genuinely different for a significant and genuine reason, the UI doesn't make that clear*. The overall effect is that newcomers think either the app is wrong, or they are under-qualified to use the app. 

* non-destructive vs destructive might the be the reason, but what's the reason for both in 2024?

 

Another example is the inevitable growth of "features" which have to go somewhere, and they end up being stuffed behind tiny undecidable "icons" squeezed into the layers UI. If you know what you're looking for, they're there. If you don't, then you're in for a ride.

[Bryan Rieger]

The poor UX of the Affinity apps has been discussed at length over the years on these forums. Unfortunately things haven't improved much, and the big Serif v2 UI/UX 'rethink' has only made things worse IMHO. There are so many cases in the v2 apps where they're not following platform guidelines, the UI is inconsistent, and users are left scratching their heads (or told to RTFM) as to what many of the obscure icons and visual indicators represent—let alone trying to understand how the various layer types work, or which app/persona has what tools available in it—which often feels like a very arbitrary design decision.

That said, now that Canva owns the Affinity suite, AND they are looking to attract more 'professional' users to their platform(s), I have some hope that Serif will be forced to address these long-standing, and glaring UX/UI issues in the coming v2.x releases. As has been mentioned many times on this forum, 'cheaper' is only better if it doesn't cost more in time than the alternative(s), and 'better' is really down to personal preference and perspective. But if somebody is constantly frustrated with the UI/UX of the Affinity apps (compared to the alternatives), there's little possibility they're going to adopt them as primary drivers in their toolset (if at all, as the investment in learning the apps is not insignificant ).

I've seen some folks speculating on what features v2.6 will hold. Personally, I just want many of the long-standing issues fixed, and some UI/UX improvements for now. Adding more and more features to an already shaky foundation typically doesn't bode well for the long-term. 

[PaoloT]

I too think that V2 has made an already poor UI even worse. But I hesitate to dream too strongly about a new UI, because we might discover that for V3 they have adopted the Microsoft Ribbon…

Paolo

 

[project_2501]

Isn't it tragic the general low optimism in Affinity's developers and their ability to listening to their users.

Right from the beginning I encouraged them to adopt more open-source style practises such as being very open abut long-standing bugs, and sharing publicly their prioritisation of their to-do list so we can voice our agreement or disagreement.

I feel Affinity started with such huge enthusiasm and good will from us, but that has been lost over time.

 

[Deperditus Cliens]

Think carefully about this - not just here and now, but over time - about what will happen at Canva when they realize what they've actually bought and now need to refactor, not just most of the user interface, but also the algorithms, workflows, project and company roles, etc., in the Serif that came far too far on practices from the early 1990s.

Photo, in particular, is such an extraordinarily poorly implemented product with bottom-tier algorithms that the idea of it suddenly competing with Photoshop or other major players is utterly laughable. That segment of the market has been used to extreme algorithm quality since 1990. Stop dreaming like children!

Either - this scenario is frighteningly realistic - Canva capitulates and creates a Xara-like spaghetti-solution, giving artificial respiration to an aging product with bits and pieces of improvements, or they rebuild the product at great time, resource, and financial expense (time and material) to a point where you'll be waiting years for a product that can in no way sustain today's Affinity pricing levels. It is improbable that this scenario will occur.

Customers have lost optimism and confidence because there's not much to base it on. And soon, someone at Canva will have to explain to higher-ups at Canva the actual scope and cost of the investment. And the odds of it being worth it. 

[bbrother]

Version 2 is not that much of an improvement over version 1. There was no user-centric UI redesign, just a superficial makeover, removing the beveled, embossed borders in favor of a flat design, a few dialog boxes changed their appearance and that's it. Common reported problems with: appearance, size, alignment, gaps, theme color contrast, small UI font size, odd and not intuitive UX are still relevant and it seems no one cares about them.

Serif's actions are more focused on creating buzz and excitement around the shiny new junk they're releasing, building a loyal customer base, and, above all, pumping up sales. They never cared on the customer, the issues and requests they raise, or diggin in to create a solid product.

If the company isn't user focused, so what kind of user interface you can count on?. And i doubt more and more from what I see Canva's doing lately that the strategy Serif follows will undergo a major correction under the new owner.

[fde101]

There are certainly a LOT of rough edges that could be ironed out in the user interface.  I don't think they need to completely rethink the entire UI, but rather spend some time on fixing the (admittedly numerous) individual problems with it.

Consider that they claim to target professionals with this.  Professionals work with their tools enough to learn how they work.  An app targeting professionals doesn't have the same requirement of being able to open and immediately use it that an app targeting an amateur or casual user would need: the expectation is and should be that someone using it in a professional capacity will take some time to learn the product.  A product with a large collection of features will always have a bit of a learning curve before you can fully take advantage of it.

When you are creating an application for a casual or occasional user, the idea should be to maximize the speed of discoverability of features so that the user can learn the product quickly.  The focus is on a product that is rapidly learned and easily understood.

When you are creating an application for someone who is going to use it day in and day out, possibly in a "time is money" situation, the focus is less on the speed of learning and discovering the product (though there obviously needs to be some of that), and much more on the speed of actually using the product after it has been learned - the speed of accessing the features that the product offers.

Right now I would say that the Affinity products are suffering mostly from an identity crisis: they are caught up somewhere in between the two roles and are trying too hard to be both.  Some features have too much overhead in use, requiring too many steps to access them, in some cases making them more discoverable (speed of learning) but less usable (they lack speed of usage making them come down on the non-professional side of things).  Others have the opposite issue: they are fast to access but hard to discover.  You wind up with both user bases being unhappy because the professionals find that things take too long and require too many steps, while the more casual users start finding a few things quickly then get lost when other things are not as easy to find.

The one thing that impacts BOTH user bases is a lack of consistency, and being pulled in both directions like this is not helping in that area at all.  That hurts everyone.

 

I think they had an overall framework for the desktop applications which is completely salvageable if they take the time to fix the various issues with it.

What they did to the iPad interface for v2 is another story, though.  What works for a large desktop/laptop screen which is vertical in front of a keyboard doesn't necessarily equate to working well on a small touchscreen without an attached keyboard or independent multi-button pointing device.  That should be replaced with something more like what they had for v1.

[PaoloT]

9 hours ago, fde101 said:

An app targeting professionals doesn't have the same requirement of being able to open and immediately use it that an app targeting an amateur or casual user would need

After a day of heavy use of Photo, I have to say that the problem with it is not immediacy. It is how it slows down one's work.

My impression, today, has been that Photo was a heavy box left in the middle of the studio, where I had to always stumble on while moving around. Hour after hour it became unbearable.

My impression is that these apps were conceived with the single-document user, maybe mostly using a tablet, in mind. Not someone having to process several documents in a short time.

"Professional" use may be several things. In my humble case, I can't say that the developers were thinking to my case when designing their UI.

Paolo

 

 

[project_2501]

Wouldn't it be nice if Affinity actually organised sessions where the many many diverse voices here could input into and shape the product.

I'm sure many would do it  for free - because  the outcome is a benefit to us.

If I were Affinity I would grab the chance to engage a highly engaged user base who are actually willing the product to be better.

I recall right from the beginning rather arrogant interactions with some of their employees - back in 2018, approx iirc.