Two things I can tell you: the engineering team does care about Photoshop (I’ve been on the team more than 15 years for a reason) and this migration is far from over for us.
These sharp edges are acknowledged, and we are working on them. Some of them are already addressed.
I know this will be of little comfort to some. But to the rest, we are still here. If you have any questions I’ll do my best to answer them.
I think a nice outcome of this would be if Adobe recognized how much these things matter to power users, and that it’s possible to improve existing workflows without disrupting them, and without just adding something new that sits awkwardly side by side with the existing features. Maybe rather than fixing the issues that were introduced, you could aim for something that is thoroughly better, as you need to work through everything anyway.
Improving existing workflows without disrupting them is extremely hard to do, and often "improvement" is in the eye of the beholder. To be clear, I am not excusing issues within the application that we must fix. The team is working hard across multiple departments to gain consensus on how best to move Photoshop forward, including gathering feedback from users.
I find it hard to believe that the team is “working hard” to gain consensus on how best to move forward when such simple things make it to production.
Does anyone at Adobe ACTUALLY use Photoshop? Didn’t anyone stop for a moment to think that shipping in such a taste was a terrible idea?
I keep seeing the same issue over and over again with other companies as well. “Sorry you are disappointed but our internal processes, or we had to do this because of deadlines, yadda yadda, blah blah.”
Does anyone stop and think why they are developing or shipping a product? Its not for you to have an overly complicated development, build, or review process. It’s not for you to hit your quota of installed upgrades or versions shipped per quarter. It’s for people to use your product. Your product has utility, and the customer is your client, not the other way around.
Going forward, we would like them fixed, too. Personally my hope is the message from user feedback like this is heard loud and clear, and we respond appropriately.
First do no harm. Changing functionality that works is not in tension with getting regressions out the door. Assure it is working before shipping by hiring testers that use the product to the level or extent of most users.
> We do use Photoshop (though not to the level or extent of most users) and noticed the regressions.
Is there something you want to tell us about management? This is crazy, if what you mean is you know you broke this for power users but shipped it anyways, or that you don't have power-users on payroll to constantly test your product that you can call "part of the team".
Indeed, I don't think most people can appreciate how hard the tension is between shipping and perfection. As a fellow perfectionist, it kills me to ship things that I know aren't perfect, but I've had to work on becoming more of a pragmatist because if I had my perfectionist way, shipping would take years and feedback loops would be so long that it would be somewhat self defeating (though that's a personal problem). I appreciate you taking the time to respond here, even knowing you'll catch some heat.
Photoshop is the premiere image editor that has been in existence for decades. The issues you are responding to are fundamental changes to how the application behaves. It defies belief that your team and its processes have this little respect for dedicated users who have spent thousands of dollars on your product over the course of years. I understand shipping software. Do you understand your users?
These kinds of sharp edges should *never* have made it as far as UAT. All of these should have been caught in the first prototype and never made it beyond that point.
The fact that they made it all the way to the shipping product shows that too many responsible parties were asleep at the switch.
Why? The actual people who make Photoshop are programmers, and this is a tool for image editing.
Obviously they should have a few power users on payroll that find these obvious regressions quickly, and we can call them part of the team who make Photoshop. I'm not sure why this, and what the lead scientist said is valid justification. Just hire "people that use Photoshop". If they already do this, then the people that make Photoshop use Photoshop to a sufficient degree.
But moreover, if one has developed Photoshop for 15 years, I'm pretty sure they are aware of power user table-stakes features.
And then one more point:
> Why?
Because that's what it takes to develop high quality software tools. This shouldn't even be up for debate when charging money for software.
I’m sure not looking forwards to it, there’s stuff that was “redesigned” the last time this happened a decade or so back that’s still the absolute shittiest thing that works and hasn’t changed at all from then.
Take a guess…
