Pat77
Newbie
Posts: 21
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2010, 02:02:46 PM » |
|
Qimage is pretty good in my view.
Yes it is. No discussion about that. Not its UI however. I'll try to find time to accurately describe what should be done or what's wrong. Just, I'm currently retiring and closing my shop. This will keep me busy for some weeks. -- Patrick |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2010, 02:15:05 PM » |
|
Hi Fred, earlier you said If it worked the other way, and etc. As I said, when I first poked my oar in on this thread, I also had not worked out which way would be better. Any way, little point in continuing further, unless changes are forthcoming. To me, its like raising a child, or 'training a dog'. If you love it, you want it to behave properly. I am in agreement with Patrick. I think he has summarised the situation quite well. The following is my current thoughts/opinion. Subject to change if I bother to study the situation some more. If there was any intention of making Qimage into a better printing engine than it is, with a sensible user interface, then I am sure a few of us would put some effort into supporting that. However, at the moment, it is quite hard work to explain even minor points of quirkiness. I am not sure how many actually use the editing and raw features of Qimage, I think the majority of serious photographers will mainly be using the printing features only. But are there enough of these folk to pay the bills? There is no point in comparing - tit for tat- various features with other software. It is a question of making Qimage the best possible printing system cf one that is merely better than it's rivals in a few areas. However, there is definitely a point in making the user interface similar to other software which is used for related tasks. There is little point in trying to be too clever. Just an opinion. The whole interface needs a redesign in concept. Adding gimmicks such as skins, is of little use, it merely adds difficulty in explaining what is happening, to someone who has different colours set - it is just a 'fashion' thing, of no real value, afaik. The various panels need defined names, so that we are all discussing the same thing, some panels could probably be combined, or discarded. Related functions - (user related, not how it happens to be related in the software), need to be collected together. The sometimes odd behaviour, inherent in Borland software wrt data entry, needs to be sorted out, etc., the list is pretty long. The apparent attitude/jealousy towards Adobe/other products needs to change. Many people use their products, and are used to the way they do things. For good or bad, it is now a sort of standard way of photo editing - a bit like the qwerty keyboard is a 'standard', but not the 'best' keyboard layout. This should be embraced by Qimage, and a similar interface should be adopted, even to the extent of providing the printing aspects as a PS action  . If a user has photoshop, the raw and editing features of Qimage will be relatively unused, if serious editing is required. Now, how to get there, assuming it is realised that improvements need to be made? Not by patching up the old coat - that will be a continuous aggravating task. By now Qimage is sort of rickety, its design methodology is possible inadequate. The user interface needs a complete new redesign. That is not a trivial task, it may not be worth the effort. I expect the way in which the software is structured does not easily allow these changes. Is it going to happen? Best wishes, Ray |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 02:18:48 PM by rayw »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2010, 05:28:15 PM » |
|
Every once in a while, a "seasoned programmer" who thinks they know all about GUI's will jump in and want things redesigned their way. You need to realize that everyone who points out one of these little nit-picks is expecting something specific based on one workflow that may not work for many others! Often times, what appears next is based on what is best for the most common next "expected move". Other times, you won't want to make any assumptions at all. If you are doing something a bit different from the average user's workflow, you may expect something that many others don't. Qimage's UI has been refined over 10 years for a purpose: most efficient means to an end when gang printing optimal quality photos of any size! I think a few people expect it to be designed after Photoshop and worked backwards. This does not work for a real photo printing application! A real photo printing application must be able to do certain things with ease, like gang printing of different sizes on the fly, clicking whatever size you want as you go, one or two clicks to change the size once on the page that already exists, and so on. Qimage's interface was designed to be as efficient as possible at these tasks, so obviously it isn't going to look like PhotoShop, Lightroom, and other apps that make what few capabilities they have in that arena incredibly difficult.
I can tell you right now that the Qimage UI is not going to be redesigned. Why? Because it does not need it! It is already hands down the most efficient tool (UI-wise) for printing multiple photos. Any "programmer" or "software engineer" worth their salt will be aware of the fact that no interface can be designed to anticipate the next move of every user. They are designed to be a best fit for the population using the software. Is any interface perfect for anyone? Of course not. Can their be improvements to the Qimage interface? Of course. Does it need a redesign? Absolutely not. Needs change, workflows change, the user "populus" changes, and we adapt to different needs. And we make needed adjustments as we go. Sometimes I tailor things to work one way and it turns out most people are not using it that way! In that case, I need to change something. Not convinced that is the case here... yet.
Also, it's difficult at times to determine which users just want to blow off steam because the UI doesn't work to their own personal (sometimes twisted) expectations, so I have to ask. What are you referring to when you say the panels need names? Can you give an example of one that doesn't have a name? That's why we have "job properties", "print properties", "full page editor" and so on... and that's why we have the "Getting Familiar" section of the help where the main window is cut into one of a number of named sections. So if you have something specific in mind (that you think doesn't have a name), I'd like to know what it is in case I've missed one.
That said, off the soap box and back onto the original topic here. I see it started out with Patrick not realizing that the current border settings relate to the currently selected print BUT I also understand the confusion between the full page editor and the main window WRT borders from his point of view. Again though, the interface is designed to try to make the best assumptions (or often no assumptions when there is no clear cut route) about what you want to do next, and varying assumptions are being made here about what people will likely do when they exit the full page editor. Years ago, Qimage remembered the selections made before entering the full page editor when returning to the main window: I believe that's what Patrick and Ray expected. Users complained that when they went to the full page editor, they make selections (selecting and modifying prints on different pages) and that those superseded the selections made on the main window. By the time they went back to the main window, what was selected before the full page editing was often irrelevant. When they went back to the main window, they argued that their next move was (usually) to either print or add more photos to be printed. At that point they often wanted to change to a new print size, clear the border, or other operations but with the previous selections still in play, they click 5x7 to prepare for the next batch of thumbnails they are about to add and instead, the 3 of 8 prints they had selected before change to 5x7. So... long story short, when you exit the full page editor, your print size, borders, and such return to the last defaults that were used on the main window. Why? Because you can't assume that the last thing you did in the page editor is necessarily what you'll want for the overall defaults for the main window. This is one of those things where everyone wants something different. If I make Patrick and the other 804 Qimage users who expect it to work a certain way happy, then I'll make 1804 unhappy. That's just life in the business of UI's.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2010, 07:14:15 PM » |
|
Hi Mike, Thanks for your reply. it is useful to know that the interface will not be changing, that it is designed to make things easy. Of course, I guess that is the 'easy' if you've spent hours/days/years learning the quirks, and second guessing how it gels together. Surely you can see (for example) the preview panel (as many of us have been referring to), does not appear to have that name. It has a label 'Page: (followed by size)' But mostly folk refer to it as the preview panel, whereas other panels have a more defined name such as 'folders', 'job properties', etc. Now, when you get the hover help on that 'Page' panel, it has the word preview - so I think that is why folk refer to this area as the preview page or preview panel. Page is just too generic a term. 'Preview page', my first choice name for it, then gives confusion with the 'print preview page' produced by the printer driver, if that is turned on, when it comes to describing what one sees on the screen. Now if you go to the hover help for that page panel - it says that '... the preview is "write once" and does not have edit capability. Click the edit button to move/resize/etc'. Well, where is the edit button? The only button labelled 'Edit' is at top left of screen which is not the button required, afaik. Is it the 'Full page editor' which is required, the one that has an icon, but is not named 'edit' or the 'image editor' (another untitled panel) that is required obtained by double clicking on the image or possibly by some other means. Furthermore, it is quite possible to move the images in this preview panel, and resize them and add borders, etc. Is that not editing the image? Or is that considered editing the page? This is just one minor aspect of the interface that people see - confusion. However, it is your software, your forum, you can do what you like. However, I do feel you are losing an opportunity. Best wishes, Ray ps, fwiw, re your last paragraph, I had initially, towards the start of this thread, stated that - 'I have not thought through the problems that may occur if the selections were properly carried over to the different views, or in the case of there being only one image, if that would automatically be the one selected for applying the settings - other than it not being the way it is done at the moment.' Of course, differing views could be satisfied, with yet another option setting  pps maybe you need less (or more) coffee |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pat77
Newbie
Posts: 21
|
|
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2010, 10:06:22 PM » |
|
I can tell you right now that the Qimage UI is not going to be redesigned. Why? Because it does not need it!
Which obviously closes the discussion. But a developer or a software designer should never say never  . I see it started out with Patrick not realizing that the current border settings relate to the currently selected print BUT I also understand the confusion between the full page editor and the main window WRT borders from his point of view.
As a (seasoned) developer I always thought that the user's (customer's) point of view is the most important  . Anyway, I for sure do know that each user has his own way of understanding and dealing with the UI of any software. And a perfect UI doesn't exist. But a good UI is flexible and able to more or less adapt to the way a user works. A not so good UI forces the user to work the way the programmer decided (for good or bad reasons). If we consider the image selection issue, I can understand that other users are expecting another behavior than I am expecting. Since there is a choice between 2 or 3 possible behaviors, why not make this an option? There's one thing I have learned during my (seasoned) developer's life. You may have produced a software with the best features of its category, be sure that there's no competition, etc. , the first impression the new user will have when trying QIMage has a direct impact on the sales. And believe it or not, the QIMage UI and the manual are not helping DDI Software sell this program. That's a fact and that's a customer's point of view, not a developer's point of view. But DDI Software might not want to sell more licenses? The QImage help (which is also a part of the UI) is one of the most terrible manuals I have ever seen. Just ask a professional technical writer about this. It just breaks every single rule about writing a software manual (although I'm sure all the necessary information is available in that manual). Similarly, QImage is certainly able to do everything I want when it comes to print a photograph. The problem is how it gives me access to its rich set of outstanding features. I certainly do not regret the money I spent for QImage and I always recommend this software and I will continue to do so. I'm just wondering why these remarks (from Ray and me) have caused so sensitive reactions. -- Patrick |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2010, 11:35:39 PM » |
|
The point of my entire post is that I don't make changes to the interface on a whim. I used to do that in the early days of Qimage, maybe ten years ago, and it was in a constant state of unneeded flux. One person liked buttons. Another liked drop downs. Yet another liked menu selections. A few liked everything right out on the interface where they could press a button. A few others liked it all "hidden" just to say the interface looked "clean". One person liked this or that selection remembered after an operation, others didn't. Some people wanted the queue automatically cleared after printing for example, others not. We've been through those times and have all learned from them and the Qimage UI is quite well refined for the job as a result! The Qimage UI is purpose driven, standards limited unlike other interfaces that are standards driven with purpose being an afterthought. Of course the Qimage UI isn't perfect and of course some changes will improve it. BUT...
I've heard from my fair share of "seasoned programmers" and many of them who claim to be UI experts are self appointed experts because you can never find any UI that they've ever designed (as an example) and they turn out to be "experts" solely by the fact that they have program X (I'll call it PhotoShop just because people like to talke about it), they've gotten used to how it works, and want the Qimage UI to be as convoluted as the PhotoShop interface. Now, I can't say that about Ray or Patrick nor am I implying it: I don't know you guys well enough. I'm just saying, when I hear from the self proclaimed experts, I tend to take them with a grain of salt. I have a good pulse on the overall user base and that's what I follow. I don't run off changing little things or tweaking for one or two people proclaiming themselves experts but for which we have no examples of a UI they would design.
Ray, when you open PhotoShop, do you complain that your image just shows up in the middle of the screen when you open it and that area isn't labeled "image preview" or "work area"? What do you call that area when discussing with other PhotoShop users? The image preview area? The image editor window? I think that's pretty obvious, as is a panel labeled "page" in Qimage. At least it has a label in Qimage. And yes, there are some help tips that are a little out of date like the one that says you can't "edit" on the preview page: that was once true. Some of those tips could use an update, but I don't think that makes/breaks an interface. I've also gotten a lot of kudos for the Qimage help. Have you seen the PhotoShop help? I mean honestly? It's the biggest joke I've ever seen. F1 never works, never takes you anywhere when you need help. In Qimage if you want help, most controls (like the ones that can take focus) will take you right to the applicable section of the help. Want help on borders, click in one of the border sizes and press F1. Try that in PhotoShop: it's like Adobe forgot you could do that. And Adobe never gives examples (comparing to the learn by example section of the Qimage help)! They give help that sometimes leads to functions that don't exist and often you have to spend time digging through many items to find what you want, often times because F1 doesn't work, but other times because the label in the software doesn't match what you have to search for to find it!
Do a lot of people use PhotoShop? Sure. They have an astronomical advertising budget! Doesn't mean that it's a UI to use as an example of a good UI. Not intentionally "picking" on PhotoShop, but it often gets mentioned so I'm just making an example. There are a lot of Qimage users out there too! And they all bought by word of mouth! I didn't need to run commercials costing millions during a Super Bowl to do it. And I know that all those people didn't buy it just because it gives better prints. They bought it because it is brain dead simple to use. Some people took the time to learn how to use an interface that was designed for multi-photo printing while others didn't. I come back to PhotoShop as an example. Simple things like cloning, text, drop shadows, etc. are much easier to use in a program like Paint Shop Pro. Some people choose to use other tools because they don't have 500+ hours to learn how to use PhotoShop or spend thousands on training courses: people actually make careers out of training people to use PhotoShop. Why? Because it is difficult to use! Some of the complexity of that UI is needed due to the complexity of what it can do, but much of it is unnecessary!
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2010, 12:23:53 AM » |
|
I do enjoy and appreciate the discussion BTW. Positive things (and changes) do come from them. As I said, neither I nor the UI are perfect. The thing that is important to me is for people to understand the Qimage "mission", where it's been, and where it's going. I guess I'm just long winded explaining that.  Mike |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2010, 01:31:29 AM » |
|
Hi Mike, I did say that there is no point in going tit for tat comparing with other programs. I will if you want to, but what will that achieve? The fact, is for good or bad, is that photoshop now is accepted as a sort of standard by many of its users, and there are many of them. Other software in the photo editing field, such as Gimp emulates its behaviour. Its capabilities for photo editing and its complexity are way beyond that of Qimage, and most other programs in that area. Folk using that for editing, the thousands of them would probably be delighted in having a decent print system, hence my suggestion that an action/plugin would be useful. When/if Adobe sort out the printing end of things, then Qimage will probably get fewer recommendations on the various fora and from individuals. You could, we could, us here, push the qimage printing side of things beyond what adobe can achieve. As you say, they are a large company, large companies do not move fast, they tend not to listen to customers, unless the customer is a large customer. But, leaving that aside, if you do not understand, that even in the one tiny example - re edit in the preview page - it is one of possibly many such oddities - causes confusion to the new user then fine. Some folk will persevere, others will give up. It may be a major task to tidy up the erroneus help tips, it may be trivial. I am sure there are folk here who would go through them, list them, make suggestions, if they knew they would be incorporated in a future update. That certainly would be a very good beginning. wrt the gui, it is mainly concerned, I think, (without studying it too much) that it is possibly down to text/icon button labels, and their location, possibly giving the user some options as to where things are positioned. I am not concerned here with the raw files or image editting too much, since I don't use Qimage for that, and possibly many of the folk who would use Qimage for printing would not, either. Now, whether this should be aired in public, I've no idea, that is your call. Personally, I do not think it helps your case by criticising other products or folk who try to make suggestions, just because they do not agree with your ideas. I was not implying that photoshop had a good gui, but it is one which many are familiar with. It is not about cleverness of the program authors, it is about simplicity and consistency for the user. Best wishes, Ray edit - took me a while to write this - so published and be damned  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 28, 2010, 01:33:30 AM by rayw »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2010, 04:48:11 AM » |
|
I was not implying that photoshop had a good gui, but it is one which many are familiar with. It is not about cleverness of the program authors, it is about simplicity and consistency for the user.
I think you are missing my point entirely, so I'll do it this time without all the long-windedness. Even if you do love the PhotoShop (type) interface, it is totally inappropriate for batch processing and printing. It was not designed for that task, so the "File", "Open" mentality doesn't work. The very reason that PhotoShop can't do multi-image anything, is the reason the Qimage UI doesn't look like PhotoShop. In general, a UI that was designed to deal efficiently with multiple objects isn't going to look like one that was designed to work with single objects at a time. As I said, I'm all up for constructive suggestions or corrections, but the occasional "UI whining" that we get sometimes where an "expert" or two start to try to tailor things to their own preconceived notions of a "good interface" is a bit like hopping onto a motorcycle for the first time and then hopping off after 30 seconds in frustration, saying "I couldn't find the gas pedal". I think there are many who are very happy to hear me say I have no intention of making Qimage work or look like a PhotoShop wanna-be like gimp. Those people are generally less vocal because they don't consider themselves "experts"... but they realize how to use a screwdriver when they need one even though it doesn't look like a wrench. Mike |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2010, 12:54:55 PM » |
|
As I said, Mike, it is your software, you do with it what you wish. This is becoming too much like hard work trying to get you to see errors in your ways . I think there is no point in discussing this much further. It is clear to me that you are not prepared to listen to any opinion, other than your own, or those that agree with you. I am fully aware of the limitations of photoshop and much of the other software and I had said there was no point in discussing that. It is not about photoshop, it is about qimage. I was suggesting you improve your own software, by standing back from it, if you like, digging out the old incorrect help stuff, ensure that references are made to correctly labelled buttons, similar functions are collected together, etc. Just basic stuff that most software authors attempt. bit like hopping onto a motorcycle for the first time and then hopping off after 30 seconds in frustration, saying "I couldn't find the gas pedal". btw, what motorbikes do you use, in the real world, that have 'a gas pedal'? That one statement of yours exemplifies the problem with qimage. Your motorbike is the only one that uses a gas pedal . However, if you were implying that the novice motorbike rider was expecting to find a gas pedal, because he was used to cars, then that may be so. But, once he has learned where the throttle grip is, he expects it to work consistently while he is on that bike - it doesn't help if the instruction manual has errors, or the clutch suddenly becomes a brake if he turns left, or sounds the horn if he turns right. Best wishes, Ray |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2010, 02:39:41 PM » |
|
As I said, Mike, it is your software, you do with it what you wish. This is becoming too much like hard work trying to get you to see errors in your ways . I keep forgetting that RayW is the undisputed champion in the world of GUI's and that I should just listen to him instead of my loyal customers. I could always use the many examples of excellent GUI's he has designed as proof (you know, the examples he has posted here on "how to do it right"), but I guess I'm just too stubborn or I choose to ignore those. After all, he was able to find one help tool tip that needed updating, so that's for sure proof that "The whole interface needs a redesign in concept". btw, what motorbikes do you use, in the real world, that have 'a gas pedal'? That one statement of yours exemplifies the problem with qimage. Your motorbike is the only one that uses a gas pedal . WOW. Didn't expect that one to go over your head. Another knee jerk reaction like your reaction to Qimage not working your way! However, if you were implying that the novice motorbike rider was expecting to find a gas pedal, because he was used to cars, then that may be so.
OK. So see... like Qimage. If you take a moment to think about what is going on, you can get it!  Ray, as you know, I do listen as I implemented most of the feature suggestions you made WRT canvas edges. Maybe you think you "have my ear" or that somehow entitles you to a license to drive the bus here, but that's not the case. There was no prior precedent for software that offers automated mirror edges like other (more established) Qimage features, so I was willing to go out on a limb with those features. No problem. But getting on a bus, a very well maintained and operating bus, and taking a seat among a bus full of other happy travelers and yelling from your seat "YOUR BUS NEEDS A TOTAL REDESIGN" isn't going to get you anything but frowns, nor will walking up to the driver and proclaiming you can drive better and "move over and let me drive". "HEY, COULD YOU PLEASE TRY TO AVOID THOSE POTHOLES" is a valid complaint. "THIS SEAT HAS A RIP IN IT" is a valid complaint. Let's stick to those, because those can be addressed. The others cannot. If all you can find is an outdated tool tip, fine, I'll take those. At least it's something! Mike |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2010, 04:22:17 PM » |
|
Hi Mike, I found one little help tool error, big problem you made over that. Funny, it was the first thing I saw, with no effort at all. I expect if I looked a bit more, plenty would be found. That is nothing to do with gui's, loyal customers or the price of fish. But, if it takes a day to explain to an arrogant programmer that he is not infallible, then what is the point in continuing? This is fundamental checking that you, as the program author, should undertake. How simply can it be stated. Errors in programming and help files put people off, but possibly not so much as your bile exhibited here. Mike, I am only concerned with getting qimage better, with respect to printing. Think yourself lucky I do not use the other aspects of it. You seem more concerned with proving how you are right, how other software and people are wrong, unless they dance to your tune. I do not understand about loyal customers and qimage. They pay for it - a one time payment. They would be loyal if they kept paying for it, but at the moment, you have no idea if everybody who bought it is using it, loving it or hating it, since they do not have to put their money where their mouth is. Am I loyal? I use it, I recommend it, I try to help others use it, I try to point out improvements or errors to you. I want it to succeed in getting new customers, obviously, else I would have walked ages ago, never persevered to try and get you to do the canvas wraps, and that was so difficult and tedious, when all you had to do was email a few other canvas users to find out how it was done, or do a few simple searches, instead of trying to change the way in which folk do it, who have been doing it for years. It is still not as good as it needs to be. Most, is not all. wrt knee jerk reaction. Mike, don't be such an idiot . I was pointing out to you, I thought an intelligent person would understand that, that there are different ways to interpret quite simple things. Why did you not react to the following para, wrt the inconsistency of operation? Is it easier to improve your standing by trying to denigrate others? I will not comment on your more recent bus analogy. So, let's start with the tool tips, then... Can you easily produce a text file list of all of them, with some indication to which tool they are assigned? I'm not sure if they can be individually copied from the screen as text, but if your software is not suitably structured, then that may be the quickest way. It will be easier to see the wrong places to where they point, I'm not so sure about where the right places will be. Anyone else care to help?? I would guess in return, you'd get a list of the old tips, one per line, followed by an amended tip, if it were required. You could then do a search and replace. (As an aside, I have a directory filling up with earlier versions of Qimage. Am I right in assuming these can be deleted, that the update is in fact a complete new install (apart from existing user settings) and does not rely on previous updates.) Best wishes, Ray |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pat77
Newbie
Posts: 21
|
|
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2010, 03:23:44 PM » |
|
(As an aside, I have a directory filling up with earlier versions of Qimage. Am I right in assuming these can be deleted, that the update is in fact a complete new install (apart from existing user settings) and does not rely on previous updates.)
Hi Ray, Yes, you are. I always delete the previous installation file just before installing a new version. -- Patrick |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
