Reaction to a Review

[OldRadioGuy]

While browsing the internet today, I came across an Editors' Review of PL 16 at CNET, a major site for downloading shareware. http://download.cnet.com/PhotoLine/3000 ... 56844.html

Among the comments were:

The program's interface kept us guessing when we started since it was cluttered with icons for editing tools and various windows with technical information...

...The tools all worked well, but required a steady hand and an understanding of each tool's aesthetic properties to fully utilize them...

...we've tested other photo editors that were more welcoming to novice users and we do not recommend this program.

The editors gave PL 16 a rating of 3.5 of 5 stars.

The CNET site reported the program had been downloaded 16,612 times. So, that indicates a fair amount of interest in PL 16. Only six users had bothered to post their own rating at the time I looked at the site. The users' average rating was 4 of 5 stars, and four of the users gave PL 5 of 5 stars.

I think the CNET editors' review was extremely unfair, and I wonder how much time the "editors" actually spent testing PL 16. However, I suspect part of their perception comes from the fact that PL's terminology idiosyncrasies are outside the mainstream for those migrating from Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro even though "working layer" has been changed to "adjustment layer."

The CNET review was the most negative review of PL I have seen. Others I've looked at -- all for previous versions -- praised the strength of the program, while pointing out its shortcomings for those making the transition from another photo editor.

I realize the publisher of PL is a small company, but I hope there is a continuing effort to market the program to English-speaking users and to overcome negative publicity dissiminated by reviews like the one at the CNET site.

It would be helpful to the new English-only user if the English version of the manual were reworked and the German video tutorials were translated to English. It would be helpful to see clarity in the directions for performing various functions. (I think this was lost in some of the translation.) Also helpful would be more examples, better explanations of how things work and where PL files are stored. Another needed addition is a list of PL functions that can be recorded in actions as well as PL functions that can't be recorded as actions. An explanation of why would also be helpful.

[Rick]

I read the same "review" a couple days ago and left a short comment (and a 5 star rating). It's obvious that the reviewer didn't make an honest attempt to learn the program. The comment about needing "a steady hand and an understanding of each tool's aesthetic properties to fully utilize them" baffles me. I've used Photoshop to some extent and Paint Shop Pro for years. These programs require no less a "steady hand" than PhotoLine. And it's only common sense that one would need an "understanding" of a program's properties to utilize it's tools. Both are odd comments. They tell you nothing.

CNET's "review" only reflects their inability to properly critique software.

[greenmorpher]

Hei OldRadioGuy & Rick

I actually thought the CNET rating was fair -- even positive -- as far as it went (although it didn't go nearly far enough in terms of pointing out what PL can do beyond photo editing, and the statement about a "steady hand" was plain stupid). Remember -- they made the point that they were considering NOVICE users. CNET is quite right in saying that for a new user, the PL interface is pretty difficult. I would go further -- it is bloody difficult for everyone, including experienced users of other graphics programs.

While the reviewer didn’t show a lot of insight into the program, I ask the question: how could they? They have to grab a program, learn the basics in no time at flat, and make a comment. The Hubers have made that as difficult as they can by preferring their own idiosyncratic nomenclature and menu structures over some more conventional (i.e. like Photoshop) usages.

The CNET reviewer might have rated the program at 1.5 instead of 3.5 because of the difficulty of accessing the power behind the mad interface.

We discussed the PL interface in some furious detail on this forum a couple of years (or more) ago. I was advocating that PL’s nomenclature and menus be aligned with those of the bigger opposition since this nomenclature has become the de facto standard and is used to a greater or lesser extent by many smaller programs too, including the ones distributed with digital cameras.

At that time, this was rejected on the grounds that users did not migrate to PL from other programs. What rubbish.

I am a victim of this myself. I bought PL originally to overcome deficiencies of my main graphics program, Canvas X. But developments in the Mac OS mean Canvas is performing better than ever despite no development for years (the bugs we thought were Canvas’s obviously were OS bugs), developments in iPhoto have reduced PL’s usefulness, and the lack if real improvement in PL’s interface means that every time I use it, it is still a battle -- a battle I’m less and less interested in fighting.

So I’m not upgrading this time. I'll keep an eye on PL and if it comes up with the equivalents of a couple of the latest killer bits of automation P'shop has, then I might upgrade, but for now, given the interface and my lessening need to use PL, I'm neither buying nor recommending it to anyone else.

Life is too short to have to fight a graphics program.

Regards, Geoff
Geoffrey Heard
Advertising, Business Writing, Marketing with zing!
See how we think, what we do how we can help you: http://www.marketnow.com.au -- AND -- http://www.ad-doctor-online.com

[Rick]

Geoff,

Points taken, especially about life being too short. Not so much about fighting a graphics program, though. My memory is fading with age but I certainly don't recall breezing through the learning curve of Paint Shop Pro years ago when I first got into post processing photographs. And what critique of PhotoShop doesn't warn of the steep learning curve to use just a portion of what that program offers? And speaking of interfaces, would it really be so terrible for Adobe to include "undo"/"redo" icons?

Personally (and that is paramount), I like PhotoLine's UI. Sure they could emerge from the icon dark ages and spiff up the look of the program, but that's not to say I want them to make it look or behave like a PhotoShop clone.

I think the CNET reviewer was misguided in reviewing PhotoLine as a novice program. It's not. But I believe a novice would find it easier to tackle PhotoLine in a given time than, say, PhotoShop or PSP. On the other hand, people like me who did migrate from another program (PSP mostly for me) shouldn't have too difficult a time in mastering the basics either. Since I don't do vector graphics I can't speak for PhotoLine being good or bad. And maybe that's where the reviewer found the difficulty. If so, a more in-depth review would have been more beneficial to their readers.

I would recommend that anyone looking for a powerful graphics program give PhotoLine the 30-day free trial and see for themselves if the program meets their requirements.

Rick

[lutz]

OldRadioGuy,
you have posted a very nice PhotoLine review on the CNet site. May I quote it in future?

[greenmorpher]

Hiya Rick
Fair reply.

Points taken, especially about life being too short. Not so much about fighting a graphics program, though. My memory is fading with age but I certainly don't recall breezing through the learning curve of Paint Shop Pro years ago when I first got into post processing photographs. And what critique of PhotoShop doesn't warn of the steep learning curve...

True. But they've reduced that in a number of ways recently, with their recent tools. On the other hand, I think it is bloated and overpriced. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not flying the flag for the P'shop interface, I am simply saying that the the big reality is that anyone coming from P/'shop, etc. -- and a lot of people SHOULD be -- must abandon a whole lot of their hard won expertise and start again from scratch when they encounter the PL UI.

It is smart marketing not to force them to do that -- particularly when the PL UI really shows no advantages over the PS or PSP UI. It's just idiosyncratic.

Personally (and that is paramount), I like PhotoLine's UI. Sure they could emerge from the icon dark ages and spiff up the look of the program, but that's not to say I want them to make it look or behave like a PhotoShop clone.

And they could make it logical -- or at least look that way. When you get a menu sequence like: menu bar > effects > effects > inner blend, i.e. with "effects" twice, and then another sub-menu, "Effect Tools", you have to wonder. And "Inner Blend". Versus "Outer Blend"??? There's no outer blend. And how come having the blend moulding itself to the shape is not part of the general blending tool or vice versa? Then you have menu bar > effects > shape tools > ... and most of that is distortion tools. But the next item down on the effects menu is "Distort". Huh?

I think the CNET reviewer was misguided in reviewing PhotoLine as a novice program. It's not. But I believe a novice would find it easier to tackle PhotoLine in a given time than, say, PhotoShop or PSP. ...

The price places it in the novice bracket. If a novice was coming from one of the little programs distributed with cameras, then they would learn PS or PSP faster, I believe. Or at least, they would be able to move the next step up faster.

Since I don't do vector graphics I can't speak for PhotoLine being good or bad. And maybe that's where the reviewer found the difficulty. If so, a more in-depth review would have been more beneficial to their readers.

I don't believe that was the difficulty. The review didn't indicate that.

I would recommend that anyone looking for a powerful graphics program give PhotoLine the 30-day free trial and see for themselves if the program meets their requirements.

No comment!

Cheers, Geoff

Geoffrey Heard
Publisher, Editor, Business Writer
The Worsley Press

FREE Bonus book offer. Get "How to make great ads for (sm)all business" FREE when you buy "Type & Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes?" or "How to Start and Produce a Magazine or Newsletter". Amazon or http://www.worsleypress.com

[bkh]

True. But they've reduced that in a number of ways recently, with their recent tools. On the other hand, I think it is bloated and overpriced. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not flying the flag for the P'shop interface, I am simply saying that the the big reality is that anyone coming from P/'shop, etc. -- and a lot of people SHOULD be -- must abandon a whole lot of their hard won expertise and start again from scratch when they encounter the PL UI.

I don't have much first-hand experience with PS, but I have worked through quite a few PS tutorials, to reproduce the results in PL. Imo, if you understand the concepts that are being used, it's easy to translate from one program to the other. This may be different if you've just being taught to press certain buttons. (Note that I am not saying that PL's menu structure, or its UI in general, is perfect - others including myself have proposed a different menu structure elsewhere in this forum.)

I think the CNET reviewer was misguided in reviewing PhotoLine as a novice program. It's not. But I believe a novice would find it easier to tackle PhotoLine in a given time than, say, PhotoShop or PSP. ...

The price places it in the novice bracket. If a novice was coming from one of the little programs distributed with cameras, then they would learn PS or PSP faster, I believe. Or at least, they would be able to move the next step up faster.

Just wondering how a serious reviewer could take PL for a novice program (although I agree with Rick that that's probably what happened) …

On the other hand, did you ever consider why anyone could sell such a powerful program at such a price? The answer is simple. When writing a program, you really spend most of the time on a good user interface and documentation. So, in a sense, you still get what you (didn't) pay for. Except that I still think that PL is excellent value for the money.

Cheers,

Burkhard.

[Stefan_E]

Hi Geoff,

there was a very active discussion in the Betatest forum about menus. Hoogo went to great lengths developing and posting a much cleaned-up menu (see here, copy to the PLs hlp directory to use). It even received the best possible endorsement by Gerhard, stating that he, the creator of the official menu could seamlessly switch over and work with the new structure right from the start! What more could you wish for?

Unfortunately, finally the "Computerinsel" (Island - any connotations?) decided that it was not sufficiently PS like - there was no "Image" menu. Which would be kind of fine, if there was not the problem to have a menu structure which also logically supports vector editing and text processing - a problem PS does not have to solve. There were a few follow-up posts and then the subject was buried.

Instead the new function Color Filter found it's least likely home in Layer / Display, next to "Show All Layers", as if to proof that any logic can be defeated

I for my part switched over to Hoogo's menu (a little cleaned-up, as Hoogo added dummy menus he wished to see in the future to complete the feature set....). I find it a pity that the beta discussions are only in German. Specifically usability would for sure benefit from a more international discussion.

Stefan

[Hoogo]

For me it's not a buried topic, but I returned to my usual slow activity and have to get into that topic again
And afair the new menu layout did not find its way to V16 mostly because of the short time to its release. It was a matter of the help file, and asking for more practice in the use of the menus was no bad idea, either

[bkh]

For me it's not a buried topic, but I returned to my usual slow activity and have to get into that topic again
And afair the new menu layout did not find its way to V16 mostly because of the short time to its release. It was a matter of the help file, and asking for more practice in the use of the menus was no bad idea, either

I totally agree with Hoogo. However, I suppose that most people who contributed ideas were under the impression that the menus were meant to ship with v. 16, and gave up once they noticed that this wouldn't happen. So far, suggestions for the new menu structure have only been made in the semi-private beta tester forum (here's mine , similar to Hoogo's but having more main menu entries and fewer submenus).

I for my part switched over to Hoogo's menu (a little cleaned-up, as Hoogo added dummy menus he wished to see in the future to complete the feature set....).

Very good. It's actually the first time somebody reports that he is trying out one of the proposed menu structures in practice. It would be very helpful if you posted your experiences in the original thread.

I find it a pity that the beta discussions are only in German. Specifically usability would for sure benefit from a more international discussion.

I certainly wouldn't object to that. However, the question is if the beta tester forum is actually the right place for discussions about the user interface (especially if this doesn't concern new features of a beta version but long standing issues). Such questions could probably benefit from feedback by a more general audience.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Stefan_E]

Very good. It's actually the first time somebody reports that he is trying out one of the proposed menu structures in practice. It would be very helpful if you posted your experiences in the original thread.

Quite simple: Do I find everything immediately? No, PL is too big for that. But once I do, I realize immediately that the place is logical (thanks, Hoogo!) and it's me who forgot about it. Later I installed a beta version - and of course it came back with the original menus. It felt a bit like going back to work with Windows 3.1

I didn't spend a long while on your menus, Burkhard. I loaded them but wasn't convinced about the flattening; I like structure... so I didn't go deeper. Sorry!

It would be helpful to the new English-only user if the English version of the manual were reworked and the German video tutorials were translated to English. It would be helpful to see clarity in the directions for performing various functions. (I think this was lost in some of the translation.)

Although I'm not a native English speaker, I don't think this is a translation issue (other than for the videos of course ). When I learned PL, I walked through the English manual front to back. There was the occasional odd sentence, but for the most part it was just a straight-forward translation where reading the German version wouldn't add more clarity - unfortunately!

Of course, if you have specific remarks to one or the other paragraph, I'm sure the Hubers would gladly take the advise of a native speaker... they also said someplace (in the German board) that they would blindly follow any advise on menu entry names for the English version (eg. Working vs. Adjustment Layer, etc.)

Stefan

[greenmorpher]

Hi all

You guys are thinking hard about the menus so I'll give you some more food for thought. Some examples of the Canvas menus with some explanations. Canvas is a valid comparison because it is an integrated program as is PhotoLine. Canvas started from the vector end of things, though, and PL from the raster end -- and the difference shows as you would expect. For all that, though, on the question of menus there is -- or could be -- much common ground.

The Canvas team was small, but several times two, and they did have on board a geeky graphics guy, Dave Rumfelt (he’s now at http://www.spotillustrator.com) who not only produced their marketing stuff in Canvas but also was closely involved in setting up the UI and in suggesting new tools.

The result isn't necessarily perfect, but in the end, it has some logic.

As noted, in Canvas you work on the page all the time. Different objects and different kinds of objects can all be on the same layer unless you wish to separate them, but on that layer, they are in a stacking order. There are two kinds of selection for both vector and raster objects -- the object selection (where you do the overall stuff) and the editing selection (where you do the detail stuff). Kind of.

All the stuff in the Image menu has to do only with images or with image-orientated stuff when images interact with vectors. One example -- "Trim to Path". You put a vector path/outline on a photo then select both, go Trim to Path, and the result is a photo clipped as in using a Clipping Path (in the Object menu, Path sub-menu), but the result is rendered as a new image with transparent surround, and the original and path are disposed of. (At least, that's how I see it working -- I suspect it is really a script behind the tool. A really handy thing.)

Note how the Properties Bar is similar to the PL Tool Settings palette but goes further bringing in information from various tools or palettes, being oriented towards the object selected rather than any particular tool. The Properties Bar is bigger and more visible -- it can be so because all the different palettes are concealed in the Docking Bar (unless you choose to have them open). The same goes for the dockable palettes. I have several open here and a much reduced screen size for illustration, but normally I wouldn't have more than one palette open. Dockable palettes allows the palettes to be bigger and also maximizes screen real estate available.

I would imagine a facility similar to the Properties Bar would be fairly straightforward for the Hubers since they already do a fair proportion of the job with the Tool Settings palette. And then there’s the dock...

So -- some food for thought.

Cheers, Geoff

Geoffrey Heard
Publisher, Editor, Business Writer
The Worsley Press

FREE Bonus book offer. Get "How to make great ads for (sm)all business" FREE when you buy "Type & Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes?" or "How to Start and Produce a Magazine or Newsletter". Amazon or http://www.worsleypress.com

[greenmorpher]

And just one more example.

Cheers, Geoff

Geoffrey Heard
Publisher, Editor, Business Writer
The Worsley Press

FREE Bonus book offer. Get "How to make great ads for (sm)all business" FREE when you buy "Type & Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes?" or "How to Start and Produce a Magazine or Newsletter". Amazon or http://www.worsleypress.com

[greenmorpher]

One more point -- regarding the manual.

If the German and English versions are essentially the same, then the whole manual needs rewriting. I would hope that will happen after an upgrade of the UI.

I presume the Hubers wrote it themselves. PL demonstrates that they are fine software engineers -- the manual demonstrates that they have limitations as manual writers. But it is not only the words -- it is the graphics. They really need to get a couple of good manual writing and laying out people on the job. It is normal practice around the world to have manuals written by manual writing specialists rather than engineers and the reasons are obvious. Engineers write manuals from their side of the fence -- skilled manual writers come at the task from the users' side.

Incidentally, those mangled instructions you get for assembling cheap household items are glorious examples of why good manual writers are needed even with simple items.

Cheers, Geoff

Geoffrey Heard
Publisher, Editor, Business Writer
The Worsley Press

FREE Bonus book offer. Get "How to make great ads for (sm)all business" FREE when you buy "Type & Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes?" or "How to Start and Produce a Magazine or Newsletter". Amazon or www.worsleypress.com

[greenmorpher]

Have a look at the manual for iStudio Publisher at http://www.istudiopublisher.com/index.php/home/home/

A much simpler application, of course, but it sure is an object lesson in how to prepare a manual for a graphics program.

Cheers, Geoff

Geoffrey Heard
Publisher, Editor, Business Writer
The Worsley Press

FREE Bonus book offer. Get "How to make great ads for (sm)all business" FREE when you buy "Type & Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes?" or "How to Start and Produce a Magazine or Newsletter". Amazon or www.worsleypress.com