Impact of Photoline's website

[bkh]

… but here I am completely stuck trying to figure out something that simple: the manual refers to a Line Style Field without telling you where or how to find it, the "help" that comes with the program gives information that is simply wrong.

Frankly, I don't quite understand your problem. Querying the online help for "line style", I get

3.3.4 The Line Style Field
4.2.1 The Text Style Dialog
4.13 The Style List
4.5.4.2 Line Style
3.7 The Line Editor

3.3.4 explains what a line style field is, and 4.5.4.2 tells you where to find it for vector layers (admittedly, you'll have to consult 4.5.4 to find out what the vector toolbox is). 4.2.1 and 4.13 are additional places where you'll find a line style field (for other purposes), and 3.7 tells you how to edit line styles and how to save presets.

Searching the pdf manual for "Line Style Field" in Acrobat Reader gives similar hits (the contents of the PhotoLine help are the same as the pdf manual).

If there are wrong statements in the manual, I'm sure the developers would be happy to know about them (they usually follow the discussions here, so you may as well post them here in the forum).

Don't get me wrong – the manual certainly is far from perfect. It's a typical example of a manual written by the developers themselves, and as such, it is more of a technical reference than a guide to the program.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[emri]

Frankly, I don't quite understand your problem. Querying the online help for "line style", I get

3.3.4 The Line Style Field
4.2.1 The Text Style Dialog
4.13 The Style List
4.5.4.2 Line Style
3.7 The Line Editor

3.3.4 explains what a line style field is, and 4.5.4.2 tells you where to find it for vector layers (admittedly, you'll have to consult 4.5.4 to find out what the vector toolbox is). 4.2.1 and 4.13 are additional places where you'll find a line style field (for other purposes), and 3.7 tells you how to edit line styles and how to save presets.

I get the same - I didn't realize it hadn't finished searching yet; I usually don't bother with Spotlight 'help' searches on Mac since they tend (in my experience) to be the least efficient way to get an answer.

The problem was I didn't even know how to draw a line, probably because I think in terms of "drawing a line" and not "making a vector," which is probably more intuitive to programmers. Makes sense now. I appreciate your help!

[OldRadioGuy]

This is Gimp in dark colours:
http://www.partha.com/images/screenshot ... 60x540.jpg

It is interesting to note that suddenly a lot of users seem to stop complaining about the overall interface. Unfortunately, we are all a superficial lot

Maybe it's because users feel complaints about the overall interface have produced few results.

In that category, the next version of PhotoLine should have:

1. A darker interface option like the Gimb illustration you posted here;
1. A true Full-Window image view option with no clutter around the edges.

Bob

[emri]

It is interesting to note that suddenly a lot of users seem to stop complaining about the overall interface. Unfortunately, we are all a superficial lot

I don't see any reason to chase fads, and I must admit to being a bit spoiled by Apple eye candy, but there is seriously no excuse for an extremely competent (and reasonably priced!!!) graphics program to have such laughably bad icons and graphics.

[SCX]

I don't see any reason to chase fads, and I must admit to being a bit spoiled by Apple eye candy, but there is seriously no excuse for an extremely competent (and reasonably priced!!!) graphics program to have such laughably bad icons and graphics.

There are big reasons: money for example, time, or taste. There was a discussion about the icons and there is a high number of them. And then you spend a lot of money and time (which can spent more useful in my opinion) for new icons and then you wait for the first one to complain about the new icons and that even the old ones were better

I myself don't feel, that they are so bad. Maybe, because I changed them to b/w. They are no eyecatcher, but they are ok. As I mentioned in another thread, b/w should be the default for the look of PhotoLine. New users don't know, that you can change it very easily in the preferences.

The Apple eye candy, I don't have Apple, but the desktop of the OS looks terrible to me. Windows 7 and Linux Ubuntu/Mint look way better. Just to show you, how different people think. But the windows itself look better on Apple-OS, so PL looks better on Apple than on Windows.

[bkh]

I don't see any reason to chase fads, and I must admit to being a bit spoiled by Apple eye candy, but there is seriously no excuse for an extremely competent (and reasonably priced!!!) graphics program to have such laughably bad icons and graphics.

There are big reasons: money for example, time, or taste. There was a discussion about the icons and there is a high number of them. And then you spend a lot of money and time (which can spent more useful in my opinion) for new icons and then you wait for the first one to complain about the new icons and that even the old ones were better

I think so, too – "reasonably priced" means that you have to cut costs somewhere – in the case of PL, it's the GUI, documentation and advertising. As SCX said, there's been a lot of debate about this, but in the end, it's the developers' business model …

I myself don't feel, that they are so bad. Maybe, because I changed them to b/w. They are no eyecatcher, but they are ok.

Wholly agreed. I once tried Pixelmator which is praised everywhere for its GUI, and found all these colourful animated icons an eyesore.

The Apple eye candy, I don't have Apple, but the desktop of the OS looks terrible to me.

You mean the default desktop picture? That's the first thing I change when updating my OS. Looks great when you first boot your machine, but completely unusable, imo.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Hoogo]

Once there was some kind of agreement that you can change the icons, post them here, and if somebody likes them, they might appear in the next version. There's a pictures.pld located in "... > photoline > hlp"

[ellhel]

In that category, the next version of PhotoLine should have:

1. A darker interface option like the Gimb illustration you posted here;
1. A true Full-Window image view option with no clutter around the edges.

Bob

Hi,

here again my design. I inverted the colors mainly. (This is only a manipulated screenshot )

Regards
Helmut

[emri]

As I mentioned in another thread, b/w should be the default for the look of PhotoLine. New users don't know, that you can change it very easily in the preferences.

This is a classic from a veteran user! You can change it very easily once you know how. Even now knowing that it is possible to change the icons to b/w in the preferences, I spent several minutes going through preferences without seeing how it's possible. Care to clue me in?

=====================================================================

For the record, it's not the toolbox icons that I find objectionable.

I would argue that it's not really a question of "one person prefers this, one that," but more a question of whether you understand that your core audience will comprise a fair number of graphic designers and artists, and that they immediately recognize crappy (or seriously not-good) design, and that will definitely turn them off to PhotoLine at a visceral level, before they even have the app open. Displaying amateurish design to designers you're hoping to win as customers is like throwing sand on your bicycle chain and hoping it will run smoother. To wit:

A cluttered and distinctly un-catchy logo that looks like it might be for a disk utility:

app_icon.png

The splash screen which is simply garbage design. Perhaps when you're registered, it mercifully extinguishes itself. For prospective users (for example, graphics professionals and enthusiasts), this screams "we're not serious about design!" Which is perhaps a big part of why those people tend to write off PhotoLine before learning more about it:

splashscreen.jpg

And a logo that uses ARIAL??? (How about Papyrus or Comic Sans?) With icons behind that look like they're advertising a $2.99 kiddie iPad app? And you expect artists and designers to take it seriously?

webpage logo.png

Improving (as in replacing) these three things would not involve huge expense, and if done well could make a huge difference in the perceived value of Photoline to graphic designers, artists, and photographers: in other words, the visual people who are most apt to buy the program.

[bkh]

In that category, the next version of PhotoLine should have:

1. A darker interface option like the Gimb illustration you posted here;
1. A true Full-Window image view option with no clutter around the edges.

Bob

Hi,

here again my design. I inverted the colors mainly. (This is only a manipulated screenshot )

Regards
Helmut

I'm a bit confused – why a manipulated screenshot if there is a black mode in the beta version (http://www.pl32.com/forum3/viewtopic.ph ... =15#p22120)? I haven't seen any of it yet because it's Windows only, but is there something wrong about it?

Cheers

Burkhard.

[SCX]

A cluttered and distinctly un-catchy logo that looks like it might be for a disk utility:

Actually, I kinda like the logo quite a lot.

The splash screen which is simply garbage design. Perhaps when you're registered, it mercifully extinguishes itself. For prospective users (for example, graphics professionals and enthusiasts), this screams "we're not serious about design!" Which is perhaps a big part of why those people tend to write off PhotoLine before learning more about it:

This screen could really be improved, but I don't know how. PhotoLine doesn't sell by design, it sells by functionality and price. If Computerinsel hires a designer, the program could be looking better, but I prefer a affordable price. I don't bother with the look of PhotoLine at all. I start it, and it works and don't look to ugly for me while it works

As I mentioned in another thread, b/w should be the default for the look of PhotoLine. New users don't know, that you can change it very easily in the preferences.

This is a classic from a veteran user! You can change it very easily once you know how. Even now knowing that it is possible to change the icons to b/w in the preferences, I spent several minutes going through preferences without seeing how it's possible. Care to clue me in?

I attached an image.

Most of the tutorials I've seen are for Photoshop. I know the program through this lessons and I've used PS Elements before I choosed PL instead, but I tried a demo of CS6 a few month ago and was lost nevertheless. It was just unfamiliar for me. The first few weeks were hard with PL too. If it would be completely different, maybe it would be better, but the small differences are frustrating at the beginning.
With the help from the forum it got better and now I don't want something else. There are minor things that could be improved, but no radical changes. It's just different.

[emri]

A cluttered and distinctly un-catchy logo that looks like it might be for a disk utility:

Actually, I kinda like the logo quite a lot.

Like or not, there are some icons that "pop" and this isn't one of them. I've got my apps directory open in icon view, and things like Chrome, Skype, Wuala, Evernote, and Firefox jump out at me. I have to look for PhotoLine alphabetically, its icon is so "quiet." While I think it could be better, it's not completely amateurish like the splash screen and logo.

This screen could really be improved, but I don't know how. PhotoLine doesn't sell by design, it sells by functionality and price. If Computerinsel hires a designer, the program could be looking better, but I prefer a affordable price. I don't bother with the look of PhotoLine at all. I start it, and it works and don't look to ugly for me while it works

I guess my point is that if it looked good, it WOULD sell by design, and probably a hell of a lot better, since design people are a big part of the potential customer base! I can put a well-priced, quality bread machine on display in an appliance store, but if I put a moldy loaf of bread next to it, that's going to hurt sales. That's what I see this stuff doing to PL. I can't imagine spending a couple hundred dollars on a graphic designer would make the price go up, especially if that expense earned out in a short time because the program looked like it was designed for professionals.

Most of the tutorials I've seen are for Photoshop. I know the program through this lessons and I've used PS Elements before I choosed PL instead, but I tried a demo of CS6 a few month ago and was lost nevertheless. It was just unfamiliar for me. The first few weeks were hard with PL too. If it would be completely different, maybe it would be better, but the small differences are frustrating at the beginning.
With the help from the forum it got better and now I don't want something else. There are minor things that could be improved, but no radical changes. It's just different.

Agreed. I very much appreciate this forum after only a few days!

[Hoogo]

From time to time someone posts new icons or a splash screen. I best remember Ono's thread, and the unforgettable lens flower. That's why PL now offers cat content with the mask icons

EDIT: Just found that Ono already posted in this tread.

[ellhel]

bkh hat geschrieben:
I'm a bit confused – why a manipulated screenshot if there is a black mode in the beta version (viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3076&hilit=blackmode&start=15#p22120)? I haven't seen any of it yet because it's Windows only, but is there something wrong about it?

Hello,

here is a picture of the beta with darker skin.

Regards
Helmut

[Wayland]

That looks really good.