hjulenissen has a history of complaining that PS and LR are too difficult for him to understand.
I find it increasingly difficult to keep my normally polite tone when I see your posts.
He also claimed to be a software engineer or similar at one point, which seemed remarkably at odds with his ongoing difficulties in learning basic software tools.
If you want to call me a liar, then please do so up front. The kind of tools I use for my work tend to be made by and for software people, (generally) mathematically minded people who appreciate structure and order (well, perhaps the gcc options are not). Something that can be compactly described but has deep implications is a lot more rewarding (to me) to study than some random collection of man-made rules that come and pass at the blink of an eye. I am sceptical about UI and user-interaction, whether it is more like science (converging to some, hopefully optimal philosophy), or if is more like fashion (cycling between whatever is deemed fashionable at the time by some guru). The debate on "skeumorphism" makes me even more sceptical
Apple do just that at times as it happens.
Yes and I generally applaud them for that, even if it can be painful.
What really needs to happen is people like yourself have to realise is that progress is only made by moving on from the antiquated way of doing things.
What really needs to happen is for people like yourself to realise that your own preferences and experiences does not make you an expert on other peoples preferences. In fact, your condescending view on what everyone else "should" do is quite tiresome. It is ok for you to offer opinions on what goes into Lightroom, but they are just that, opinions (just like mine).
I am all for new ways of doing things, but I am opposed to "newness for its own sake". Restricting possibilities in Lightroom vs Photoshop was a good (new) thing. Doing the non-destructive/parametric/database thingy was a good (new) thing. Reinventing UI paradigms is seldom a good thing, and one should have _very_ good reasons to do so.
Also needing to use a tutorial/guide to have new much better ways of doing things is far better and easier than staying with old but rather crap ways of working.
But needing a tutorial to have a new crap way of working is not any better than staying with the old crap way of working. In fact, it is considerably worse.
Intuitive when used about software is mostly nonsense, because people almost always mean it's just like like something I used before.
And what is the problem? Without knowing, there is a bunch of things that we take for granted with our computers (like the mouse pointer moving right when we move the mouse to the left). Apple flipped the direction of scrolling in some OSX version and it created a lot of noise. In the end, I don't think that that particular change made me any more efficient. Some parts of the world insist on putting the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car. The point is, by re-using established conventions (from a particular OS, from a particular field/culture, etc), people are able to use the tool for something useful with less effort.
I am annoyed at the people living in my house before me, putting light switches at variable heights so that when I enter a dark room, I have to feel my way along the wall until I can find a switch. There is simply (for, say, 99% of the cases) no good reason to break with those conventions, but some (small) penalty for breaking with it. Sure I can live quite well with this particular flaw (I bought the house after-all).
-h
