Settings and activity
11 results found
-
42 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment 
griffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
Colorized icons is absolutely necessary. Again, "appearance" of the UI is far, far lower priority than usability. Software is a TOOL, not a website, not a marketing piece, not a decoration. UI staff (leadership) should be fired for this horrible backwards change.
griffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
14 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
Ugh, just ran into this "improvement" today. The old keyboard shortcut for the SET PAGE BOXES dialogue to trim or crop multiple pages was Control+Shift+T (the original post incorrectly identifies the command). Now it's been reassigned to "insert blank page"? Why couldn't Adobe come up with a new shortcut for that if it thought people wanted a shortcut for that?
We're talking about the dialogue box here, not the cropping tool. See attached image, which came from https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/using/crop-pdf-pages.html
Also, the "single key accelerators" setting users don't always want to enable. So the current suggestion to enable that setting and then hitting the "C" key is inadequate. Furthermore, the crop tool is NOT the same as the dialogue box for multi-page trimming.
This is just another poorly thought through change to the program. Users get accustomed to using software a certain way and become efficient at it in their workflow. Changing it without good reason (like really, really good) is a problem. Compounding that problem is not letting users reassign the shortcut back to what it used to be.
This has been an issue for years: https://community.adobe.com/t5/acrobat-discussions/set-page-boxes/td-p/12168710
griffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
638 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
Fun fact: Adobe used to espouse the following virtues:
For our customers:
deliver the best and most innovative products;
license technology on a fair and impartial basis;
maintain total confidentiality about each customer’s business;
provide the highest possible level of service.Customers
• Treat the customer, as you would like to be treated
• Make the customer an ally not an adversary
• Evaluate issues from the customer’s point of view
• Your performance may have a major impact on the survival of the customer’s business
• Make the customer feel that we need his business
• Thank the customer frequently for his businessFrom Adobe’s Core Values and Beliefs, by Charles M. Geschke
August, 1998, full article available at: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/1998-08-Geschke-Adobe-Culture.pdfAn error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
A vital and missing part of the UX and UI teams’ ethos (and this fault lies far up the chain of command likely to the C-suite) is any emphasis on a user's existing habits, work flow, and speed. Any--and I mean absolutely ANY--change to the user interface should be well-documented and based upon how the software is CURRENTLY used by the existing (paying) user base/customers.
Lots of people care about getting things done, not how it looks. The carpenter doesn’t care how his hammer looks, he cares about how it works. Software is a TOOL and should be developed that way. Fix bugs first. Develop new features second. Work on aesthetics dead last. Perhaps silicon valley should fire execs and replace them with execs from businesses that serve the trades, like DeWalt. I promise they’re going to prioritize usability and durability first.Because Silicon Valley is infected with “we know what’s best for you” kind of thinking, the only hope is that the UI team consider the following examples of questions that should lead UI development:
1. How does this UI change force the user to do something different to accomplish the same task? E.g., two more mouse clicks? Make it impossible to do the same way as before? (keep the functionality but make getting it done entirely different).
2. How ingrained are users' behaviors in their daily tasks for this particular change? If highly ingrained, repeated, and frequent, then that should weigh VERY strongly for either no change at all or a step-wise slow change over multiple generations of the software (I mean years’ worth). Forcing significant and widespread changes all at once or even rapidly is demonstrably harmful to users’ ability to continue using the same software effectively and efficiently.
3. Does this UI change increase user speed or slow it down? (Again, comparing to the baseline of existing users, not some new user.) More clicks? Less keyboard shortcuts? Less information displayed and now buried?
4. Are we wasting any screen space with the new change? What information are we now hiding/burying that will require mouse clicks, taps, or time for the user to locate in a different place? Does the user need to see that information while they’re working on the file/document? Does forcing the user to go hunt for the information obscure the document they’re working on?
5. Can we offer our legacy users a way to keep the existing UI while adding new functionality? Can we simultaneously offer a new UI to first time users? A “pro” UI and a “home” or “basic” UI? Do we really need to classify ALL users as the same so that there’s only one look and feel to the software?
6. Can we deploy the desired UI changes in a way that we can do A-B testing on BOTH existing users/customers AND new users? Those results should dictate—and I mean that in every sense of the word—the implementation. You don’t get to change the UI just because you want to. Users decide, not execs or devs. User preferences about the planned change may show it’s idiotic even if “pretty.”A final suggestion for devs: I would love it if I could unilaterally "redesign" the developers' own software they use and see how they feel about that, and ensure they can’t use anything else but my redesigned software because that’s what the company says must be used. I can think of a great redesign for GitHub: we'll make it pretty with white background (none of that “dark” theme anymore), and increase the number of mouse clicks to download repositories, eliminate command line interface, sell the devs some other unrelated while we’re at it (save it in the cloud!), and force them and their bosses to pay me for that privilege because I'm the only game in town.
Substitute GitHub in the above example with any other dev software like Notepad++ and other platforms and the devs would be outraged, just as we users are. So stop it Adobe, just stop. Your UI team should be fired. Every one of them.
Again, we buy software to accomplish a task, not because we think it "looks nice."
griffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
Hi,
Since the issue is resolved for you, I believe we can close on this now. Also, we would try to improve the experience for you on your suggestions in the coming future.
Please feel free to contact us in case of any issue.Thanks
RachitAn error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
Here's evidence this has existed since at least 2008:
https://acrobatusers.com/forum/accessibility/accessibility-turn-it/
And it's still there. Eff you Adobe.
An error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
This is NOT resolved because it's a bug or bad UI (again). This has been kicking around in Acrobat for an unacceptably long time. Numerous posts seeking help have this issue.
First, the dialog po-up box doesn't even tell the user what's going on, it just says "please wait while the document is being prepared for" and then has a cancel button. Absolutely no indication of what the software is doing, or how to change the setting.
Second, this appears to be the result of some accessibility feature that a user may inadvertently click yes to, thus resulting in EVERY pdf opened to be endlessly interrupted for this mystery process. Apparently the only way to undo that accessibility preference is to delete a file. Really? Not even anything in the vast array of options that exist under preferences?
This is a bug first and foremost, and horrible UI second. This needs to be changed.
griffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesgriffin@klemalaw.com
shared this idea
·
-
11 votesgriffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
This is a similar issue with the comments in the body of the document (floating). The comment box's text gets cut off. Previously, comment boxes could be sized to EITHER ensure all text was visible (larger box), or not visible, but scrollable (smaller box). What a mess Adobe has made of their flagship product. The UI is total garbage.
griffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesgriffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
Again, WHY did Adobe think a bunch of useless white space between page thumbnails was a good thing? Changing the size of those thumbnails doesn't really change the wasted, useless space between pages. It's literally 100% wasted space; meaning there is the same amount of white space as there is thumbnail, side-to-side. There should be a way to have these thumbnails be nearly touching, like bookbinding, so that you can see more pages in the thumbnails.
It wasn't this was before (Acrobat Pro X), and whoever thunk up this new feature or didn't care enough to at least make it the same as prior versions should be fired. This is either a bug or extremely bad UI development.
griffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment griffin@klemalaw.com
commented
Thank you Ishita. This is not "improving" the quick tools, but putting it back the way it was. The redesigned UI was not better, and I consider the poorer overall visual utility a bug. Loss of color on the icons, icon uniformity (for multiple different tools), and more spacing--all likely done in the name of making the UI "pretty." Acrobat is a TOOL, and it should be treated that way, not window dressing.
griffin@klemalaw.com
supported this idea
·
The interface MUST be speed and efficiency based, not on its appearance. Empower the user, please, with UI customization and minimized wasted screen (white) space.