Browser background
Viewing and managing images in the Browser in Grid mode could be made much easier, and easier on the eyes, if (a) the background color of the Browser space could be adjusted (as that of the Viewer can), to create separation between the Browser space and the surrounding toolbars etc, and (b) if the space surrounding each image was delineated by lines, so that each image looked like a slide and was separated off from the others - the way it is done in Lightroom.
-
Well, that is a matter of personal taste:-)
I used LR from V1-6 but prefer the clean "just the image" view without any skeumorphic embellishments. As I say personal taste but I think skeumorphism has had its day, even Apple have mostly given up on it.
Interested to see if others would like the LR approach.
Ian
0 -
Ian, I had to consult Wikipedia to understand you :-)
A skeuomorph is a derivative object that retains nonfunctional ornamental design cues (attributes) from structures that were inherent to the original.
Not sure it helped though
I favor the clean image view without embellishments, just like you.
regards
0 -
Hi BeO
Sorry about that, just a throwback. Got used a bit back in the day when for example Apple made word processing apps look like a notebook with lines and a ring binding - not joking::-)
0 -
Hi Ian,
Yeah, funny from todays perspective. I do remember the early days of home computers, the roaring 80s, too...
But I like all kinds of analogue watch simulations e.g. on digital phones, it's not exactly a skeuomorph though because it is functional, and more intuitive especially in stress situations, hence many divers and pilots use analog watches; ups, a bit off topic... :-)
0 -
Hi both of you, I appreciate your viewpoints. But for myself I find this one of the ways in which C1 is less good at image organisation and management than LR. There's probably no reason why a person couldn't have a choice between lines and no lines, so that everyone's preferences could be accommodated. By the way, I notice that neither of you commented on the issue about background color, so I take it you don't disagree there.
0 -
Hi Ben
These are user to user forums you could put in a support request asking for the changes you want. Browser background should be easy although Black would be my personal choice.:-)
I would though stop and consider your requirements because if a visual UI element is putting you off changing software, are you really actually wanting to do this? If the extra tools like the advanced colour editor, Luma curve, levels, local adjustments in layers with the ability to refine, feather, invert masks, adjust layer opacity etc.aren't that important to you then surely it is best to just stick to LR, it is great software.
Ian
0 -
Ben only said this one point is less good in his opinion, maybe amongst others in image management, I think he appreciates, or will, the advantages in your list, Ian. (there might be others though, good and not so good ... :-)
Currently the background is just a little darker than the Viewers "dark" (not black) which I prefer over black. But it makes sense to be able to adjust the color, C1 is the master of customizability, (but indepedently from the viewer color please, you don't want to have a white browser / and tools ...). Nothing I need but it doesn't hurt having this option.
Welcome Ben to the C1 community, both have their strenghts and weaknesses.
Of course LR is great but C1 is greater... :-)
0 -
Hi BeO
Yes, I think we all agree that it would be a relatively easy mod to be able to change the background colour. It might be a good idea if there was an official mechanism for requesting improvements other than a formal support request. In the DXO forums users get a number of votes that they can use to support improvement ideas proposed by users?
Ian
0 -
So far it seems like the Official approach to creating formal Enhancement requests (with an acknowledgement) remains the "Case" system, now instigated by the "Submit a request" link found widely across the support pages.
As for "votes" influencing developments: voting is easy when there is nothing to constrain the decision to cast the vote. Thus frequently of little help or guidance to the developers.
There needs to be a value of some sort associated with it in order to attempt to properly focus the voter's mind on the decision. Perhaps something akin to the concept of "Crowd funding" (though more reliably executed) where people can offer certified support to the idea in return for the development occurring. (One has always to assume that the development can be undertaken as requested without, inter alia, copyright or patent infringement.)
In general I'm not, personally, a great fan of simply copying another product just because people want it to happen as it is what they are used to. I'm sure we would all like that from time to time but that does not mean it's a good idea.
I am also not a fan of overcomplexity (including unlimited forms of "personalisation") unless there are good reasons for it an no alternative approaches possible. Overcomplex product will, eventually, drive users away while in the meantime being difficult to support and costly to maintain.
One of the most enlightening things I discovered when moving to C1 is that it was possible to achieve a better looking result by doing less - indeed almost nothing - to an image compared with even the most pleasing applications I had used before.
So I could spend less time, have less to understand about the effects of the adjustment I was making and get a result that looked nicer. I thought that was a good result.
So long as that is possible for 90% of what I need it's a great result from minimal work. It would be disappointing if that product development focus was lost chasing functionality for special needs. The dangers of adding complexity can be that that is exactly what happens even if unintended. And then things break more often - or appear to break as people attempt to do things in a ways that were not considered as part of or objectives for the development project.
At which point everyone complains and tells everyone else how they could do things better. Especially when so many have temporarily constrained lives and time to fill as we have currently during the well reported pandemic.
The sooner we can, hopefully, all get back to regular patterns of photo capturing the clearer and more selective the suggested development requirements might become.
Based on previous experiences in the field of software development I would strongly commend the approach that ties a committed value assessment proposition (related to the cost of funding and possibly also future maintenance support) to any but the most obviously mainstream suggestions. Or, to put it more simply, find a way to assess whether people are really committed to the proposed functionality and see value iin it or are simply ticking a "no cost to them" box because "why not?".
One way has the potential to be good and useful true 'development' with a future. The other not, just code clutter resulting.
Grant
0 -
Hi Ian,
Submitting a formal support request (the old way) is complemented now by the "Feature Request" topic, which sometimes seems to be surveyed by C1 support members, but my feeling is this is rather "selective", as an additional source for the team.
I have also seen a request picked up from a comment I wrote to an article, my comment then was deleted, probably they want to keep the articles as clean as possible, which I can understand.
I am not familiar with DXO requirements gathering but it sounds interesting.
What about this:?
In general, the more you pay to C1 and P1 the more votes you have.
New users could get an extra vote (as a teaser), long-time users get one vote extra per year.
:-)
At the end, product management has to make decisions based on many factors and stakeholders, maybe a formalized and well defined process to get some "good" numbers from the community, as one factor, could assist them making the "right" decisions. Maybe.
But the real problem is, I as a C1 user could only give my limited votes in a meaningful way if I would have a good oversight over all feature requests in existence.
regards
0 -
Grant,
At the time of writing my last post I did not see your reply yet. I fully agree with what you say.
But the user community is a valuable source of requirement requests (otherwise development will be done in an Ivory Tower).
I think the question is how can the company make the best ouf of this source / how to increase the output quality of this source.
But it is only one factor, and the decisions must be done inhouse as they need to keep the product consistent. Short-term sales goals and user satisfaction or reducing noise in the community just for the sake of reducing noise will not pay off mid or long term, I think we are on the page here here.
regards
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
11 comments