Skip to main content

Some minor issues/requests

Comments

44 comments

  • cdc
    #1- Yeah that is super annoying isn't it. I'm not certain if it is a Capture One issue, Windows issue, or both. I've tried to disable tool tips in Windows but have not been successful, I've read you can extend the delay of it so it takes longer to appear but haven't looked into it.

    #4- You can, go to the Adjustments Clipboard '...' menu and you can select all, none, adjusted, or autoselect.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    All reasonable requests. I recommend opening a support case to make them. My opinion would be one for each. Recently a few of us made them for #2. The more they get the more important they will take it.
    0
  • ThomasH
    Lightroom supports #2. Its a banal issue with providing a button for each possibility. Very annoying that C1 does not have it, I agree.
    0
  • Daniel Zisserman
    [quote="cdc" wrote:
    #1- Yeah that is super annoying isn't it. I'm not certain if it is a Capture One issue, Windows issue, or both. I've tried to disable tool tips in Windows but have not been successful, I've read you can extend the delay of it so it takes longer to appear but haven't looked into it.

    #4- You can, go to the Adjustments Clipboard '...' menu and you can select all, none, adjusted, or autoselect.


    Ahh - thank you for #4 - completely missed that one... 😊
    Would be nice to have some of those options in the Adjustment Clipboard popup window, though....
    0
  • Daniel Zisserman
    [quote="IanL" wrote:
    All reasonable requests. I recommend opening a support case to make them. My opinion would be one for each. Recently a few of us made them for #2. The more they get the more important they will take it.


    Good to know...
    I actually opened a request right after posting here... hope it helps...
    0
  • C-M-B
    [quote="DaniZ" wrote:
    Hi,

    2. It would be helpful if there were an option for Processing to overwrite an existing file when exporting, rather than automatically creating a new version of it, as this creates clutter...



    That would be the worst idea ever.

    I'm talking about major accidental data loss!


    Never EVER give the option to accidentally overwrite a file by exporting!!!!!!!


    Even if you do regular (hourly) backups the waste of an hour or two because of one accidental click would be terrible.

    There's a reason why this isn't requested by the majority of users, let alone professionals.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    What data loss? If I am processing my raw files into output, overwriting that output is not data loss since by definition I am trying to get the output correct and that could take a couple of tries. The data is my raw file and I can create new output whenever I need it from said raw file. No raw files are at risk therefore no data loss.

    When I am trying to create the final output for a job the last thing I want is to have to waste time checking that some extra goofy named files are lying around. Why would any pro want to waste their time on a problem created by thier tool. Our tools should help us to get the job done.
    0
  • P1337
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    That would be the worst idea ever.

    I'm talking about major accidental data loss!


    Never EVER give the option to accidentally overwrite a file by exporting!!!!!!!


    Even if you do regular (hourly) backups the waste of an hour or two because of one accidental click would be terrible.

    There's a reason why this isn't requested by the majority of users, let alone professionals.


    It wouldn't and it's requested by many. I did some desperate research on how to circumvent this issue and found numerous complaints in different forums on how to overwrite file during export, already from 9 years ago!!!

    Everybody has different workflows and I go forth and back to make some final adjustments, then export the respective images again. I want to have one folder, consisting all the images of a session with all the final edits, nothing else. You say the waste of an hour is terrible because of an accidental click? What do you think how many hours I wasted because cleaning up the data clutter C1 is creating EVERY DAMN TIME????? Just making this an OPTION with (1) "save every iteration with index numbers", (2) "overwrite", (3) "ASK TO overwrite", with option (1) enabled per default wouldn't be a drama for professionals, wouldn't it?
    0
  • IanS
    [quote="phil_1337" wrote:
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    That would be the worst idea ever.

    I'm talking about major accidental data loss!


    Never EVER give the option to accidentally overwrite a file by exporting!!!!!!!


    Even if you do regular (hourly) backups the waste of an hour or two because of one accidental click would be terrible.

    There's a reason why this isn't requested by the majority of users, let alone professionals.


    It wouldn't and it's requested by many. I did some desperate research on how to circumvent this issue and found numerous complaints in different forums on how to overwrite file during export, already from 9 years ago!!!

    Everybody has different workflows and I go forth and back to make some final adjustments, then export the respective images again. I want to have one folder, consisting all the images of a session with all the final edits, nothing else. You say the waste of an hour is terrible because of an accidental click? What do you think how many hours I wasted because cleaning up the data clutter C1 is creating EVERY DAMN TIME????? Just making this an OPTION with (1) "save every iteration with index numbers", (2) "overwrite", (3) "ASK TO overwrite", with option (1) enabled per default wouldn't be a drama for professionals, wouldn't it?


    The professional argument doesn't really stack up when PS/LR is used by far more professionals than C1Pro, plus I am not aware of any other software, not just image processors, that doesn't allow the option to overwrite an existing file. I don't think we will get anywhere in asking for a change as it is obviously a "thing" with someone with power at Phaseone. A bit like why the UI in LR is "anything but PS" because the lead engineer decreed it. This is why the crop tool works oppositely to every other image editor and it does not use layers 😊

    Ian
    0
  • C-M-B
    PS does not have an automatic overwrite method that could lead to multiple unrecoverable dataloss with just one click. You'd have to specifically create a batch process with a selected folder/selected files and run it willfully. There's no "one click ruins all" option.
    The worst thing that could happen would be to accidentally save a modification of an image and then close the image - but even then it's only ONE image that's gone.

    And the fact that LR does have an option to overwrite data without checking does not mean it's a good feature or a professional feature.

    (Apart from that I don't really regard Lightroom as a professional piece of software, it's just an extended version of the Adobe RAW Converter and has severe issues with precise color correction. I think "pros" use it mainly because they've gotten used to it during their time as amateurs - and even then I think many would rather switch to C1 or other raw editors if they knew about them.)

    I would be happy if they implemented it but it had to be enabled via the settings and not the regular UI - something like "enable automatic overwriting" as a checkbox with a warning sign in the settings to prevent accidental data loss by an overzealous assistant/client/co-worker.
    0
  • P1337
    [quote="IanS" wrote:
    I don't think we will get anywhere in asking for a change as it is obviously a "thing" with someone with power at Phaseone.

    I wouldn't hesitate so fast. I made a request as support case and at least got the feedback that it has been forwarded and considered to be implemented. Whatever that means, but the more users are calling out this missing feature, the more they will be heard.




    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    PS does not have an automatic overwrite method that could lead to multiple unrecoverable dataloss with just one click. You'd have to specifically create a batch process with a selected folder/selected files and run it willfully. There's no "one click ruins all" option.

    You can overwrite files during export with PS. You get a warning that this file already exists and if you want to overwrite it, you have to willfully click "yes".

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    And the fact that LR does have an option to overwrite data without checking does not mean it's a good feature or a professional feature.

    It also checks if the files are already existing and asks to overwrite them. Nothing wrong about it.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    (Apart from that I don't really regard Lightroom as a professional piece of software, it's just an extended version of the Adobe RAW Converter and has severe issues with precise color correction. I think "pros" use it mainly because they've gotten used to it during their time as amateurs - and even then I think many would rather switch to C1 or other raw editors if they knew about them.)

    That LR has not the potential of the color correction of C1 or that you don't regard it as professional piece of software is no argument against the usefulness or importance of specific features.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    I would be happy if they implemented it but it had to be enabled via the settings and not the regular UI - something like "enable automatic overwriting" as a checkbox with a warning sign in the settings to prevent accidental data loss by an overzealous assistant/client/co-worker.

    I agree, why not. But if it's enabled, you should have the three options as well in the export UI, to switch fluently if needed or to be able to use different options for different export recipes.
    0
  • C-M-B
    [quote="phil_1337" wrote:
    [quote="IanS" wrote:
    I don't think we will get anywhere in asking for a change as it is obviously a "thing" with someone with power at Phaseone.

    I wouldn't hesitate so fast. I made a request as support case and at least got the feedback that it has been forwarded and considered to be implemented. Whatever that means, but the more users are calling out this missing feature, the more they will be heard.




    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    PS does not have an automatic overwrite method that could lead to multiple unrecoverable dataloss with just one click. You'd have to specifically create a batch process with a selected folder/selected files and run it willfully. There's no "one click ruins all" option.

    You can overwrite files during export with PS. You get a warning that this file already exists and if you want to overwrite it, you have to willfully click "yes".

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    And the fact that LR does have an option to overwrite data without checking does not mean it's a good feature or a professional feature.

    It also checks if the files are already existing and asks to overwrite them. Nothing wrong about it.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    (Apart from that I don't really regard Lightroom as a professional piece of software, it's just an extended version of the Adobe RAW Converter and has severe issues with precise color correction. I think "pros" use it mainly because they've gotten used to it during their time as amateurs - and even then I think many would rather switch to C1 or other raw editors if they knew about them.)

    That LR has not the potential of the color correction of C1 or that you don't regard it as professional piece of software is no argument against the usefulness or importance of specific features.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    I would be happy if they implemented it but it had to be enabled via the settings and not the regular UI - something like "enable automatic overwriting" as a checkbox with a warning sign in the settings to prevent accidental data loss by an overzealous assistant/client/co-worker.

    I agree, why not. But if it's enabled, you should have the three options as well in the export UI, to switch fluently if needed or to be able to use different options for different export recipes.



    Exactly. You have to willfully click "YES" which would not happen if a box for auto-overwrite is accidentally ticked (or ticked by an assistent/co-worker who doesn't know any better).

    Photoshop does not have such an option because it's a professional piece of software and if such an option were to be implemented there would be an outcry by professionaly all over the world.

    A hobbyist or amateur can overwrite files to his/her hearts content and might feel like it's missing. But if you're working for clients (especially high figure jobs) there's no room for potential dataloss. Imagine if Photoshop had on option for automatically saving files when you're closing it - that would be just as bad.
    Anyone could ruin a days works with one accidental click and if you're working with other people that could happen sooner or later. Even if you do regular backups (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly)if would be a setback that costs a lot of time (realising the mistake, fetching the data, replacing the overwritten files, re-editing, checking the edits,...) .

    I don't think Capture One needs something that would only satisfy the hobbyist but could be a problem for a professional.
    0
  • P1337
    So C1 at least needs to have an option to allow overwrite files with a warning where you have to click yes. Like it is already implemented in Photoshop, a professional piece of software, and basically nearly every software, where files are saved. Can we finally agree on that?
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="phil_1337" wrote:
    So C1 at least needs to have an option to allow overwrite files with a warning where you have to click yes. Like it is already implemented in Photoshop, a professional piece of software, and basically nearly every software, where files are saved. Can we finally agree on that?


    On the basis that the way it works right now does not bother me at all - nope. Not for me.

    If I need to reprocess I would much prefer that I can rely on the option to see all versions side by side so I can at least compare them - not possible if overwritten.

    Once in a while, but not really very often, I may reprocess individual images. More often I will reprocess entire batches because I wish to add something to Metadata or keywords, etc. Or maybe improve naming options prior to processing. So let the computer do the work and simply add the revised outputs to new folders and check that replacement is really what one wants to do before a final commit.

    I appreciate that others may wish for a change in functionality but, writing personally as a user rather than an software designer, no I don't agree that a change is required. However I can understand that others may deem it necessary for their own purposes and may wish to promote the idea on that basis.


    Grant
    0
  • P1337
    Hello Grant, thank you for your comment and for appreciating that other users have different needs. Just to clarify, because this is a sensible topic in this forum (and I understand that): I do not want for change of the default behaviour, rather than giving the option to allow for a file overwrite when selected in the export menu. Security measurements for dumb assistants have been discussed and it should be first activated in the preferences.

    The existing workflow you prefer does not change in any kind and the workflow of other gets enriched and saves them a lot of time.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="phil_1337" wrote:
    So C1 at least needs to have an option to allow overwrite files with a warning where you have to click yes. Like it is already implemented in Photoshop, a professional piece of software, and basically nearly every software, where files are saved. Can we finally agree on that?


    I cannot. 😊 Since I always want my processing to overwrite my previous errors with no annoying prompts. Since this is not data loss, I would prefer to see there be a preference setting so automatically overwrite the files. That is what I always want to do. If others want that set differently then cool I don't object to that. What I object to is the extra work I have to do every time I have to correct a mistake. My current workaround is delete the whole output and recreate it. It sucks but it is way better than manually deleting indavidual files and fixing file names after the fact.

    At any rate we are throwing buns at each other and Phase One is not even watching so we should probably bring this to a close.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    That would be the worst idea ever.


    No, it would not. Most software offers the option ot over-write previous files, implemented through a dialog window (confirmation prompt).

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    I'm talking about major accidental data loss![/b]

    Never EVER give the option to accidentally overwrite a file by exporting!!!!!!!




    There is no reason for that. That's what confirmation prompts were created for. It's a software standard.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    There's a reason why this isn't requested by the majority of users, let alone professionals.


    Most professionals are actually using software (Photoshop) that offers the feature!

    Not to mention that amateurs, not professionals, are the ones keeping these software companies alive. Eliminate amateurs and they all go bankrupt (except perhaps for Adobe). And, no, I'm not an amateur. I'm a Graphic Designer doing professional retouching for a living. Every day.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    This is an issue with a very simple solution in the preferences - people only need to set it once by checking one of three options:

    1. Always Overwrite
    2. Never overwrite
    3. Present confirmation window

    That's it. Everybody happy!
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:

    There is no reason for that. That's what confirmation prompts were created for. It's a software standard.


    While it is true that it has become a standard it is a bad standard. Terrible in fact. My personal favourite GUI author calls it Stopping the proceedings with idiocy". He recommends against doing that 😄

    From About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design by Alan Cooper et al.
    https://books.google.ca/books?id=e75G0x ... cy&f=false

    So your preference settings should just be:
    1) Overwrite output files
    2) Keep previous copies of output files

    The point is the software should be configurable for those that view output as "important data that should not be lost" or those that think that output is "just a product that can be recreated whenever we need to" and therefore the software can behave in a sane way that does not surprise us.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    While it is true that it has become a standard it is a bad standard. Terrible in fact. My personal favourite GUI author calls it Stopping the proceedings with idiocy". He recommends against doing that 😄


    Well, it's not terrible at all, according to most people's favorite GUI authors: Adobe. Their success coupled with people's embrace of the practice, would indiocate you and your guru are wrong. But then again, it's a matter of personal preference. I'm on the side of giving people options to have the workflow they prefer.

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    So your preference settings should just be:
    1) Overwrite output files
    2) Keep previous copies of output files

    The point is the software should be configurable for those that view output as "important data that should not be lost" or those that think that output is "just a product that can be recreated whenever we need to" and therefore the software can behave in a sane way that does not surprise us.


    There is an obvious third possibility: those who want to make a decision every time there might be a possible conflict: files are not always being overwritten. But when there is a possibility, they would like to make a decision - and they are willing to pay for that convenience with an extra click.

    In fact, no matter what you prefer, sometimes you want to overwrite, some others you may not want to (for example, you might prefer automatic over-writing, but in some cases you also might want to keep several versions of the same file, for comparison purposes) . Every user has his reasons and preferences and there is room for 3 very reasonable and obvious choices.

    Your guru should know that. And if he is a real guru, he should know there's more than way to skin a cat, as Photoshop has proven and people love. 😂
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:
    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    While it is true that it has become a standard it is a bad standard. Terrible in fact. My personal favourite GUI author calls it Stopping the proceedings with idiocy". He recommends against doing that 😄


    Well, it's not terrible at all, according to most people's favorite GUI authors: Adobe. Their success coupled with people's embrace of the practice, would indiocate you and your guru are wrong. But then again, it's a matter of personal preference. I'm on the side of giving people options to have the workflow they prefer.

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    So your preference settings should just be:
    1) Overwrite output files
    2) Keep previous copies of output files

    The point is the software should be configurable for those that view output as "important data that should not be lost" or those that think that output is "just a product that can be recreated whenever we need to" and therefore the software can behave in a sane way that does not surprise us.


    There is an obvious third possibility: those who want to make a decision every time there might be a possible conflict: files are not always being overwritten. But when there is a possibility, they would like to make a decision - and they are willing to pay for that convenience with an extra click.

    In fact, no matter what you prefer, sometimes you want to overwrite, some others you may not want to (for example, you might prefer automatic over-writing, but in some cases you also might want to keep several versions of the same file, for comparison purposes) . Every user has his reasons and preferences and there is room for 3 very reasonable and obvious choices.

    Your guru should know that. And if he is a real guru, he should know there's more than way to skin a cat, as Photoshop has proven and people love. 😂


    That would suggest everyone should simply follow Adobe and use only their products.

    It seems there are many already here and arriving here who, for some reason, see things differently. Why would that be?

    Having worked with Adobe files in areas that are nothing to do with photography and seen how the application of standards has been treated as, let's say, flexible ... I'm not at all sure that the Adobe approach, despite buying up any competitors in the early days, is a really effective model to follow. That said it clearly must be close, but not entirely watertight as a strategy, if market domination is the objective.

    FWIW, I cannot relate to most Adobe photo editing applications or those that set out to copy them.

    But I pretty much click with Capture One and similar software.

    How would one explain that?
    0
  • C-M-B
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    That would be the worst idea ever.


    No, it would not. Most software offers the option ot over-write previous files, implemented through a dialog window (confirmation prompt).

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    I'm talking about major accidental data loss![/b]

    Never EVER give the option to accidentally overwrite a file by exporting!!!!!!!




    There is no reason for that. That's what confirmation prompts were created for. It's a software standard.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    There's a reason why this isn't requested by the majority of users, let alone professionals.


    Most professionals are actually using software (Photoshop) that offers the feature!

    Not to mention that amateurs, not professionals, are the ones keeping these software companies alive. Eliminate amateurs and they all go bankrupt (except perhaps for Adobe). And, no, I'm not an amateur. I'm a Graphic Designer doing professional retouching for a living. Every day.



    Photoshop does not offer that "feature".

    It seems like even amateurs have been able to live without continously overwriting their own files in Capture One. I would say that this "problem" is only an issue for very few select individuals. Everyone else seems actually rather happy that their files aren't automatically overwritten by accident.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:

    Well, it's not terrible at all, according to most people's favorite GUI authors: Adobe. Their success coupled with people's embrace of the practice, would indiocate you and your guru are wrong. But then again, it's a matter of personal preference. I'm on the side of giving people options to have the workflow they prefer.

    Your guru should know that. And if he is a real guru, he should know there's more than way to skin a cat, as Photoshop has proven and people love. 😂


    That would suggest everyone should simply follow Adobe and use only their products.

    It seems there are many already here and arriving here who, for some reason, see things differently. Why would that be?

    Having worked with Adobe files in areas that are nothing to do with photography and seen how the application of standards has been treated as, let's say, flexible ... I'm not at all sure that the Adobe approach, despite buying up any competitors in the early days, is a really effective model to follow. That said it clearly must be close, but not entirely watertight as a strategy, if market domination is the objective.

    FWIW, I cannot relate to most Adobe photo editing applications or those that set out to copy them.

    But I pretty much click with Capture One and similar software.

    How would one explain that?


    The explanation is simple: most people find what Adobe offers great and happily embrace the products. A few prefer other solutions and flock to products like Capture One. Absolutely nothing shocking, wrong or difficult to understand: people use what they like. Most like Adobe - by a big margin.

    My point was very simple: citing a single 'guru' as proof of what is right or not right in matters of personal preference is silly, at best. There are thousands of very knowledgeable people working for many big and small software houses and most of them think that offering the confirmation prompt is perfectly reasonable. Do their opinion, experience and expertise count? Are they 'guru-caliber'?

    That's why I advocate giving people choices to establish their preference as the rule. Covers everyone, regardless of which side they are on in this debate.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:
    That's what confirmation prompts were created for. It's a software standard.
    Most professionals are actually using software (Photoshop) that offers the feature!



    Photoshop does not offer that "feature".

    It seems like even amateurs have been able to live without continously overwriting their own files in Capture One. I would say that this "problem" is only an issue for very few select individuals. Everyone else seems actually rather happy that their files aren't automatically overwritten by accident.


    Photoshop does offer a confirmation prompt - a couple of links dealing with the several options and why they exist:

    https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com ... -as-dialog

    https://forums.adobe.com/thread/736880

    https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1287538
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:

    My point was very simple: citing a single 'guru' as proof of what is right or not right in matters of personal preference is silly, at best. There are thousands of very knowledgeable people working for many big and small software houses and most of them think that offering the confirmation prompt is perfectly reasonable. Do their opinion, experience and expertise count? Are they 'guru-caliber'?


    While it is true I only cited one but there are many more. And no I'm not citing more here because I have other things to accomplish today. Anyone the wants to read more can start by googling the phrase "stopping the proceedings with idiocy" that will only give you a start but people can dig around from those leads and see more examples of how UI experts approach problems. If that is something they are interested in.

    And yes there is disagreement amongst various experts. However I will point out that the vast majority of these kinds of confirmation dialog boxes end up in products because programmers just did the easy thing and imitated the way many other products work. Heck sometimes the "do it like X" philosophy is intentional. I worked on on a product where the mantra was if Word does it we should to. Our product was undeniably successful many hundreds of millions in revenue. But since we were not actually building a word processor we could have done better. We just decided to be lazy about it. My impression is that Phase one do not feel like being lazy about anything.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="IanL" wrote:


    While it is true I only cited one but there are many more. And no I'm not citing more here because I have other things to accomplish today.


    We don't need to cite everyone. The majority of software offers the feature - so, obviously, the majority of 'gurus' employed by big and small software developers are disagreeing with your 'guru'.

    What makes you believe they know less?


    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    Anyone the wants to read more can start by googling the phrase "stopping the proceedings with idiocy" that will only give you a start but people can dig around from those leads and see more examples of how UI experts approach problems. If that is something they are interested in.


    Or people can just see what they do - in how they actually build software. Anyone can go babbling on the internet about anything. I can do it, you can do it, your guru is certainly doing it.

    However, very few get the opportunity to implement their views with money on the line. Those are the ones doing it daily, with something at stake. They are the majority voice I'm referring to.

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    And yes there is disagreement amongst various experts.


    That's perfectly fine and normal. That's how it goes in all matters. Eventually a consensus emerges and that's what has happened with software and confirmation prompts.

    [quote="IanL" wrote:
    However I will point out that the vast majority of these kinds of confirmation dialog boxes end up in products because programmers just did the easy thing and imitated the way many other products work.


    It's quite arrogant to think the people developing big and small products for a living on a daily basis, for both mom-and-pop shops and multi-billion giants like Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, etc., do not know what you and your guru know! They are just parrots parroting other parrots!!!!!! You know better and your guru is the only one whose opinion correspond to the absolute truth - but there is no absolute truth in this case!

    Adobe does not have its own gurus!!!! Neither does Microsoft or Apple...heck, maybe they can't afford to pay their own guru? Maybe they just want to keep their products in a sub-optimal state. Or maybe they just don't know about usability, user-experience design, etc.? That must be it!

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    Heck sometimes the "do it like X" philosophy is intentional. I worked on on a product where the mantra was if Word does it we should to. Our product was undeniably successful many hundreds of millions in revenue. But since we were not actually building a word processor we could have done better. We just decided to be lazy about it. My impression is that Phase one do not feel like being lazy about anything.


    Your personal experience and reasons as part of a 'lazy team' (as you describe it) are not necessary the experience and reasons of more knowledgeable people like Microsoft. Maybe what you perceived as 'lazy' was just common sense in following tried-and-true standards that users like?
    0
  • C-M-B
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:
    That's what confirmation prompts were created for. It's a software standard.
    Most professionals are actually using software (Photoshop) that offers the feature!



    Photoshop does not offer that "feature".

    It seems like even amateurs have been able to live without continously overwriting their own files in Capture One. I would say that this "problem" is only an issue for very few select individuals. Everyone else seems actually rather happy that their files aren't automatically overwritten by accident.


    Photoshop does offer a confirmation prompt - a couple of links dealing with the several options and why they exist:

    https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com ... -as-dialog

    https://forums.adobe.com/thread/736880

    https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1287538



    Command prompt for individual files is something completely different to overwriting multiple files via an export button. If there's a confirmation prompt involved (which, granted, would be slightly safer) that wouldn't be any faster or more/less convenient than deleting the old files before exporting the new ones.

    To me it sounded like the request was for an export option that did NOT require an additional confirmation for each and every file.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    Command prompt for individual files is something completely different to overwriting multiple files via an export button. If there's a confirmation prompt involved (which, granted, would be slightly safer) that wouldn't be any faster or more/less convenient than deleting the old files before exporting the new ones.

    To me it sounded like the request was for an export option that did NOT require an additional confirmation for each and every file.


    It's basically the same thing: many applications offer a confirmation prompt that includes a check box for "Do the same for every other file" (or something like that).

    In the end, I'm not expressing preference for any particular method. My preference is to give users a choice as to how they want to work.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:

    It's quite arrogant to think the people developing big and small products for a living on a daily basis, for both mom-and-pop shops and multi-billion giants like Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, etc., do not know what you and your guru know! They are just parrots parroting other parrots!!!!!! You know better and your guru is the only one whose opinion correspond to the absolute truth - but there is no absolute truth in this case!


    First, he is not my guru and he is not alone (I chose not to list a multiple citations but did list one because it was on my shelf and also so it was clear this was not just my opinion). Second it is not arrogance to be an expert in UI design and disagree with other experts nor is it arrogant to be a practising developer and see lazy decisions being made frequently. nor is it arrogant to challenge those decisions as I see them - something that I do weekly. I am humble enough to accept I may not know everything and I am humble enough to acknowledge and listen to others such as @C-M-B who have a different view on the status of output files. That is how experts operate - stay humble and listen. However when they see something that is incorrect we tend to point that out too.

    I accept that treating output as data worthy of protection from being overwritten is a valid viewpoint. As a photographer it is not my view point and I am free to vehement disagree 😊 . As a software designer I should listen to that view point. I may have stated my opinion that output is not data that needs protection rather strongly but that was born from a reaction from @C-M-B's assertion that protecting said data was what all pros would want. I wanted to make it clear to anyone reading this thread that there are pros who feel differently. As a UI designer my hatred for computers asking "are you sure you really want me to do that thing you literally just asked me to do" is very strong. Very strong. Perhaps this is not the forum to have a discussion about UI design but there ya go we had some.

    You seem to have fallen into the Dunning–Kruger effect since you clearly have no expertise in UI design and feel qualified to not just disagree with me but outright say I am wrong only on the basis of "lots of other software does this". Well I can tell that as an argument in a discussion about the best way to design software that is not good enough. This is also not really the place for such a discussion. You can have the final word after this if you feel the need.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    It is not arrogance to be an expert in UI design and disagree with other experts nor is it arrogant to be a practising developer and see lazy decisions being made frequently.


    Yes, it's arrogant because you assume the people actually working on these things and making the decisions (you and I are not trusted with that, for obvious reasons) are just 'parroting' other people who made the same decision initially. It means not only are the parrots wrong, the people they parrot were also wrong. And your proof? That you and your favorite guru say so. Nothing else.


    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    nor is it arrogant to challenge those decisions as I see them - something that I do weekly. I am humble enough to accept I may not know everything and I am humble enough to acknowledge and listen to others such as @C-M-B who have a different view on the status of output files. That is how experts operate - stay humble and listen. However when they see something that is incorrect we tend to point that out too.


    Questioning (not challenging - because you're not in a position to do so, quite frankly) things is perfectly valid. But you are going beyond that: you want people to blindly accept your preferred (because it's just that, a preference) method. Why? Because you and your favorite guru say so!

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    I accept that treating output as data worthy of protection from being overwritten is a valid viewpoint. As a photographer it is not my view point and I am free to vehement disagree 😊 .


    That's perfectly valid.

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    I may have stated my opinion that output is not data that needs protection rather strongly but that was born from a reaction from @C-M-B's assertion that protecting said data was what all pros would want. I wanted to make it clear to anyone reading this thread that there are pros who feel differently.


    Of course! Different people want different things - that's why I advocate a flexible method where every "pro" or "amateur" selects a (global) setting that makes him/her happy. You should get your way and others should get their way, too. As simple as that.

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    As a UI designer my hatred for computers asking "are you sure you really want me to do that thing you literally just asked me to do" is very strong. Very strong. Perhaps this is not the forum to have a discussion about UI design but there ya go we had some.


    You're thinking like a pro - a mortal sin in UI design.

    As an expert, your stated 'hatred" for computers offering confirmation prompts applies only to yourself or others like you. But when you're making decisions that affect others, you have to take into consideration their expertise, wants and needs. You don't design for yourself - you design for your clients. And users need to be given the option to work the way they feel most comfortable with. Even if that requires an extra click - or the sacrifice of your personal preference.

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    You seem to have fallen into the Dunning–Kruger effect since you clearly have no expertise in UI design and feel qualified to not just disagree with me but outright say I am wrong only on the basis of "lots of other software does this".


    I'm not taking any position - I'm a real Graphic Designer (I did not make the claim today to bolster some bogus argument) and as such I understand the need to design for clients, not myself. That's what a pro does.

    So, unlike you, I'm not trying to force anyone to accept my preference. I defer to the real experts - and most of them have agreed that confirmation prompts are a good thing in many occasions, specially when there is the potential for conflict or trouble.

    [quote="IanL" wrote:

    Well I can tell that as an argument in a discussion about the best way to design software that is not good enough.


    Sorry, but I'd rather trust the judgement of real experts working on it day in and day out. I defer to them.

    You, on the other hand, are fully entitled to go the Trump way and deny global warming. That's your choice - like him, you seem like an intelligent enough fella. I recognize your right to a personal preference.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.