gaps in documentation?

[PhilBurton]

One of the big, really big issues always is "ease of use."

That's absolutely true. However, another big issue for specialized products is power and flexibility (albeit that matters only for a fraction of users). Sometimes these requirements are not easy to reconcile. As a matter of fact, I think that Photo Supreme is very good at attempting that, although there's certainly room for improvement. (Well, there's huge room in the case of scripting support/doc - but let's admit that's a specialized, niche area.)

Ideally, ideally, a software product should be so easy to use that you don't need any documentation except perhaps short pieces of text in the product itself.

I strongly agree. Again, that's inherently difficult to achieve when we're talking about advanced features and settings which involve, by their very nature, highly technical aspects. (As Einstein supposedly said: everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.)

Facebook is a good example, but PSU is not.

That's true - but may I suggest that PSU does not cater to a 1.5 billion user market? (I'm not saying that there isn't a huge consumer marker for mantaining pictures and movies, but if IdImager simply wanted to attract as many (non-advanced) users as possible, then it should probably drop the support for XMP and technical stuff - or seperate those features into plugins, or embed them into an advanced software product etc.)

The next best thing is really good documentation.

Agreed - although it's debatable what's the best format of good documentation.

Vlad,

I know this statement is going to be controversial. it's possible to have both. Two example of complex software that sort-of, maybe do both, sort-of, maybe, are Microsoft Office with the Ribbon interface and Adobe Lightroom. Neither is dead-simple, but once you know the overall basics of the program, you know "where to look" for a specific feature. Sort-of, maybe.

[DirkS]

Yes.

See for example:
http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=If

and
http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=While
http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=For
For more loop controls see http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/ByFunctio ... &Sub=Loops

[fbungarz]

Hi Phil,

but once you know the overall basics of the program, you know "where to look" for a specific feature.

Well, honestly, that is true for PSU just as well! What specific part of PSU's interface do you find difficult to manage? And: don't say scripts. You would not suggest that programming a plugin for Lightroom is any easier, would you?
I do think your criticism is unfair.

Ribbon interface

You are NOT serious, are you???
It is 2015 now, Microsoft introduced their Ribbons in 2007, almost a decade ago and if you just google 'Microsoft Ribbons' you will still find legions of users who complain how counter-intuitive they are!
Personally, I have switched to Libre Office and won't ever look back (though I still use Office 2003 occasionally).

And: you find Lightroom intuitive?
Compared to Photoshop, perhaps..
Yes, you can easily tweak photos using it, but if you are not careful you can mess them up quite nicely too. And: Why would there be so many tutorials, books, guides, resources on how to use Lightroom, if it were 'dead simple'? Clearly, Lightroom is powerful. The more powerful software is, the more complex it necessarily becomes. I agree with you that a well designed GUI is very powerful too. In the case of Lightroom quite a bit is hidden under the hood, that's why it looks simple at first. And I agree it elegantly guides the user along, but still: any complex program will at some point necessarily become demanding. If you are happy just to tweak your photo a little bit, Lightroom is simple. But you can use it to to some complex adjustments that have quite a steep learning curve.

It is a simple fact of life:
Ever looked into a cockpit of an airplane?
You wouldn't suggest that anyone who learned to walk can fly an airplane too, right?
Compared to flying a plane, PSU looks actually quite simple to me

Facebook is dead simple because it lacks virtually any specific functionality apart from the rather simplistic purpose it was designed for: sharing stuff on the web, which it does very well.
So, if you want simplicity in image management, best go for Google Photos. They pretend that they will even do the keywording for you

Honestly, PSU's GUI has come a long way, it is a huge improvement over the previous version, even though I am probably the first to admit/complain that, along the way, some great functionality was sadly sacrificed for simplicity...

Cheers,
Frank

PS: I would be happy to share Mike's workbook (if he no longer minds, he originally sold it, but since it is outdated now...). Unfortunately I have no idea how to get in touch with you. The option to send a private message to anyone on this forum was unfortunately removed a while ago [and perhaps it is not such a good idea in the first place; Hert might kill me if I scare anyone off who looks for simplicity and I share the workbook of a previous program that was even more complex... ]

[PhilBurton]

Frank and Hert,

I know that the MS Office Ribbon is controversial, but it seems to be better than what preceded it. And I do find the "workflow" approach of Lightroom easier to grasp that the bazillions of options in PhotoShop. To be clear:
1. I am a power user, in the old traditional meaning. I think that there are lots of Lightroom articles becuase there are lots of Lightroom users. There are also lots of articles about Photoshop, about cars, about relationships and dating, etc.
2. As a software product manager, I am not a User Interface expert as such. Hardly, but I have learned that users do value a better interface over a lousy one. I once had to kill a product because the interface was that bad, and the cost to fix the UI was not justifiable.

All that said, I think that my learning curve for Photo Supreme would be flatter if everything was properly documented.

I would like to get in touch with you also, because I'm very interested in custom metadata so I am planning, as soon as possible, to start working with your custom metadata script. What I will do is send Hert an email with my contact details and ask him to forward it to you. OK, Hert?