Dear Adobe Creative Suite:

For the most part, you make our lives easier. We’ve never taken you for granted, but your supposed “self-improvement” to “CS5″ has left us wondering if you even care about us at all. Back in your “CS3″ phase, we thought things were going pretty well. Then, we decided to spend some time apart during your half-hearted “CS4″ period. And now… well, you just feel like a stranger, CS.

Of course, there are things about the “new you” that we’re happy to see, like linking Smart Objects and masks in Photoshop. Or, the addition of Smart Guides in InDesign.

But overall, I think our relationship isn’t what it once was. If you want us in your life, here are some things we need you to work on. Some things on this list have been a long time coming; the rest are aspects of the new you that we don’t much care for.

InDesign

[Still waiting] When placing an image, we should be able to navigate to the folder that the working document is in (not the last folder linked to, which is most likely a totally different project).

[New you] Locking an object used to fix its location, while allowing basic changes. Now, locked objects are completely unselectable and uneditable. This behavior matches Illustrator now, but we were hoping for the other way around.

[New you] When ripping PDFs, the process is hidden inside the wacky new Background Panel.

[Still waiting] Also when ripping a PDF, we’d like to set Initial View and Author options. (Instead, we have to open every PDF in Acrobat to make those changes).

[Still waiting] Placed images in InDesign don’t update automatically, but they do in Illustrator (we prefer Illustrator’s method).

[New you] We find ourselves accidentally moving images within an image box now — usually without realizing it. (This one is really irritating, CS.)

[Still waiting] We rarely want to crop images inside an image box. Instead, we’d like a checkbox that functions to never (ever) distort or crop this image. Ever!

[Still waiting] We could use column widths of different sizes.

[Still waiting] When converting text to outline, borders or fills on text boxes are unceremoniously deleted.

[Still waiting] Also when converting text to outline, grouped text boxes are ignored. They have to be ungrouped and outlined individually.

[New you] Overset text is really difficult to find now. The trick before was to just zoom out on the document (clearly highlighting the overset icon). Now, the overset text has to be found manually.

Photoshop

[New you] Scrolling is really slow (especially compared to scrolling in InDesign, which is now hyper-sensitive).

[Still waiting] OK, seriously… swatches should be attached to a document (as they are in Illustrator and InDesign).
And within a document, global colors would really simplify things (as the do so effectively in Illustrator and InDesign.

Illustrator

[Still waiting] Type handling should work just as it does in InDesign — which includes align text vertically inside text boxes, among many, many other necessities.

[Still waiting] When deleting swatches in Illustrator, we’d like to see the Replace With dialog box from InDesign.

[Still waiting] Layers can’t be grouped, and sub-layering isn’t a workable substitue.

Acrobat

[Still waiting] Batch Process (which we run on every PDF we make to set Initial View and Author options) is buried two levels deep in the menu, can’t be set to a shortcut key, and opens a separate window. In short, it’s a tedious chore of every working day of our lives.

[Still waiting] Vector rectangles with just four points (like an ‘l’ or the bottom of an ‘i’) render as larger shapes than they actually are. This has been an issue for years, and if we don’t catch it, it often confuses our clients. The workaround is to just add more points to the shape, but seriously.

Miscellaneous

[Still waiting] Keyboard shortcuts for kerning are inconsistent across the Suite.

[Should be fixed by now] Rotation direction is inconsistent across the Suite.

Listen, CS, we’ve been together long enough that I think I can tell it like it is — I owe you that. The truth is that we’d be walking out the door if there were anyone else that could compare to you. Despite your flaws, you’re the best there is.

We’re in this for the long haul, and we make sacrifices for you every day. It’s time for you to give something back.

Sincerely,
Oxide Design Co.

Editor’s note: We’ll be updating this list as we find new items, or (assuming Adobe is listening) items are addressed. Also, we know that there’s an official place to submit bugs and feature requests — which is why we’ve been doing that for years.

Design and writing are remarkably similar pursuits, and it’s not surprising that I enjoy a nice, quippy turn of phrase. So, when Quotes on Design launched last year, I jumped at the chance to stake my claim.

This is a quote (on design), currently attributed to yours truly. It’s an idea that I’ve held dear for a long time, and it feels more true every day. I submitted it in the first days of the site, and I’ve watched it take on a life of its own (via Twitter, blogs in desperate need of content, Flickr, and even school projects).

But, truth be told, I’ve never been 100% certain that I was the first person to write this phrase. With millennia of design history behind us, I’m certainly not the first person to think it. :)

It’s been in my head for so long, I couldn’t tell you how it got there. (Perhaps, that’s design transparency in action.) If nothing else, I thought the public attribution on QoD would be a good (albeit embarrassing) way to actually find the original author. Fortunately for my writing career, no one has said otherwise, yet.

So, this post is my last official attempt at finding out if I’ve swiped someone else’s idea. If I have: please let me know. But if not, expect a officially-licensed version for the next batch of Oxide t-shirts.

I think it’s safe to say that designers spend most of their time trying to be clever. All of the sketching and dot-connecting — it’s usually in search of a solution that has some kind of aw, sweet man! twist. Why do we do that? Is it worth the trouble? Worse yet: is clever actually working against us?

Design is a form of communication, but unlike most other forms, designed communication implies clarity and authenticity. (After all, design is less successful the more it muddles its message or confuses its audience.) Clever solutions, on the other hand, demand complexity. In order to build that hidden-genitalia surprise, we must stack message on top of message.

That said, I don’t think that clever is always bad. When used in the context of the right message, clever can be wonderfully meaningful.

However, I don’t think that all design should be clever. My point is this: sometimes (perhaps more than we care to admit), a simple solution may be designed better than a clever solution. Clever (as fun as it may be) isn’t always the answer.

[You're reading part 2 (of 2). Read part 1.]

After the lively discussion on the power of information design from my last post, I was compelled to gather more objective data to inform the conversation. So last weekend, I went back to this same big-box hardware store, and grabbed a few more images. Not sure if they help or hurt.

When you approach the store, you can enter on either side of a large foyer area. These are the entrance doors on the east-facing side of the foyer. (The primary photo from the original post is the inside of the west-facing entrance to the foyer.) Notice how dangerous it also looks to enter the building.

East entrance doors

This is the inside of that same set of doors. No handwritten note, but you’ll see that “NO EXIT” is written here in at least six-inch tall lettering.

Reverse side of east entrance doors

After you’ve entered the foyer, you pass through another set of doors into the actual store, which is where you pass the theft-detection gates. When you turn around to look back into the foyer, this is your view. So 95% of people that see the original handwritten note would have already passed through this gauntlet.

Reverse side of primary entrance doors

Once you’ve gone through the checkout lanes into the exit foyer, this is the inside of the door through which they actually want you to leave. If you dare.

Exit doors

Looking more closely at the situation, it’s no wonder they need a handwritten note. All of the other information on the doors, whether positive or negative, is treated in the exact same fashion: big bold type on solid blocks of red. At first glance, no customer is going to be able to tell them apart. And from all the focus grouping I’ve been a part of, most people tend to associate red in information design as something dangerous or requiring caution.

As a final observation, while I was taking these photos I actually watched a couple leave the wrong way through the very set of doors that started this whole discussion.

[You're reading part 1 (of 2). Read part 2.]

We’ve got a great team of problem solvers here at Oxide, but I’ll be the first to admit we don’t have an answer to every situation. Also, while they taught me in high school to always write from a thesis statement, in this case I’m presenting an observation and hoping that you will help me discover the answers.

I encountered a situation recently that rattled my belief in the power of good information design. In the foyer of a local big-box hardware store, there’s a set of doors through which you’re to enter and a set through which you exit. On the inside of the entrance doors there are three different messages splashed in red and white across the glass in vinyl lettering:

1. “NO EXIT”

2. “DO NOT ENTER”

3. “EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY”

Even if you can’t read (the messages are also shown in Spanish), the shocking red covering more than fifty percent of the glass should be enough to steer you away. It just looks dangerous. It most certainly solves the problem of clearly indicating to viewers that they are not to exit via these doors. (I’d call it a perfect solution, but I actually would have been inclined to say it was a little over-designed: surely just one or two of those statements would have worked — three is simply overkill.)

Apparently, my instincts (and OCD desire for everything to be clear, tidy, and consistent) were wrong in this case. One has to assume that people were still leaving the building through that door, because on the day I saw it there was a handwritten sign taped up on the glass. It contained a more dire warning not to use these doors:

PLEASE DO NOT
EXIT THESE DOORS
USE THE DOORS
BEHIND YOU!!
NOT AN EXIT!
THANKS

It seems far-fetched to imagine any modern big-box employee taking the time to make this sign unless instructed to do so by a manager who believed that a problem was afoot. So the only safe assumption to make is that a measurable amount of people were ignoring the information design on these doors and using them as an exit despite the explicit messages. The whole thing shook me to the core and left me with so many unanswered questions:

What is it about the professional information design on this door that didn’t work effectively?

Was it something about this particular solution that failed, or is there something inherent about hand-written notes that makes our brains prick up and take notice?

Will scraps of paper with scrawled notes taped on things always be more effective than intentional, well thought out signage design?

Can the unexpected and (unintentionally) guerilla-like tactics of the amateurs always win out over the professional information designers?

Did they tape that note up even though there wasn’t ever a problem, and I’m worrying about it for no reason?

Please share your thoughts and/or similar experiences. Let’s figure this thing out.

Note: for more information, see the follow-up post.

For those not familiar with him, Wayne Gretzky is most famous for playing hockey with the Edmonton Oilers and wore the number 99. I designed this logo on a lark — for a fictitious website featuring Gretzky’s timeless and astute quotations. As much as I would love  to have The Great One as a client, we do not. I designed this logo simply after realizing that quotation marks resemble the number 99.

The process started me thinking: what makes a logo a “real” logo? Does it have to be created for a real client to be considered worthy of display or critique? Does it even have to serve a practical purpose?

LogoPond, one of my favorite websites for identity inspiration, has always seen a majority of fictitious logos — and I’m fine with that. It is a place for inspiration, not an exclusive club for those fortunate enough to have a constant stream of client work. Recently, the site has seen an influx of fictitious logos uploaded using quote marks. (See Bull Quotes, Punch Quotes, Tobacco Talk, Quote 9, and Mushroom Quotes.) At Oxide, we use one logo as our fictitious gold standard. Whenever a new concept falls short, we jokingly admit that “it’s no Mustache Quotes“.

The designers of these logos use quote marks creatively, for sure. But in most cases, these logos don’t serve a practical purpose. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t creative or executed well (they usually are). But are they “real” logos? After a lengthy discussion at the office, we landed on this definition: a “real” logo must solve a real problem. I would argue that Gretzky Quotes (and likely all of the examples above) do not qualify because the goal wasn’t defined before design work began. Again, they’re certainly creative, but there wasn’t a problem to be solved until the solution had already been fabricated.

That said, perhaps Mr. Gretzky would encourage all of us to keep designing, no matter what…