Unnecessary complexity

Want to improve the Quark XPerience? Drop your suggestion(s) here, including feature wishes for future versions of QuarkXPress.
marcusstringer
Posts: 263
Joined: 29 Jul 2004, 19:04

Unnecessary complexity

Post by marcusstringer » 07 Jul 2010, 17:53

dreeves wrote:Actually the guy I'm being interview by said he despises Quark.

He will still want you to do it in Quark....Or InDesign, but because you're here, My guess is Quark...
I despise this forum for not working properly in Safari but still I come here using Firefox.
I could get these posts done in half the time using Safari.... :D

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3271
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

Unnecessary complexity

Post by eyoungren » 07 Jul 2010, 17:59

dreeves wrote:Yeah, I should have known not to voice dissent in a geek-haven like this
Sarcastic and barbed remarks from folk who sit on computers all day... should really have seen that coming.

What do you think you'll be doing if you get or keep this part-time job? Standing?
I think what's really going on here is that you want to do what you want to do the way you want to do it. If the job you were learning XPress for required you to learn InDesign it would be the Adobe Forums right about now getting your vitriol about QuarkXPress. I just dare you to go over there and try this same stuff about ID. You'll find out pretty quick we were all being really nice to you. Of course if you start spouting off there about QuarkXPress you'll be received with open arms. So maybe you do want to go over there.
Well, whatever it is you think about us or QuarkXPress your opinion of the program is not going to change the industry. It's not even going to convince your potential employer to start using Photoshop for layout in whatever it is they do. So, go ahead and open the eyes of every employer you meet about just how wonderful a tool PS and frikking MS Paint is for what they do. They will thank you for their enlightenment as they show you the door.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3271
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

Unnecessary complexity

Post by eyoungren » 07 Jul 2010, 18:08

marcusstringer wrote:
dreeves wrote:Actually the guy I'm being interview by said he despises Quark.

He will still want you to do it in Quark....Or InDesign, but because you're here, My guess is Quark...
I despise this forum for not working properly in Safari but still I come here using Firefox.
I could get these posts done in half the time using Safari.... :D

Here's the kicker here for you! Marcus is on these forums, but Marcus does his work in InDesign. That's his program of choice and he prefers if over QuarkXPress. But Marcus is also a business man. He knows his tools and what works best where. And he uses them for that purpose. If that means QuarkXPress that's what he uses. So, he's not so much defending QuarkXPress as he is deconstructing this concept that you have about the way it should work.
Sure you can tell the guy that you can do the work in half the time with what you know. So what happens when he needs something done that Photoshop can't do. What do you do then?

marcusstringer
Posts: 263
Joined: 29 Jul 2004, 19:04

Unnecessary complexity

Post by marcusstringer » 07 Jul 2010, 18:14

Firstly, Shucks... [:$] I do still use Quark though Matthias...(don't ban me...)

Secondly,
eyoungren wrote:So what happens when he needs something done that Photoshop can't do. What do you do then?

Well he uses frikkin' MSpaint...Deeerrr.

dreeves
Posts: 12
Joined: 07 Jul 2010, 07:51

Unnecessary complexity

Post by dreeves » 07 Jul 2010, 18:29

eyoungren wrote:
I think what's really going on here is that you want to do what you want to do the way you want to do it.

This is not an irrational sentiment.
Well, whatever it is you think about us or QuarkXPress your opinion of the program is not going to change the industry.

Granted, but is this not a forum? Being, a channel for their airing of opinion and/or grievances?
The program is a really complicated piece of kit that could stand to be a lot more user-friendly. That's all I'm saying. It's catering to people who have been glued to it for a decade, with no consideration made for newcomers. This is not an illogical viewpoint. You're looking at it from the perspective of a long-time user who can't comprehend how anybody could find it challenging... like an ace combat pilot wondering how a civilian could find it difficult to fly a jet. It's all well and good for you to make fun of me, but a jet fighter has a awful lot of toggles and dials, and none of their functions are clearly marked.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3271
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

Unnecessary complexity

Post by eyoungren » 07 Jul 2010, 18:29

marcusstringer wrote:Firstly, Shucks... I do still use Quark though Matthias...(don't ban me...)

Well, I meant it. As to Matthias, he's too busy with ftbol right now to notice. [;)]
Oh, btw. Yeah, I do recall the days of black and white papers. Fortunately for me my start in the newspaper industry was at the Desert Sun in Palm Springs, CA. Gannett owned daily. In addition to that, Gannet used the Desert Sun's press as a testbed for their DTP workflow. We had a two story press and we could put color on any page we wanted. I worked right next to the guy that paginated, the guy that set classified, and the group that dummied the paper each day. It was cool watching the pages show up in the pagination system when each part of a page got approved. When the whole page was good the paginator sent it direct to camera.
At one point I was in a different location (Indio) and sending my ads each night meant printing direct to the RIP that spit them out to pagination. Way cool, and this was 1999!

marcusstringer
Posts: 263
Joined: 29 Jul 2004, 19:04

Unnecessary complexity

Post by marcusstringer » 07 Jul 2010, 18:41

dreeves wrote: like an ace combat pilot wondering how a civilian could find it difficult to fly a jet. It's all well and good for you to make fun of me, but a jet fighter has a awful lot of toggles and dials, and none of their functions are clearly marked.

And that's exactly what is it... A highly complex software pakadge... You cannot begin to understand it in the short time you have been using it...
Just because you don't get it straight away doesn't mean you have come here and rant and rave about it...
I don't get Quantum Physics. You don't see me over at their forums banging on about it, and calling Steven Hawkings a moron.
BTW you don't need to know what all the dials and toggles do to push the throtle the pull the joystick back to fly it....

Check out the plethera of tutorials on the internets

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3271
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

Unnecessary complexity

Post by eyoungren » 07 Jul 2010, 19:01

There are just some things you cannot make any less complex without reducing their functionality. A Sopwith Camel is probably a relatively easy fighter to learn to fly by the average person (going by your analogy). It's probably even better by someone who either has some skill or talent. But I don't see any wars being won by the side that fields Sopwith Camels against the side flying Harriers.
Both planes can fly. Both can shoot. The guy that flys the Camel will have some idea of what goes on in the Harrier. But because of it's complexity the Harrier, even though it it's main role is as an attack aircraft, not a fighter, can do far more than the Camel could ever do-even in the ad-hoc fighter role.
Let's see if you can do the same thing you tell this guy you can using Photoshop 2.5. No layers, no adjustment layers, no editable type layers, ad nauseum. Yet it's still Photoshop. It's just less complex.
And aren't you coming from the same Ace fighter pilot position regarding Photoshop? That's not an easy app to learn. It wasn't when I learned 2.5 and it's far more complex now.

dreeves
Posts: 12
Joined: 07 Jul 2010, 07:51

Unnecessary complexity

Post by dreeves » 07 Jul 2010, 19:31

marcusstringer wrote:
BTW you don't need to know what all the dials and toggles do to push the throtle the pull the joystick back to fly it....


Erm... it kind of helps if you don't want to die. But I'm something of an aviation enthusiast, and this is hardly the place for that.
Just because you don't get it straight away doesn't mean you have come here and rant and rave about it...

I beg to differ. Ranting and raving on the Internet never requires a good reason. And I use a wide enough variety of programs to know when one leaps out as being really counter-intuitive, regardless of my own lack of familiarity.

eyoungren wrote:
A Sopwith Camel is probably a relatively easy fighter to learn to fly by the average person

(Actually no, the Camel had incredibly difficult handling characteristics due to a weird centre of gravity and tendency to corkscrew generated by its rotary engine. All things considered, the "average person" would probably stand a better chance of not dying if they climbed into a Harrier. But again, this is the wrong forum...)
I don't see any wars being won by the side that fields Sopwith Camels against the side flying Harriers.

Hmm.... can the Camels have modern AA missiles in this hypothetical scenario? Because I'd pay to watch that.

And aren't you coming from the same Ace fighter pilot position regarding Photoshop? That's not an easy app to learn. It wasn't when I learned 2.5 and it's far more complex now.


Complex, yes. But user-friendly. Everything in it is fairly obvious, easy to find and understand. I picked up Photoshop years ago, knowing nothing about it, and was producing fairly high-grade comicbook art within a week. Sure, there are a lot of functions I don't touch because they're not necessary for what I do, but I know how to get at everything and didn't have to attend a goddamned university course to get it.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3271
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

Unnecessary complexity

Post by eyoungren » 07 Jul 2010, 20:32

OK then. That's why I said probably. A Cessna 152 then. Which I actually have flown.
Camels or Cessna (or any other small plane you care to mention), no AA missles. That's be making the simple more complicated which is not what your asking to happen here. Your statment though is quite funny. I'd pay to see that too.
Perhaps you are one of those that have natural talent with Photoshop. They do exist. I'm not one of them. It took a course in school and a lot of "I need to get this out or my boss will fire me, on the job training" to learn this stuff.
QuarkXPress has a lot of functions I don't touch, precisely for the reason you give. So does PS and so does Ily. And I did have to attend a course to learn it.
And I beg to differ on ease of use. I hate Illustrator's way of doing things. I'm more of a Freehand person. And since Illy, ID and Photoshop share a lot of the same commands I'm not too fond of the way PS works either.

Post Reply

Return to “Suggestion Box”