This should be in feature requests.
oops! you’re so right– it should be in a different forum. what should I do? Repost it to the other newsgroup or is that done automatically?
Well, it’s to late for you to edit it so, you can either wait for a moderator to move it or repost in the feature request thread.
You can do this. See this thread:
YrbkMgr "File names with sequential numbering" 9/2/03 7:03pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/0>
if I could just select the images I want to process in the File Browser, click the action, and press the "play" button.
Use File|Automate|Batch and for SOURCE select "Browser", and your selected files will have the action performed on them.
Both of these are excellent solutions.
However, I’m still curious what would be wrong with just having actions perform on the selected File Browser images (as long as there are no open images) rather than having to go through the dialog. It would simplify the workflow considerably, especially if you’re going to apply many different actions to the same images. the advantage to NOT having to go through the batch dialog is that you could vary the order in which you apply the actions.
there is precedent for this: if you use the ^O accelerator to open a file, it opens the files selected in the File Browser rather than bring up the Open dialog (which is what I’d rather it do).
It would simplify the workflow considerably, especially if you’re going to apply many different actions to the same images.
I’m not sure I see the advantage. The batch dialog does exactly what you are saying when you choose "browser" as your source. Maybe I don’t understand what you mean, but it seems to me that the feature you are requesting exists.
In my experience of automation (which is considerable) folks trying to automate a process should evalutate the difference between "can it be automated" v. "can it be automated this way".
If there’s a specific reason for the this way, cool. But in this case I see it as you may view the batch dialog an unnecessary step for the way you work. Bear in mind though that that dialog allows automation in a variety of scenarios, including the one you’re asking for.
So from a programing perspective the question becomes (from Adobe for example) "Do we build redundancy in the code or do we let the batch dialog, which is already built to handle it suffice?"
I’m not trying to be argumentative, rather, it’s a long winded way to say, I’m not sure I see the advantage of doing it the way you are asking it to be done, except, perhaps, you don’t want the extra step of File|Automate|Batch after your images are selected.
<shrug>
Peace,
Tony
In my experience of automation (which is considerable) folks trying to automate a process should evalutate the difference between "can it be automated" v. "can it be automated this way".
If there’s a specific reason for the this way, cool. But in this case I see it as you may view the batch dialog an unnecessary step for the way you work.
In the abstract, my rationale is this: if a particular Button Push (ie., pressing the "play" button on an action) would otherwise do absolutely nothing because there is no open image, then it seems to me to be a valid candidate for being useful in some other way. In this case, why not have it perform its action on those images selected in the File Browser (assuming its open)? It doesn’t interfere with any other behavior, it’s unambiguous, and it accelerates workflow efficiency. If you think it could cause some confusion, add the necessity of having the Ctrl or Shift key so as to indicate to the user that he intentionally knows what he’s doing.
Arguing against having any given feature in PS because it can be done some other way is fine, so long as that other way doesn’t interfere with productivity. One can do the exact same thing in many different ways in PS, but this reducdancy is a good thing because different types of workflows involve different types of efficient behaviors. Choosing whether to implement any given feature shouldn’t be judged solely on whether any given suggestion can be done in a different way; other considerations have to be taken into account. The points about time-efficiency and non-interference with other behaviors being two valid considerations.
For my particular use, the reason this is important is because I deal with thousands of photographs at a time, and preparing them for upload to my website involves a huge amount of manual labor that is only partially simplified by the use of Actions. To prepare my images for my website (after typical photo-retouching is done), many actions can only be applied to images on a case-by-case basis by visual inspection. This inspection results in "groups" of images that are dealt with en-masse within the same directory. So, for example, to add keywords to specific images, such as "horizontal" or "vertical", it involves having an action that applies a pre-programmed "File Info" dialog that adds those keywords to manually selected images in the File Browser. To apply the visible copyright symbol on the bottom left, or the top-right, or centered, again, images have to visually examined and selected before actions applied.
The point is for efficiency’s sake, the process of applying an arbitrarily large set of actions, in arbitrary order, to an arbitrarily large set of images, time consumption can grow exponentially large if I have to resort to the Batch dialog each time, when a simpler, more convenient method is available: I want to have the file browser up, quickly rifle through the images by selecting the ones I want, click the action’s "play" button, and move on to the next set of images/action pairs.
Having levels of meta-actions, and then different groups of the same things, but ordered differently, all for the sake of having to accommodate the "Batch" dialog’s ability to only apply ONE action at a time makes this process mind-numbing and horribly time-wasting.
Having Actions apply to the selected images in a File Browser alleviates this mess in one swell foop.
Well, I understand your rationale completely. I process 1,500-3,000 images a day, seven days a week, and haven’t had a vacation in two years <grin>. Our entire process is automated using actions.
I use the batch dialog. It does exactly what you are asking.
if a particular Button Push (ie., pressing the "play" button on an action) would otherwise do absolutely nothing because there is no open image, then it seems to me to be a valid candidate for being useful in some other way.
It is – the the batch dialog.
I dunno, I won’t argue further, I just don’t see ANY utility to what you propose. The batch dialog does it, does it better, there is a small degree of error trapping built in, and it’s orders of magnitude more powerful.
To me, it’s like saying "I don’t want to use the image size dialog box because I don’t use 90% of the controls that are in that dialog box."
You speak of efficiency; the batch dialog is infinately more efficient than playing directly from the browser.
You select images in the browser and you choose BROWSER as the Source. It’s the same thing that you are asking for – exactly. Well, the ONLY difference is you choose a menu item to run your action (in this case, File|Automate|Batch).
You want to rotate some images but not all? Select them in the browser – then File|Automate|Batch. Easy as that.
You want to add copyright to some but not all images? Select them in the browser – then File|Automate|Batch. Easy as that.
My point is, and I’ll make it again, that functionality already exists – you CAN play actions directly from your browser selections – you just don’t want to use the Batch dialog to do it – for the life of me I cannot see why.
To each his own, I just don’t see the utility.
Peace,
Tony
My point is, that functionality already exists – you CAN play actions directly from your browser selections – you just don’t want to use the Batch dialog to do it – for the life of me I cannot see why.
While I feel we agree in principle on most things, the only fundamental difference in our perspectives is highlighted above: your view: "if a dialog does it, then why not just USE it?" I take it one step further, "if that same function can also be performed without using the dialog, then what’s wrong with that?"
the entire spirit of user interface design for the "power user" exists mostly for one purpose: to avoid dialog boxes. Accelerators exist in every aspect of a user interface: you have keyboard accelerators/mnemonics for menus and menu items, because it’s faster than going to the menu itself. You have shortcuts in other forms of GUI specifications specifically to avoid dialog boxes. Even pS itself is littered with conveniences ALL of which are there to reduce the number of mouse movements and/or keystrokes to get any given task done. "actions" themselves were invented in this spirit as well.
Whenever you have any task that requires constant repetition, it’s simply "good design" to facilitate that action by reducing that reptition to some abstract form of acceleration.
If you had 35 actions, each of which could potentially be performed on a set of images in a directory, and you had to go through them, one by one, you would get REALLY tired of going to that darn Batch dialog each time, when you know that hitting that "play" button is right there, doing nothing, and incapable of being pushed at all… all because the user could instad go to the dialog, and the designers just said, "it’s good enough for me, so it’s good enough for them?"
All that said, I *completely* agree with your perspectives on those occassions where the "proposed" solution either violates a standard/established UI method, interferes with a method, or is not available for other technical or implementation restrictions. If you were to say, "you can’t do that because it would break XYZ", then I’d shut up.
but none of that exists here. Pressing PLAY for an action that would otherwise do nothing not only doesn’t break any of the rules AGAINST a design, but it is, in fact, consistent with the spirit of computer-human interface design, especially as has been established over the years by de facto standards as well as industry research groups.
Okay, just for the sake of being academic, and to demonstrate my point…
Create an action called "Call Batch Dialog"; have it fill in exactly what you want. Select files in your File Browser, then click "play". That is another way to eliminate the "tedium" (which it isn’t) of having to click File|Automate|Batch.
I haven’t mentioned this yet, but it’s worth considering. What if I want to run an action, followed by a save with a rename? BUT – I want to specify the destination folder as different from the source. There is no way to currently automate that by running actions from the file browser.
I think passing control to the batch dialog is an elegant way to add flexability and maximize efficiency.
But all in all Dan, the real point is, there are at least three ways to accomplish anything in Photoshop, and what you want to do is done easily with existing code.
You may have to re-think your desired workflow to achieve the maximum efficiency, given the system. Your point seems to be "but I don’t wanna". <shrug>.
Finally, I should add that I wholeheartedly disagree with your position on the need to incorporate actions that way, but do not mean any ill will nor do I wish to appear offensive – so basically, I’m furthering my point for the sake of academics, not out of any desire for a personal attack – just to kind of set the tone, if you know what I mean.
Peace,
Tony
I think we have mutual intent here, in that we fudnamentally seek to contirbute to the greater good. And, while we may disagree with one another on UI design concepts, we don’t have ill will towards the other. I’m glad you pointed that out as well; I was about to express the same sentiments. (In fact, I was going to attempt to do this via private email instead, since the entire world doesn’t necessarily need to see this aspect of this thread… but your email address doesn’t seem to be available, so far as I have been able to tell.)
These debates are academic, in the sense that neither one of us is in the position of making decision on behalf of Adobe for how they design their products. All we can do, therefore, is to present our ideas and let them consider what they want to do. (To this day, I have no idea whether any of the developers follows this stuff, although I’m told they do. It’d sure be nice to get a sense from them as to their views on these subjects as they come up, but I’m perfectly happy just throwing it out there and letting them decide in silence.)
That said, I don’t read this forum nearly as much as you apparently do; your name seems to be all over the place, and God bless you for it, since you are CLEARLY extremely informed on even the most minute intracasies of PS. I’ve found your feedback extremely useful and packed with knowledge for how things work and interrelate.
Yet, with that knowledge, comes a responsibility: there’s a fine line between imparting knowledgeable information to people who are seeking advice, and expressing your opinion on how things *should be* if things were to change. It’s not that your views shouldn’t be expressed. Clearly not. The fact that you are clearly informed and respected, means that people will regard you as an expert on the topic and defer to you when it comes down to it. Hence, when you impose your opinion (on design) in an equally authorotative manner as you do the data/information that you know, then you risk prematurely shutting down discussion that would otherwise be constructive ideas for the PS developers to consider. That is, someone might have a good idea that may need some refining and fine-tuning, but it may not get that far because you disagree with it, and (perhaps inadvertently) swing your weight against the idea to bring a quick end to it. I think that’s definitely the case in this thread, and a few others I can think of.
So, in the end, I find your knowledge and your willingness to invest the time to help others to be an invaluable resource for all. And I don’t even blame you for disagreeing with others ideas. I just worry that sometimes you may not realize that your image in the public eye may have more potentially detrimental effects than you may think.
Well! There’s a lot there. Let’s do it piecemeal, but short.
I have no idea whether any of the developers follows this stuff, although I’m told they do.
They do, and occasionally contribute.
swing your weight against the idea to bring a quick end to it.
You writing that was the first time the thought of having any "weight" entered my head. I’m not convinced you’re right about that. It IS a complement though, so <blush> gosh, thanks.
Here’s the story, take it for what it’s worth. My company process between 1,500 and 3,000 images per day, seven days a week. I personally spend 18 hours a day in Photoshop, most days of the week (all 7 of them). Think about that – that’s between 50 and 400 pages per hour, using 18 hour days. We have to automate and always try to refine it.
Our process is as fully automated as I can make it (er… I think). I’m ALWAYS on the lookout to improve the functionality of Photoshop, and make my life (job, same thing) easier.
Now having said that, I don’t mean to imply or even mildly hint that I am (or would be considered to be) an expert in photoshop, except in my little corner of the world, in our organization. I can tell you honestly, that what I don’t know would fill rooms.
In any event, while our images are processing, often times at the wee hours of the morning (like now), I surf the Photoshop forum, always looking for some way to improve something in our process – better sharpening technique, faster digitization methods… you get the idea. In the process, I try to help other folks.
I got a lot of help here and I do what I can to "pay it forward".
That was the premise.
In regards to the comments about squashing an idea, I’m all over the features request forum. You’ll see that there are many times when I read about an idea, think about it, and disagree with it (as many do, especially in the Features Request forum). But there are many times that I initially start out not seeing the utility of it and am ultimately convinced that it IS, in fact a good idea (to me).
So a couple of things – first, look, it’s just a conversation. If I have weight, the I want AutoDeskew – Adobe? Listening? AutoDeskew that can be incorporated into actions.
So if I have weight, we’ll see that feature <grin> – I don’t have weight.
The second thing is related to:
I just worry that sometimes you may not realize that your image in the public eye may have more potentially detrimental effects than you may think.
Man, I’ve spent so much time in Corporate America walking that G-D line, I’m not doing it here – or anywhere. Ever again. That’s too much responsibility to put on me – Dan, what you’re saying is a supreme complement, but it’s just not true. Let’s not forget that familiarity breeds contempt<smile>.
Finally, and the heart of the matter is, whether you agree or not, I think that if Adobe programmed actions to run directly from the browser it would be an "undertaking" – big or small, expensive or cheap, it would require resources. I honestly do not see the utility in spending the resources are something that can already be done, with greater control, flexability, and error trapping.
Check this out. Photoshop is extremely powerful and I bet (a small sum of money or a cat that pees on the couch – you pick) that there is an EXTREMELY small population of folks who use >80% of its features. There’s a lot of power here.
The challenge is, with that power, comes complexity. People spend YEARS learing photoshop. Sometimes, users say "wouldn’t it be great if…".
Many of those times, you can do that "if" in photoshop, you just have to think differently than you are used to. Since Photoshop is so powerful, much of the "training" in these forums are about, really, revealing how photoshop "thinks". Once you can ride on that wave, you can use more of the powerful features.
The actions in the file browser thing, while I didn’t mean to call your child ugly, is something that is easily overcome, and really, logically better the way it’s implemented now, IMO. So I wasn’t trying to "squash" your idea, as much as I was trying to say "this is how photoshop thinks; if you can start to think like it does, you can not only accomplish more, but you can accomplish more, more efficiently.
<smile>
Peace,
Tony
