Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Printing - Qimage Support Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 26, 2006, 5:49 AM   #1
Member
 
somewhereinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 37
Default

Mike,

I just downloaded the new version, I am not a big fan of the XP look, I have all of my computers set to traditional.

Is there a way to get Qimage to look like windows traditional?



Thanks,

Dick
somewhereinusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 28, 2006, 9:23 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 556
Default

There are three skins available in the 101 version. The "classic" skin is the classic XP look.

Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
mchaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 11:42 AM   #3
swo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1
Default

Please consider making more "classic" skins for all versions of Qimage. I am using the professional version and I think the skins availableare distracting with to much colour. I would like some more "quiet" and neutral skins (like win98, win2000, toned down, greyish). Users of the Studio-edition are not the only ones in need for a non-disturbing interface (colour-wise)


Thanks

Søren W. Olesen
swo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 4:58 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10
Default

I have to add my two penneth to the discussion regarding the new QImage skins. I'm afraid that I'm no fan of them either. I've tried very hard to work with them but I'm afraid it doesn't work for me. They are extremely distracting. I've always accepted, and rather liked the fact that the QImage interface was always quirky, but it never previously interfered with my workflow.

I'm even getting to dislike the background to the Splash screen and About box. I know this was inserted because some users were experiencing problems with the elliptical shape boxes. However, I personally would prefer a simple rectangular style - but that's a personal thing, as is my response to the new skins.

The fact that I use a 21" monitor and 1600x1200 resolution might add to the "fussiness" issues of some of the detailing, which may be less of an issue for those using lower resolutions. It seems to me that the skins are aimed at 12 year old video gamers rather than photographers. I had considered upgrading to the studio version just to try the grey skin, but I don't really need the extra features of the studio version and I suspect that there is not likely to be much of an improvement over the existing skins.

I'm afraid I don't get on with the redefined title bars, the button styled menu bars or the drop down menus all of which apear to emulate a computer game of some sort.

I tried the classic skin but it appears to be unfinished with a lot of inconsistencies such as the highlighting on buttons. The stark white background (which is not an XP styling as far as I can tell) makes it really difficult to work with the preview page panel, as it is a matter of guesswork to identify the top and left hand edges - an issue on those occasions when manually adjusting an image on the page.

I apologise for seeming to have such a downer on the new look, particularly as a great deal of work has obviously gone into the new interface. However I am unable to work with any of the three available skins so I have turned back to the last 2006 version of QImage, even though I recognise that it is several streets behind in terms of functionality and technology compared to v2007

Regards

Carl
CJ Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 10:08 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 556
Default

In a recent poll of over 500 Qimage users, 90% of those polled either liked the new skins better or didn't have a preference because they felt it didn't alter their workflow. Only 10% saw the new skins as a negative. A 90% approval rate in this business is exceptional. In fact, it is astronomical! I've gotten literally hundreds of emails from people praising the 2007 version with compliments on the new skinned look/feel. That's more than I've ever received in such a short period on any prior version as people generally don't take the time to email compliments and kudos: most tech support emails involve questions, issues with equipment, etc.. Almost every new program you find these days offers skins and has gone away from that 1990's rectangular/square look that you so love. And BTW, I use and developed the new version on a 1600x1200 screen. I'm afraid you are in the extreme minority on this one, so I don't plan to go back to the old, dull, rectangular look!

Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
mchaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 10:57 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10
Default

Mike

Whilst I didn't expect you to necessarily agree with my observations, I did expect, if you were to reply at all, to be engaged at an adult and professional level. I did not expect your unprofessional, though obviously very personal, rant.

"...has gone away from that 1990's rectangular/square look that you so love."

a totally uncalled for response from you. I wouldn't mind if you were at least accurate. (if you were, I would be prolaiming how I couldn't live without the Windows Classic Look, etc, etc) I did not suggest for one minute that I wanted a return to a particular look, I just personally want a GUI that I can work with; the skins supplied with v21007 do not fulfil that requirement - for me. I am not 12 years old (I passed that particular birthday 34 years ago), although reading some of your supporters in DP Review's forum, I suspect many of them are - given the level of flaming and personal abuse they indulge in. I hope these were not the same people from whom you polled opinions.

I still consider QImage to be one of the most technologically advanced software applications I have encountered, but it doesn't mean I have to like everything about it. As I pointed out in my observations, my only reasons for returning to the 2006 version was a GUI usability issue. I notice that despite my suggesting that the extra skin available for the Studio version might suit me and that I might therefore find reason to upgrade to that version, you chose instead to ignore that and instead point out that I am an idiot, a tiny minority opinion and therefore unimportant and not worthy of consideration. Well, thank you. As one of the little people, I thank you.
As one of the people who may have considered upgrading just for the sake of a skin... I reserve judgement.

Carl
CJ Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 12:58 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 556
Default

I've left my original post intact so that anyone can see that I responded in a completely professional manner. I (and a LOT of other people) happen to believe that the dull rectangular look is out. I don't see anything wrong with stating that claim.

Also, if you want to be responded to with a "sugar coating" and not have me speak what's really on my mind, don't start out with grade-school comments like "It seems to me that the skins are aimed at 12 year old video gamers rather than photographers". If you want a sugar coated response, an inflamatory response like that is not the way to get you there!

Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
mchaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 1:44 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10
Default

I am relieved that you have left your original response intact. I would have been extremely disappointed had you chosen to edit it or delete it.

I really don't know why you choose to launch into a flame war with a customer. It would have been a simple matter to either respond to my, honestly expressed, concerns. I have the right, as a customer to express my response to a product. It was not, nor intended to be inflammatory, nor insulting, you chose to interpret it that way. Equally you could have requested that we move this to email rather than deal with it in a public arena.

I will point out that I am the customer and as such am entitled to make valid comment which it was.

I stand by my comment, which incidentally was buried halfway through. I did not start out with it.

"It seems to me that the skins are aimed at 12 year old video gamers rather than photographers"

This was simple statement of my response. To turn your comment around, if you only want sugar coated positive responses then OK. If you want simple honesty then you should just as equally be prepared to accept it.

Equally, you stand by your comment,
"Almost every new program you find these days offers skins and has gone away from that 1990's rectangular/square look that you so love."

I could point out that the skins, as do many others at the moment, look to me very retro and similar to those being produced by DOS applications in the early 90's when Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were marginally less boring than the DOS command line.

You may not like or agree with me - that is absolutely fine. you may feel justified in abusing customers, also fine, but don't expect me, as a paying customer to be happy about your attitude. It's not about suger coating, but it is about respect for those people who's money contributes towards your creation of such high quality software.

You could have taken the opportunity to suggest that the Studio version might, after all, be what I was looking for, but you didn't. That's is also fine.

You could also have taken the opportunity to ask me a few pointed questions either publicly or privately regarding what I was looking for in the GUI, though I accept that it isn't necessarily feasible to deal with every customer on an individual basis. That said, not so long ago you impressed me both by your willingness to accomodate a suggestion and the speed with which you incorporated it.

You may be content with your response but it was designed to belittle me for seeming to be out of step, out of touch and not a little stupid. That I do take offence at and will respond to accordingly. Maybe we have cultural differences that create communication issues, who knows; I can't do much about being a Brit, but we could both try to understand each other's point of view.

I leave it to you.

Carl
CJ Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 2:15 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 556
Default

This is a forum where Qimage users can come to make suggestions or ask for assistance on features. It is not a debate forum where people can stick their head in the door and offer arrogant/useless comments like the 12 year old/video game comment just to get a rise out of people. I figure if you had anything useful to say or any specific suggestions to make on the GUI, you would have made them already so I consider the matter closed and don't plan to let the "debate" continue.

Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
mchaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 7:12 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10
Default

What I do like very much about the new interface, irrespective of the skin used, is the repositioning of the buttons, grouping them with their respective windows. This is far more intuitive than placing them all together on a single button bar.

From a personal viewpoint I prefer my menu bars and drop down menu's to be simple, but I accept your point that other's favour the look adopted in the new skins. The same applies to my feelings about the title bar - I like functional here as it doesn't distract me from the job in hand. For me it is a connection with the Operating System GUI, a reminder or placeholder if you like, for consistency.

The subdued schema (I've re-installed 2007.118 of the concise skin, is the most usable for me, and oddly if it had a title bar and menu's similar to my description above, I would probably find it quite usable (if that is the right word in this context).
The grey background of the Page Preview window makes the edge of the page much clearer, unlike the white background of the Classic skin. In fact it is the stark whiteness of the Classic skin that causes most of my issues. I mentioned that the highlighting on some of the buttons in the Classic scheme didn't seem to quite work correctly. The Interpolation dialog is an example of what I mean. The blue outline highlighting doesn't properly follow the focus. It isn't a big issue in itself, but again can be distracting.

The drop down options (still with the Classic skin) in the Job properties window are dark blue with white text, but in the print properties drop down (I like the change to a drop down by the way) the text remains black when highlighted blue, which makes it difficult to read when running the cursor up and down the list.

The lack of an outline edge to the page preview was always a minor niggle for me, specifically the top and left edge (there is no shadow there to act in lieu of an outline). I've often wondered in the past how difficult it would be to program an outline as an Preferences option? but its no deal breaker. The only time it is an issue is in conjunction with the Classic skin when white against white makes it difficult to identify the positioning and when manually positioning an image or images on the page. The Full Page Editor has the same issues in the classic skin.

If you ever had the time to post a screenshot of the grey skin available to the studio version, I would be interested. It may sound an odd thing to say, but a suitable skin would, for me, in itself justify the small cost of upgrading to the Studio version.

I would also be interested if you had any more skins planned. The look of an application create's one's working environment and it is important and can be very personal (I waste idiotic amounts of time with Firefox just trying to find the definitive Theme).

Regards

Carl

CJ Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:30 PM.