They are better than they were. But they are still at least 10 years from being able to match Adobe software - partially because we need to wait for Adobe patents to run out, so that other software can replicate an intuitive software experience.
Ugh, nothing “intuitive” should ever be patentable. Can you imagine if “horizontally-ruled paper” was patented? Or “handles on cooking pans,” “shirts with two sleeves,” or anything of that sort?
Like, why should anyone have to avoid an obvious feature just because someone else did it first? It’s insane.
Also, FOSS projects and non-profits should be exempted from patent restrictions.
What do you mean? I have no idea what to search for. I’d appreciate some links, or some unfolded explanation. Can you patent features? Sounds a bit absurd.
Can I patent booting the OS from a USB drive? That’s a feature, isn’t it?
Well, I do understand the difference between the UI and UX, but I have no idea what they are implying. I asked that question precisely because I have no idea what to search for.
The difference between UI and UX is simple. The UI is just the interface: it’s how the app, service, anything, interacts with its user. The experience is … well, the experience of it. E.g. Gimp is awful at UI, but the UX is not that bad, because if you’d get some basic ideas, it’s quite useful, even despite its ugly UI. Sometimes it’s not that easy to distinguish one from another, that’s why the two are usually combined. Interface can be pretty, and most people would call it good, but the experience of using it could be just terrible. Also, experience is what transfers from your experience, so, for a graphics editor, it’s expected that it would follow some de-facto conventions, even if they’re pretty stupid. Once you’d delve into it, it gets difficult to separate, but if we’d simplify, I’d call a UI is just how it looks, and the UX is how it works. At least that’s how I see it. If there’s someone who can explain these better, I’d appreciate to be corrected.
They are better than they were. But they are still at least 10 years from being able to match Adobe software - partially because we need to wait for Adobe patents to run out, so that other software can replicate an intuitive software experience.
Ugh, nothing “intuitive” should ever be patentable. Can you imagine if “horizontally-ruled paper” was patented? Or “handles on cooking pans,” “shirts with two sleeves,” or anything of that sort?
Like, why should anyone have to avoid an obvious feature just because someone else did it first? It’s insane.
Also, FOSS projects and non-profits should be exempted from patent restrictions.
I think my CS6 - the last non subscription Adobe Suite from 2012 - is still more intuitive and better to use than the newest GIMP version
Can you elaborate on this? The first time I hear there are patents regarding some intuitive interface. What is that?
Even if so, why not replicate the best of all similar apps, Affinity and Pixelmator too.
Not interface. Experience.
Do a quick web search and you’ll learn all about Adobe patents on features.
What do you mean? I have no idea what to search for. I’d appreciate some links, or some unfolded explanation. Can you patent features? Sounds a bit absurd.
Can I patent booting the OS from a USB drive? That’s a feature, isn’t it?
All I could find is some statistical overviews without much detail, and a more list of recent patents which are all related to AI.
Is there a specific feature that you wish was in the others? I don’t really understand the difference between UX and UI
Well, I do understand the difference between the UI and UX, but I have no idea what they are implying. I asked that question precisely because I have no idea what to search for.
The difference between UI and UX is simple. The UI is just the interface: it’s how the app, service, anything, interacts with its user. The experience is … well, the experience of it. E.g. Gimp is awful at UI, but the UX is not that bad, because if you’d get some basic ideas, it’s quite useful, even despite its ugly UI. Sometimes it’s not that easy to distinguish one from another, that’s why the two are usually combined. Interface can be pretty, and most people would call it good, but the experience of using it could be just terrible. Also, experience is what transfers from your experience, so, for a graphics editor, it’s expected that it would follow some de-facto conventions, even if they’re pretty stupid. Once you’d delve into it, it gets difficult to separate, but if we’d simplify, I’d call a UI is just how it looks, and the UX is how it works. At least that’s how I see it. If there’s someone who can explain these better, I’d appreciate to be corrected.