I thought that this could possibly be the case. I'm sure I'm not
voicing something new, but consistency with Quark is a ridiculous
suggestion. The biggest problem with Quark is that it doesn't work well
with or like anything else — particularly Illustrator and Photoshop.
Graphic designers use Quark not because it was a particularly good
solution, but it was the only solution. Pagemaker never cut it.
Indesign, among my graphic peers certainly, was the potential saviour
to resolving those inconsistencies and incompatibilities... It gets so
close (actually closer in 1.5) and yet is frustratingly far away.
And it doesn't help the fact the Illustrator and Photoshop become
consistently more generalist and less specialist...
> On Oct 20, 2004, at 6:57 PM, Tom Hobbs wrote: > >> While I understand the that application as complex as Photoshop with >> such a broad user based means it's realistic to make to goal to make >> 10 people being happy (I've worked on similar projects so I know >> this), dare I suggest that it would be better that these users fall >> within the established, loyal user base rather than a potential new >> set. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush after all. > > If I were to tell you the real stories that go into why certain things > ended up the way they did, I'm sure Adobe's legal eagles would be all > over me in a heartbeat and I wouldn't like it. > > Sorry. I wish I could respond in length to this sort of post, but I'd > prefer to not burn any bridges or put myself at legal risk. (I will say > that the InDesign team came to dislike me very much because I used to > hound them over the kind of details of consistency you are describing > which they largely didn't want to follow, viewing XPress as their > target, not consistency with PS or AI. When I left back in 1999 the > first time, they seemed thrilled they were finally able to do what they > wanted instead of what I kept hounding them to do.) > > Andrei