Interface (Re)Design

[Mike]

iMatch is an exceptionally capable DAM software, flexible, versatile, stable, fast and so feature-rich that it has few equals. It accompanies me in the field of research as well as in the field of visual arts and is incredibly helpful! This is complemented by an excellent documentation and an active, helpful community. For my far-reaching needs, I could hardly have made a better decision when I bought my license.

BUT: something about it doesn't quite match the capabilities mentioned. It's the interface in its entirety. It makes the software look outdated. Almost as if I were looking at my designs and pictures in a museum.

Website visitors, or quick, superficial testers, might undeservedly wonder if it's still up to date and if the software can be trusted. This is bad! Even from the outside, people should be able to tell what a powerful piece of DAM technology they are looking at.

Two points:

1. The iMatch logo is neither of today nor logo enough. It's more like some older button icon that happens to be used as a logo.

2. The interface is visually cluttered in my opinion. By that I don't mean the many tools themselves, which you can easily switch on and off, adjust their behavior and size as required and place them almost anywhere on the screen. That's great!
It is the outdated, rather crude icons, the appearance of the bars, dividing lines, sliders, etc. Areas with their borders, buttons, app icons, etc. Simply most of the visual elements in their combined overall effect They used to be OK, but that was a long time ago.

A more attractive design would better reflect the high value of the software and attract more people to support its development. But of course, a simpler, more modern and elegant design would also bring other benefits. More fun at work, better ergonomics, fewer visual distractions, etc. etc.

I know that would require a lot of work and take a long time, while other features might have to wait that are also attractive. So I don't want to put anyone under pressure. However, I wanted to signal that I believe a threshold has already been crossed where planning a new design becomes increasingly relevant.

Not a fact, just my opinion in the middle of a world of different tastes

[sinus]

Your very last sentence, I would agree completely.

I would not, in this case, share your feelings. Of course I see some things, what I would like to have it in another way, but there are only a few and not that important.

I have just googled for some other DAMs and looked at the image-tab of Chrome.
Phew, overall, they looks not very different. At least in a rough overview, for me.

But, like you wrote, just my opinion in the middle of a world of different tastes. Very true.

[mastodon]

It would be nice to have a more and easy customizable interface, like the ribbon in MS Office. To get some menu item in the front or on a button and hide some other items away.
I do not care about outlook of the logo, icons etc., but I have to admid, others do.

[Mario]

Yeah, well. That again.

Define "IMatch Logo". Do you mean the product name/brand I use since 1998



or the photools.com logo I use for as long?



Would you consider changing an established and known brand/logo a good idea?
I'm not sure about this. Maybe slightly modernize it (how?) but changing it completely? - nah.
Many companies have the same logo for centuries and see no problem with that...

More details instead of broad statements are welcome.

About the UI...

First: users hate change. Never underestimate that.

For non-developers: revamping the IMatch UI would require me to:

a) buy and switch to a different user interface toolkit (and there are only very few left for software written in C++/MFC)
b) learn about the functionality, quirks and bugs of the new toolkit for a couple of weeks or months
c) rip out and replace maybe 30% to 40% of the IMatch code

We're talking about six months or more (likely) to make all that's currently working work again, without bugs and problems. I'm just one person, after all.

I doubt this can happen, unless I win big in a lottery and can hire some capable programmers who help me with that.

My current approach is different.

I modernize things bit by bit. I develop new features in the form of apps, where applicable. The People View. The Event View. The Dashboard. The IMatch clipboard...

Re-designing existing features as apps will be next. Maybe the Filter Panel will come first or the Favorites panel.
Removing a bit of functionality from Filters to make the UI easier, for example. A few users will complain, but we'll get a much slicker look with less buttons and options ;-)

Creating new features using modern HTML and TypeScript and IMatch Anywhere WebServices allows me to develop faster and use modern visualization techniques.
Maybe, one day, the IMatch user interface will run entirely in a web browser, similar to what IMatch Anywhere WebViewer already does.

If somebody does not like the icons: Do you volunteer to create new ones?
I'm no graphic designer. I could hire one, but designers charge hundreds of dollars for designing a single icon. And IMatch has about 200 icons. I paid for the icons I use in IMatch and I paid for the icons I use in IMatch Anywhere WebViewer and the IMatch apps. I'm not inclined to pay again because some consider the icons outdated.

Looking at other complex applications like Photoshop, Blender, Ableton, corporate DAM software etc. I don't think that IMatch looks too dated.

If you write an app with 6 features and 4 buttons, it is easy to make things look slick. Reduce the feature set of your application to a bare minimum and declare that everything it cannot do is not needed. That's a common Apple approach, for example.

If you have a user base in 70 countries, both old and young users, private, professional, commercial, institutional and governmental users like IMatch, changing things dramatically becomes a real problem. Especially commercial customers hate changes in the UI or workflow, since this usually causes training costs. Which is, for example, why IMatch Anywhere WebViewer has such a stable UI and loooong update cycle.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against change and I always listen to my user base. IMatch is shaped by its user base.
But on the other hand, I'm only one person, managing development and support for IMatch on my own. There are limits of what I can achieve and do.

If somebody volunteers to help, e.g. by coming up with new IMatch logo and photools.com icon designs, a new set of vector-based icons for IMatch etc. - I'm all ears.

[loweskid]

Nowt* wrong with the interface as far as I'm concerned.

* North English slang for 'nothing'...

[Mike]

Thanks for the explanation. It allows me to better understand the framework in which realistic optimization approaches can unfold. In addition, I would like to say, that I didn't start my post out of an emergency. I got used to the interface and I can deal with it in everyday work. From this perspective, the following sentence is true:

"Nowt* wrong with the interface as far as I'm concerned."

From a slightly less comfortable perspective, because it generates a corresponding need for action, things seem a bit different to me.

In 2001 Windows XP came out. It wasn't particularly pretty but OK, we "all" used it and it worked. But how many of us, having experienced a number of modern app and web designs, new operating systems including iOS, etc., would willingly go back to the general look and feel of Windows XP?

Interface components of iMatch are on different levels. Some are OK. Other, often icons, are still XP. Just my opinion.

"Looking at other complex application like..."

The devil is sometimes in the details. With Photoshop, for example, we almost only have the general gray in common, if I may exaggerate that somewhat ;-)

"First: users hate change. Never underestimate that." "If you have a user base in 70 countries, both old and young users, private, professional, commercial, institutional and governmental users..."

You're right, this is a delicate situation. Decisions must be carefully considered and often "served in smaller portions."

Of course, strong effects are easier to achieve with a radical redesign, where all visual components participate in it together and in a targeted manner. But even without new tools (as you explained in detail) and in smaller steps, we can still achieve relevant attractive results.

"Would you consider changing an established and known brand/logo a good idea? I'm not sure about this. Maybe slightly modernize it (how?) but changing it completely? - nah."

Firstly, I meant more the figurative mark, the "Icon" that also appears in the software. Secondly, you're right, modernization is more appropriate than replacement - at least in general. I'll think about the "exactly how" when I have some time.

By the way, if you are interested, you can look at four different examples of how well-known companies have adapted their logos to the times. Just search in Google Pictures e.g. for: Apple logo development, Canon logo development, McDonalds logo development and Adobe logo development. They have all taken a certain freedom to change, more or less.

"Removing a bit of functionality from Filters to make the UI easier, for example. A few users will complain, but we'll get a much slicker look with less buttons and options ;-) "

Sometimes you can improve the situation by grouping things even more precisely and letting them easily show/hide. You have done well in several areas. Remove/Reduce can also be a helpful solution, true. Only my favorites may not be removed. (no idea what they are) ;-)

"If somebody does not like the icons: Do you volunteer to create new ones?
I'm no graphic designer. I could hire one, but designers charge hundreds of dollars for designing a single icon. And IMatch has about 200 icons."

200 icons can really be some work, yes, but I thought about that: I want to support you with the iMatch icons and design an alternative collection. And yes, voluntarily. We will see how much and what exactly we redesign and what just optimize or adapt, so that it doesn't turn into a more extensive work than possible.

In the same context, I will then also comment more specifically on other aspects such as: general interface shapes, values, contrasts, etc. All things that we can realistically achieve without you having to buy additional tools and inevitably have to learn them, etc. etc. as you said.

Due to my own commitments, I won't be able to tackle this until October if that's ok with you. If I can make it before October, I will let you know.

[rolandgifford]

In 2001 Windows XP came out. It wasn't particularly pretty but OK, we "all" used it and it worked. But how many of us, having experienced a number of modern app and web designs, new operating systems including iOS, etc., would willingly go back to the general look and feel of Windows XP?

Taking this as a general comment rather than precisely Windows XP. I frequently hanker for the 'old days' where software had text based labels and drop down menus. The current fashion for icons and buttons everywhere isn't an improvement at all and I often put effort into keeping the old look and feel where possible when someone feels that they have improved the look. I don't care at all if buttons are pretty, I care whether it is blindingly obvious what they do. It frequently isn't even clear, never mind obvious.

The old Microsoft Office text based menus were far better than the ribbon bar, especially after many years of 'improving' that.

Do I need the text in one reply to be larger than the other posts in the thread?

[Mike]

Do I need the text in one reply to be larger than the other posts in the thread?

No you don't, it was an accident, the text was copied from another program. I couldn't correct that after posting.

[Mario]

Please try to use the same font size as all other users, thanks.

By the way, if you are interested, you can look at four different examples of how well-known companies have adapted their logos to the times. Just search in Google Pictures e.g. for: Apple logo development, Canon logo development, McDonalds logo development and Adobe logo development. They have all taken a certain freedom to change, more or less.

Well, these are all multi-billion dollar companies with large arts departments and tons of money to spend on external agencies for logo redesigns and CI. Not one person spare time shops like photools.com.

200 icons can really be some work, yes, but I thought about that: I want to support you with the iMatch icons and design an alternative collection. And yes, voluntarily. We will see how much and what exactly we redesign and what just optimize or adapt, so that it doesn't turn into a more extensive work than possible.

Great. Feel free to show the community some examples of logo variations you come up with when you have the time.

[Mike]

Well, these are all multi-billion dollar companies with large arts departments and tons of money to spend on external agencies for logo redesigns and CI. Not one person spare time shops like photools.com.

With the example I addressed your sentence: "Would you think it would be a good idea to change an established and well-known brand/logo?"

The examples show that it's not necessarily uncommon, although stability (if the logo is good) is preferable.

Great. Feel free to show the community some examples of logo variations you come up with when you have the time.

You quoted my offer to help you with the icon collection but asked about logo versions. Misunderstanding, or meant like that?

[Mario]

With the example I addressed your sentence: "Would you think it would be a good idea to change an established and well-known brand/logo?"

The examples show that it's not necessarily uncommon, although stability (if the logo is good) is preferable.

My bad, sorry. Icons, then.
You can find all icons used by IMatch in C:\ProgramData\photools.com\IMatch6\resources\bitmaps on your PC.

[Mike]

I took a look in the specified folder. Based on what I see there, I'm definitely assuming a considerable amount of work. At least if we need tailor-made solutions and don't use general icon sets. In addition, the old icons cannot simply be carried over since everything has to be recreated as vectors.

I can't make that a priority, so it will only happen in smaller chunks over a longer period of time, perhaps in order of importance to the interface. And, since they all have to work together as a system that not only looks nice, but also makes the functionality behind it understandable, conceptual aspects will be a first and important part of the considerations.

I'll think about that from time to time before October, too. If necessary, I will contact you directly about these or other aspects and questions that will certainly arise.

I already have a first question: Are the icons also available individually and with names? So not just as stripes?

[Mario]

The icons are (mostly) from a commercial icon set I've purchased. The licenses does not allow to distribute or share individual icons of the set. The set is bitmap-based (16 to 256 pixels for each icon, no vectors). Sorry. I can do composites of several icons in PSD and without transparency, which should be OK.

I cannot use any icon set available out there, it all depends on the license, commercial usage details, copyright waivers and other legals.

For example, I have a paid license for FontAwesome Pro (https://fontawesome.com) and even was an early backer for the project on Kickstarter.

I can use the "Pro" icons in documents or designs I create, or as composites when I create icons for IMatch apps (which I do in Affinity Designer). The icons are shipped as PNG. My own designs are sometimes shipped as PNG or SVG. Because I have the copyright.

I also use FontAwesome icon fonts in IMatch Apps, but only the "free" version (available for everyone). Since I "ship" the icon font with IMatch, the "Pro" version is a no-go, because I don't have a distribution license. Just a usage license.

When I would redo all IMatch icons myself, I would do them as vectors of course. I did all app icons as vectors.
And I would do them from scratch, maybe using a paid icon set for inspiration.
Currently I see no real reason to do that. But I have been wrong before, so...

Some users make IMatch show icons in gray scale (Edit > Preferences > Application (extended settings must be on):


Metadata Panel when icons are set to grayscale mode.

but most users use the default color icon schema.
I don't recall any specific complaint about the icons in IMatch or that they are not modern enough.

Like many UI elements, learnability (and tooltips) is more important than the actual icon. It is not always possible to come up with a 16px or 32px representation of a concept or feature. Users learn how the icon looks, link it to the concept or feature in their brains, and then just use it.

Changing all or larger parts of the icons used by IMatch also requires changing many screen shots in the help system (ugh!) and other documentation. It will also require re-training for commercial clients and updates to internal documentation used there. Which may cause some waves.

As I said, I'm open to anything that makes IMatch work better for users. Make it look better. Perform better.

But changing things just to change things is not something many users appreciate.
For example, think "Firefox" and how Mozilla they managed to let it drop to a 5% market share by constant re-design and new "UX concepts". Users hate change.

It took Microsoft many years to introduce and switch to Ribbons - and user still complain.
Windows Explorer lost its ribbon in W11 and is back to a standard toolbar (ribbons are also bad for touch).

Again, I'm open to anything. And if I consider switching to a new set of icons worth it (and good for users), I will put in the elbow grease.

[Mike]

I understand your perspective and I'm not interested in persuading you. I thought to support you because I liked your previous work. The participation would not have helped me professionally or financially and even less privately, since I would have had to give up part of my free time for it ;-)

I understood that major changes are currently not possible. Assuming this, the remaining options were still: Higher effectiveness in a noticeably more pleasant environment at the same time. Existing users would have had to learn little and definitely needed no training.

But changing things just to change things

Due to the different knowledge background I feel that slightly differently.

For existing users: This would have led to easier handling due to increased visual ergonomics (reduction of details/elements with weak information content, higher visual consistency, faster orientation, better recognizability of concepts). As a side effect, it would have been more fun. And that, also because I would have introduced a higher overall aesthetic, just out of habit ;-)

For potential customers: This would have meant an easier start (see above) and an even more trustworthy appearance, which would have increased the likelihood of a license decision.


Everything is completely OK as it is!

Since nobody but me has commented specifically on such aspects, and you too have the general impression that the current characteristics of the interface are acceptable, there is definitely not automatically a need for change, no matter what an individual user like me might recognize.

"If ain't broke, don't fix it", as the saying goes, especially when you're short on resources.

I'm withdrawing from the design zone ;-)

[Mario]

If you later decide to come up with some better or more modern icons, let us know. I'm curious.
As I said, I'm open to enhancements and suggestions. And I'm not a designer.
There are always side effects to consider when planning for substantial changes in an established UI.

[sinus]

As I wrote above, if I look roughly over other DAMs, like portfolio, lightroom, idimager, photo mechanic, photostation and so on, I see not a design, what is really very different in comparison with IMatch.

Of course this is only a rough look, but it gives me nevertheless the impression, that the visual look of IMatch can't be that behind the others, if at all. 

But, like Mike in his first post wrote " just my opinion in the middle of a world of different tastes". 
This is true for me and hence it is very difficult to decide, what is bad or what is good. 

For quite a long time I was a member of a jury that had to judge photos from competitions.
We were several photographers and graphic designers, but journalists and advertising experts.
It is hard to believe how different the opinions were.

A photo could be judged as totally bad by some, while others saw the same photo as an outstanding work of art.
It was really hard to believe. 

[javiavid]

My feeling with the imatch interface is that it needs a "refresh", it is as if it were an old version.
It is not changing how the program works, it is adapting to more current design lines. I think the interfaces are simpler now.

I attach 2 examples to understand it better.
(There is a 22 year difference between the two images.)

I don't understand programming or development packages, but I suppose the new versions will have options to generate this type of interfaces common to most current programs. Maybe I'm wrong...

[ubacher]

It's new requirements which old interface software can not handle which forces upgrading. Changing the look
may also be necessary to not repel new users. Otherwise it is just an unnecessary strain on the user who is used
to the interface. (IMHO).

[javiavid]

I think this is not going to happen officially, so we will continue with the XP version of iMatch for some years... Maybe I will change the icons when I have more time.

It is a great software, with many possibilities and stable, so I prefer this to it being pretty.