Interface

Hello Ariel,

X3 just wasn't "Corel" without the BALLOON

Now it's for REAL

GOTTA HAVE THE BALLOON to be Corel !

Ted

Ok I'm going to be the party pooper here.  I wish that they hadn't touched a thing in the interface but instead spendt the time and therefore money of fixing broken things.  There are plenty that could use fixing?   Pretty is nice but it needs to be secondary to function and feature.

 David:

Have you tried X4 yet? What items do you find that "could use fixing"? 

David Milisock said:

Ok I'm going to be the party pooper here.  I wish that they hadn't touched a thing in the interface but instead spendt the time and therefore money of fixing broken things.  There are plenty that could use fixing?   Pretty is nice but it needs to be secondary to function and feature.

Hugh Johnson said:

What items do you find that "could use fixing"? 

Let's not (as we say in the U.S.) throw the baby out with the bath water!  X4 is a good product, however in my opinion too much time and money was wasted on things that didn't get the Corel user anything for their dollar except something to look at.  Sort of like a relationship with a beautiful woman that is not only is a virgin is always going to stay one!

I'm a proponent of building the house properly and that starts with the foundation, so first color management as a core technology needed to be improved to enhance our ability to compete with our main competition. 

Also as part of the core technology enhancements, allowing RGB vectors to pass into the postscript stream, allowing CMYK numbers to change in the print stream (allowing driver based device simulation) and the ability to send what ever internal RGB that is chosen by the user down in the non-postscript print stream without activating a device profile for improved ease of non-postscript device calibration.

The above changes are something that would have improved the product for all users, because output providers would have a Corel product that performed in coordination with the process of standard output devices.   This also would have improved Corels and my ability to place the application in point of purchase display shops, sign shops and dye sub manufacturers where Adobe is eating into our market.

Then there are the bothersome legacy issues like the auto center power clip, the non-proportional being checked in the transformation docker. There is a huge list of these things that make Corel look as if they don't care about the user.  

The issue with spot color objects shifting when pasting into Photo-PAINT.  Solving the EPS compression issue for AI imports.

I like the RAW converter but it could have used eyedropper linked tone curves and the ability to read the image in the info docker.

As I wrote in my color management book Corel has many features that are a conglomeration of incomplete processes.  The Web image optimizer that does most of what it should but not completely, color management that is mostly functional but difficult to use.

Corel needs to start finishing some of the projects.  In my opinion they make a fine product and I use it all the time but improving it does not mean a new doo dad every release.  We, the Corel user would be best served if they finished the job and update many of the features that they already have!