I’ve been trying to influence change in this area for a couple of years now…with very minimal success, frustratingly.
My concern isn’t so much open source, or even usage of standard symbols…
How about just consistent UX from dialog to dialog? Why is right click available on some objects but not on others? Why do some menu items have shortcuts and others don’t? Why is there a cancel button on some dialogs but not on others?
I can understand differences with old dialogs, or dialogs with a lot of difficult calculation code running behind it (where you might be hesitant to take the time to change it), but the NEW Layers dialog is a complete diversion from all of the other dialogs in the product! It looks like it was written by a completely different (and less-skilled) development team: Sub menus off of buttons instead of right-click, reliance on difficult to see color variations (which violates accessibility standards), no right-click support, no accelerator support…no drag and drop support…the list just goes on. And that’s perhaps the simplest dialog in the code!
This is not ‘pile on Rob’ time. I don’t blame Rob for putting these types of “cosmetic” changes on the back-burner. He’s got his hands full releasing new and exciting products, trying to overhaul the graphical underpinnings of a lot of CC, and running a growing company. The man has a lot on his plate.
What bothers me most is that the introduction of the pro version of CC diverts the precious resources available to make these changes - making resolution to these real problems seem even further away. I don’t have a crystal ball. If Pro is a financial success for Carbide, I’ll be thrilled…but also disappointed that these types of issues will linger longer. If it’s not, perhaps a decision to invest in UX improvements to warrant the cost will happen. We’ll see.
If Carbide wants the code closed, great. But then they are the ones who need to expand it, fix it, and make it a good experience…and be responsive to that. This takes resources and commitment.