Upgrade. The developers of your favorite application program announce an upgrade and, of course, a new and higher version number. Suddenly all of us jump in line to buy the latest and greatest of desktop publishing tools available. Within a period of time we've all paid and have gotten our new versions, learned and worked them into our daily routines when suddenly...
what does a new upgrade mean? New features, new tools, better working environment, keeping up with the current state of computer technology and, hopefully, fixing little bugs in the program. When a new upgrade comes out you scan through the list of new features and finding those useful to your work environment you happily send off money for the upgrade package. It's a scenario that has been repeated countless times since the beginning of the desktop publishing revolution in the mid 1980's.
History: the desktop publishing revolution
There was a time when we did not use computers to do our graphics work. Strange as it seems, life was organized and productive. Then, out of nowhere, as it seemed, new methods of accomplishing our work were developed using computers and we all flocked to these new tools. But computers by themselves are mechanical, it is the software that utilizes the power of the computer. Early software was designed to accomplish the same work we did by hand just a few years before. This was important because we could transfer much of what we knew in the old traditional hand work world to the computer with as little adaptation as necessary. Further, computer technology was rather primitive and limited in flexibility and capability.Remember that workers at the dawn of the revolution were never trained to use computers so there was a struggle to learn to live and work with them. How did they work? Why did they do what they did? Most important, why didn't they do what they were supposed to? Passing through the revolution was not easy and many never made it. But we faced the challenge of change and somehow passed into the new graphics world. New people entered our industry with no recollection of the old days and were trained directly into the new computerized industry.
It was a hectic decade but we made it through. Our software applications kept pace with our progress and led us, step at a time, through this difficult period. Many saw the advances with enthusiasm, others with terror. Some saw opportunity, others saw it as the end of life as they knew it. But through it all, the industry survived; different, of course, but it survived.
Where we are today
Today, the DTP revolution is over. The applications we use today are mature, fully functional and are so versatile that the everyday work of many people will not allow them the opportunity to explore and use all facets of the programs. What is more important is that today there is little left to program. All of our old traditional tools and hand techniques have been been turned into computerized counterparts and we have learned them making these computerized versions our standard everyday tools. Many new tools have been given us that could never be accomplished a decade before. Many of us have forgotten the old days and persons entering the field today have little or no recollection of pre-computer graphics.Our applications are, what we call, mature. They are complete and thorough with no gaps in techniques. For the most part, everything we need can be done on computer with no reliance on traditional hand methods. Our software does the work we need done and even gives us different ways of accomplishing the same task. Choices that make our productivity more efficient and flexible. Our equipment does the all work we need done. We have achieved a technological completeness.
Today's workers are familiar with computers and naturally accept them. They use them to accomplish an extremely wide variety of work from computerized versions of projects we have done for decades to new products that were only made possible with the power of the computer. Our workers think in terms of computer and not in terms of hand techniques and how they may be accomplished on the computer. It is this shift in perspective that is an important milestone.
The novelty of new programs and computerized tools has subsided and we now evaluate upgrades in an entirely different way. It is a shift in attitude driven by sophistication gained through years of living with the excitement of this rapidly changing industry. We are experienced and cannot see the world in any other way.
Searching for the future of graphic arts
Is that all there is? Is the future of upgrades reaching an end? Are the current apps it? What else can the software developers offer? Now that we have accomplished the task of computerizing this giant industry the task must now shifts to creating a brand new future that is completely computerized with no traces of the old manual and traditional methods.Yes, the programmers do have some ideas but there are some problems. They first have to figure out how to take us into the next phase of this industry. Upgrades is one way to go. But consider the track record of Quark where upgrades are far apart and very questionable at best where few program problems were corrected and few new tools were added that we didn't already have elsewhere in other programs. Now consider the Illustrator vs. Freehand battle for our desktops and wallets. With these two programs we see the future of graphic arts unfolding before our eyes when new ideas and techniques are added. Of course, each program seems to copy each other in the process so the final decision as to which program will win and control our desktops has yet to be settled.
Another way to reach the future is to build a brand new application from the ground up. Consider the grand InDesign experiment of building a new application designed for tomorrow's graphic artists. While the overall success of this new program is yet to be determined, it has already moved into the every once in awhile upgrade mode. What could have been a new environment was actually too much of the past and present and too little of the future.
Consider the market for additions or extensions to existing programs such as Quark, Photoshop and many others. This is particularly attractive for users since they buy only those extensions they need in their work. This is better than everybody buying everything as is the case with an overall program upgrade. But it is more difficult for the programmers who are now targeting a highly specialized market. Can they make a decent living with a small part of the overall graphics industry (which is rather small compared to the entire computer industry)? One should study the market of these specialized program developers for there is much to learn from their experiences.
But we must explore other concepts as well. What about our work? Today, many graphic artists are doing web work that just a few years ago didn't even exist. Over time our production systems are becoming more refined and sophisticated as management learn more about planning and organizing work done with computers. Computers must interact with some rather sophisticated production equipment. It's all a very delicate balance that slowly evolves being reflected in lower costs for services, higher productivity and, of course, profits.
What about the workers? As time passes, our computerized workers are becoming more sophisticated in their use of the computer and programs. It is a basic responsibility to interact with the computer to accomplish work. We are concentrating our efforts on accomplishing graphics work. Our programs do not lead us, they must help us by providing efficient and effective production methods.
The future of the graphic arts industry is not strictly based on computers and applications. There are many factors involved including management, production equipment and the many employees involved in the everyday activities. But we have to get there from where we are today. For many, their vision of the future is blurred by the standards of today. If their vision shows something different, the challenge is to figure out how to move us into the future. It is here that the responsibility of tomorrow's application programmers are to be found. The hectic pace of change that brought us to where we are is largely a thing of the past. For the rest of us, we will have to wait until the future is programmed and given to us.
The future of applications depends largely on the programmer's vision of the future. This vision of the future is important in that we must first have tomorrow's application programs so we can move into the future. Many of us can dream of what we might like to work with tomorrow, but it is the programmer's responsibility to being it to our desktop. Without this new vision we will have no compelling reason to abandon our stable productive present and explore the potential of the future.
And just who is all this for, anyway?
Right now we have to take a break from our idealistic visions and look at something entirely different: the software industry. Many years ago when programmers got together with an idea about an application program that would computerize a graphics task, the result was a program that was sold to users as a new tool. Consider that the results of programming, an application, is actually a product that will not depreciate, wear out, break down or ever need repair. If it works today, it will, in theory, work forever. But once the application is written, what work is left for the programmers? What can they possibly do to justify their jobs and keep earning a living?The next phase of the programmer's career involves fixing, correcting and enhancing the application program. At this point, armed with a lot of customer interaction (tech support reports) and evaluations of the product under actual production environments, corrections and additions are made and the results shipped out to eager customers as an upgrade. The cost of producing these changes is the cost of the upgrade. Once the upgrade is issued, the application is now more complete and there is actually a bit less work for the programmers to do. So now what?
Upgrading mature applications is a difficult task for a programmer. What do you do to to encourage users to part with money in exchange for what? Is this a point where novelty becomes a factor as much as practicality? Is this a point where every programmer's wild idea is seriously considered and promoted as the next wave of the future? Novelty can still be sold if properly packaged. And, of course, there is still the mentality of change for change's sake. If it is new, it must be better.
Are we entering an age of the tail wagging the dog concept? Are the newer upgrades designed more to create profits than improve our industry? One has got to be seriously sympathetic toward the lives of all those programmers. No, not the ones who own the rights to the programs and collect most of the money, but to the everyday salary or hourly workers pouring effort into these programs. More profits, more sales, all designed to keep the stock ticker moving upward.
The cost of change
When we explore the cost of change it is not in terms of dollars and cents (or whatever flavor of funds you prefer) but in terms of productivity. Consider the value of an hour's worth of labor and the amount of production that can be accomplished in that period of time. Over time, this value becomes standardized (study Cost Accounting and Estimating for more information) where management will be able to predict exactly how long it will take to produce a particular project.But when you upgrade this standard is disrupted. In the past, upgrades offered new tools that allowed for new services to be offered and a dramatic decrease in overall production time. These were the early days but today we are through that. Most of our production standards accomplish what we need. Newer upgrades offer little in salable services and products, they change the way we work. Both employees and employers must struggle with occasional annoyances struggling t maintain organizational stability.
Is this change for the better? In the long run it probably is, but that is not the issue. Consider that with each change in the way we work we must do two things. First, obviously, we must learn the new techniques such as keyboard shortcuts, items in a dialog box, tool arrangement, or even radically different looks to the same old stuff. But we must also unlearn the old techniques before we are comfortable with the new. Sometimes this is easy if we can recognize an obvious improvement. But if the change is subtle, our questions of why did they do this to us becomes a very serious barrier to unlearning. We simply cannot find any reason to let go of the old and struggle with the new.
Other changes are hidden. Take for example a new program version that requires an entirely different microprocessor. The program will no longer run on our old computer. Sometimes there is a cascading effect. In order to use this new upgrade we need an upgrade to our operating system as well. Or maybe we need to upgrade our computer adding more memory or other enhancements. And if we make these changes to run one program, what effect will the changes have on our other programs that just yesterday were stable and, well, working? Will they have to be upgraded as well?
Many of us look through the new glitzy novelty and search for practicality we can use in our everyday work life. Sometimes this is not easy to do as we wonder suspiciously why they even bothered to make the changes. Further, adding insult to injury, we are expected to pay for these upgrades in, as we have seen, more ways than one.
Conclusion
Many years ago when the desktop publishing revolution started we were all at a loss of how to go about developing computerized graphics work. We naturally turned to the program developers for advice and a lot of help. But today we have years of collective experience we rely on to guide us and the graphic arts industry. Perhaps in the past we relied too much on the program developers to shape our industry. But we had to because there was no other collective experience to draw upon. Today our experiences are not limited to just how the programs work and what they do, our collective experiences include production, management and very noticeable changes in the actual work we do.Fast paced upgrades are probably a thing of the past. Our next phase of change will be done through evolution and not revolution. Changes will be slower and more carefully considered before jumping in on a new upgrade. For the programmers, they will have to be more careful to offer features that we really need and can use with our everyday production environment.
In the end we will see upgrades for what they are. The process of buying upgrades will actually be more of a procedure for purchasing increased productivity or design capabilities that we actually need for our environments. New features and productivity enhancements, better compatibility with our production devices, opportunities for greater expression of our creativity and, of course, the potential for greater profit. There is definitely room for improvement!
