First of all, correction for part 1 – the “focus mode” wasn’t removed. It was renamed to “quiet mode” and relocated to a different part of the UI, and I failed to spot it there. It’s still slightly perplexing, shiftily capitalized, and I doubt fully effective, but the effort is there:

I also want to warn you there will be no more positive things I say in this post.

When Cabel Sasser posted this on Bluesky in February…

…I experienced a little existential dread.

Now that I’ve experienced the dialog myself in Photoshop 2026, and a few other dialogs that have been upgraded toward what Adobe calls “modern user interface,” how did it fare?

These are 2025 windows and their 2026 equivalents:

On the surface, it feels like a lateral move. I do not personally find the new design language (Spectrum) attractive, or even particularly “modern.” The gestalt remains off and things are still generally misaligned – they’re just misaligned in net new ways.

But it was digging into the window below that showed all the problems in the still-wet foundations…

…and a lot of them have to do with focus.

1.
The first field is not focused, so you cannot start typing the number after opening this window. You need to immediately move your hand to the mouse.

2.
If you click on any field, the value is not pre-selected, so you cannot start typing a new number then.

A combination of both is rough in practice in repeated use, violating some of the basic things like this classic principle of interaction design:

Principle: Defaults within fields should be easy to “blow away”

When a user activates a field, the current entry should be auto-selected so that pressing Backspace/​Delete or starting to type will eliminate the current entry. Users can click within the field to deselect the whole, dropping the text pointer exactly where the user has clicked. The select-on-entry rule is generally followed today. (Sloppy coding, however, has resulted in the text cursor dropping at various unpredictable locations. )

3.
Clicking on parts of the input field doesn’t bring it into focus even though the hover state promises it. (Discrepancies between hover and focus handling are a horrible new thing I’m starting to see more in recent interfaces.)

4.
Simply backspacing through the field shows a crude error modal and – to add a second injury to the first injury – the dialog removes focus from the field!

5.
Tabbing now goes through “Pixels” menu on the way from Width to Height, making it harder to type width → press Tab → type height → press Enter, in a nice quick keyboard gesture.

I will recognize this is a tricky one, because it exposes a core tension with tabbing: some people use it for comprehensive keyboard access, but others want an accelerator “express train” with only relevant stops. However, macOS already has a “Keyboard navigation” setting for that – you can choose whether tabbing should go through all the controls, or only those you get to type in. Not only does Photoshop ignore that preference, but it’s inconsistent with itself – you can see that you cannot get to Anchor via tabbing anyway!

6.
Clicking on the “relative” checkbox or canvas extension color does not restore focus to last control like it used to.

7–∞.
There are tons of other transgressions. Some are downwind from focus; for example, undoing after moving a slider no longer works, because the ⌘Z keystroke is now swallowed by a UI element that doesn’t know what to do with it. Some are unrelated: Pull-downs are now of the slower kind, pressing ⌥P results in more blinking, and this tooltip below feels so cheap that I’m surprised it’s not a talking point of the current U.S. administration:

I am tired even just noticing all this. (What is that weird clump of pixels on the left of the bottom edge!? Did no one spot it before launch?)

So now what?

I generally avoid such harsh labels on this blog, but: this is awful work.

I’m angry. (Clearly.) We should all be angry in the face of stuff like this. This is how people get fed up with software – because it feels unstable and deteriorates on its own without needing to.

I know I brought up that an existing power user base can be a huge pain in the ass, and I am a decades-old Photoshop power user. But this is different than other examples where the product needs or at least wants to evolve past its core audience or toward a different market. For Photoshop here, nothing I see indicates any change in course or clientele – and yet all of these good moments in UI that used to help me out no longer exist.

Plus, all those transgressions are solved problems. Those issues are not buried in pages of heavily litigated patents, or in seven collective brains of world-class interface designers whose driveways are presently occupied by cash-filled trucks sent over by frontier companies. This isn’t some long lost art that requires archaeologists to decipher. This feels like carelessness and laziness in face of basic UI engineering; in a likely internally-motivated effort to refresh the interface, the team threw an entire nursery worth of babies with the bathwater.

It’s not just about disservice to craft. It’s not even about disrespect for change management, trivialization of institutional memory, and disinvestment in quality assurance. This isn’t only, in Tog’s words above, “sloppy coding.” This is also a failure of imagination. It’s not that hard to picture people spending 8+ hours a day going through these windows for years if not decades to come, and it’s not hard to add and multiply all of these microfrustrations into numbers that should make one pause. With these many paper cuts, you need to start thinking about establishing a blood bank. How can you expect people to use a professional tool effectively if you throw in so many roadblocks?

In an internally-motivated UI refresh like this, you not only need to meet users where they used to be, you also ideally have to give them more to cover for the pains of change. Sometimes that “more” is better storytelling – here, no one even tried to really sell me on the new interface – but ideally “more” means actual felt improvements. I’m not on the team, but it’s not that hard to imagine some of them:

• Change those annoying modals that announce typing errors into something lighter and more modern, like attached tooltips.
• Add more comprehensive equation support so e.g. I could type “660*2” like I can in increasingly more and more apps.
• Announce the invisible shortcuts that already exist, or add a few ones.
• Add a bit of memory/​stickiness to some options (like Use Legacy in the first window), so I don’t have to keep toggling them over and over again.

I started this post talking about a setting, and there is another setting in Photoshop, buried on the last page – you can turn off this “modern user interface” that feels so underbaked the moment you start actually using it. But is that a real solution to anything? Toggle it on and the existential dread comes back: Am I going to miss out on some good stuff? When is the hammer going to drop? It’s not a tax break, it’s only a tax extension.

Even this view above shows so little care, it would ordinarily deserve its own post.

I’ve loved Chris Staecker’s videos about calculating devices and machinery for years now, and I finally have a reason to link to one here. This is a fascinating 12-minute review of The Kensington Adding Machine from 1993:

It’s a fun (as always) watch, but as a UX designer, it’s also interesting to try to figure out what are the underpinnings of the things Staecker lists as strange from today’s perspective.

I believe that “CE/T” (clearing and totaling) coexisting on one key is a nod to professional accounting use of adding machines where you wouldn’t want to accidentally enter something into the record twice – so totaling also automatically resets the value and prevents you from making a mistake.

I also believe the strange [+=] rule is only because the keypad has to look forward at the same time it is looking back: it needs to serve as a universal computer keypad where [+] and [=] are separate key, but it also needs to pretend to be an adding machine where one key served both purposes.

(You can spot that the back of the box just allows you to swap the [+] key to be something else.)

Overall, the video is a fascinating tale of an “in-betweener” product that was stuck not just in the middle of a transition from physical devices into apps, but also at the intersection of calculators and adding machines (once two very different lines of products), themselves trying to learn from each other. It also serves as a great reminder that skeuomorphism is not just about visuals and sounds, but also behaviours: tearing off the tape, details of specific keys, nuances of rounding.

It’s not a thing of the past, either. In my post about determinism I linked to Apple’s recent travails with the deterministic Clear button (part one, two, and three). A few years ago, Apple also changed the built-in iPhone calculator from its “desktop calculator” roots to a more modern model where you get to input the entire equation before you see the result. But that change had bigger consequences; for example the [=] key could no longer repeat an addition. People complained, and Apple added it back – but the change feels incompatible with the new system and potentially confusing:

Elsewhere, the entire iPhone is an in-betweener, as the keypad coming from calculators is incompatible with the keypad coming from phones.

At this point it seems the calculator keypad will win, but transition has been over a century in the making. Staecker’s video is a good reminder how important, but also hard it is when you try to make these transitions happen faster.

A thoughtful 26-minute talk by Imani Joy, the solitary full-time designer on Mastodon, reflecting on her nine months there:

It’s an interesting peek behind the curtain at designing for this particular space, and the many unenviable constraints: lack of data, care for privacy, tension between Mastodon’s power-user early adopters (“they are values-driven, they want control, they’ll tolerate a lot of the clunkiness of the Fediverse”) and “mainstream audience [that] expects polish.”

At some point, design needs to be authoritative, but how do you combine that with wanting the process to be as inclusive as possible? The product itself is a federation of various servers that can exert their own control – so how do you bring it all together under one neat umbrella for the user? (Also a challenge for Android in comparison with iOS.) The mainstream design has certain fashion-y tendencies. How to make sure you don’t lose yourself while chasing them, but also not to stay ossified out of fear of making changes? (Wikipedia, Internet Archive, and other similar places look and behave a certain way, after all, and it’s not usually because of lack of talent to “modernize” them.)

The most interesting thing to me was this:

It’s easy to talk in terms of who to optimize for. Things get harder when you start to articulate who you won’t optimize for, what trade-offs you must make in pursuit of your goal, and who you’re going to risk letting down along the way. What the team needed from me more than anything was not the probabilities, not the usability findings, not the story of who we’re making happy. They needed to hear who will choose to disappoint and why. And I told them that building the best experience on Mastodon means that we’ll solve for the extremes, but we won’t center them. And sure, we do risk frustrating some power users who want absolute control over their profiles, but that risk is necessary to optimize the experience also for browsing users.

When we were working at Figma in 2019 shipping an update to text line height algorithms (moving them from the way print does things to the way web does things), I started an internal document called “The new line height and its discontents,” where myself and the team deliberately wrote out who will be most annoyed about the changes, and why. We listed our arguments, workarounds, even “deal sweeteners” (“but look at this other thing that will get better as a result!”), but we also tried very hard to be candid with ourselves. Some people were not going to be happy no matter what we do or say. Do we know precisely who these people are and are we okay with that? I’d recommend that approach for any change-management project, rather than keeping fingers crossed or toxic positivity.

Joy so far worked on quote posts and new profiles, and I appreciated her ending the talk on a note of recognition for these kinds of projects in these kinds of settings:

I know that we’re building something that will continue to be imperfect, but it doesn’t have to be perfect to make a positive difference in the world.

You can tell the story of Mac OS via the story of its settings, and the same is likely true of Photoshop.

Recently, spelunking in the preferences of Photoshop 2025, I found this extremely curious thing:

To transcribe:

Focus mode limits the appearance of certain optional user interface messages so that you can use Photoshop with fewer interruptions.

With this option enabled:

• The Welcome screen will not include “what’s new” feature descriptions
• Blue in-product alerts promoting discovery and use of certain features will be suppressed
• What’s New will not auto start when Photoshop is launched
• The color mode preference will be auto set to “Neutral Color Mode”

The three first options should be self explanatory. Neutral Color Mode is sort of the “graphite” option of Photoshop’s UI where the (already rare?) accented blue elements become white instead.

As much as I’ll always applaud a piece of software working on annoying you less, this is all so very strange. I don’t mean that the last option seems unrelated, and the first and third one kind of mutually exclusive… but just the very idea of shoving it in as an opt-in in the last tab of settings, under “technology previews”, and asking people for feedback feels peculiar to me.

Not to spoil the outcome, but even this “technology preview” is completely gone in the updated Photoshop 2026. I wonder if this is fallout from a mangled launch (even for those few who I imagined turned it on, the option didn’t live up to its promise), but also perhaps a political fight inside Adobe between product and growth teams? I bet we’ll never know.

I do not personally have a grand unified theory of how to explain things or announce features in products because it’s so situational, and I understand that especially Photoshop given its age might be the hardest difficulty level. I’d personally prefer to receive announcements of new features over email so I can read them at my leisure, and with each new thing or change linked to a playground that would allow me to experience it in the best way – but I can’t say with any certainty that this would work for everyone.

But I would expect people on the Photoshop team to have more experience here, and this focus mode approach just feels a bit… naïve to me. My two warm takes: 1. People aren’t generally as frustrated with how features are announced, but with what features are. 2. Why wouldn’t everyone deserve the gift of focus?

Found listening to this 2-hour episode of The Talk Show podcast with Daniel Jalkut very enjoyable, and more thoughtful than just “bitching about Tahoe.”

One particular thing that stood out to me was a discussion of shame and embarrassment and pride that all come with shipping software. And looking to Apple itself for direction that the company is not really providing, as many of their apps are not using the new Liquid Glass interface – or when they do, they use it in ways that are inconsistent or disappointing.

Some other good themes:

• it’s okay not to change something if the alternative is change for the sake of change, a posture Apple’s hardware team feels more comfortable with than Apple’s software team
• internal Apple politics and the story of the Control Strip
• loved this phrase from Gruber about the macOS’s Tahoe release: “they vandalized it.”

Also, this:

A fair criticism of Apple over the years is that sometimes fixing 50 little misaligned text boxes or divider bars… using your time to do that, is time better spent than adding another user feature.