As a loyal user of Adobe programs for years now, I have become fairly adequate in using programs like InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop. Adobe offers more useful programs like AfterEffects, Lightroom, Dreamweaver, and Audition, but I find that their top three essential programs for a graphic designer would be the first three mentioned earlier. While going through the short and sweet list of Ben Shneiderman’s eight golden rules of interface design, each rule seemed to bring back flashes of the programs. The majority, if not all, of these golden rules are applicable to the construction of Adobe programs. The popularity of Adobe programs usage definitely is based on the merit of their well designed user interface. Since I am most familiar and comfortable with InDesign, I decided to run through Shneiderman’s rules as a sort of check-list to see if the program fulfilled his guidelines. First, the consistency of the language and terminology used within InDesign is definitely consistent not only within itself, but also carries over into Illustrator and Photoshop. However, users of Photoshop will find that although all three programs share terminologies, the process of executing an action is varied. We can compare an example like if we were to drop in an image into InDesign and Photoshop. In InDesign we can easily crop and maneuver the image to whichever size we would like without damaging its quality and original image size. Photoshop makes this process a bit more hidden to the user meaning that the user will have to actually change the image size, calling for a longer process. Although between the programs the language and actions may not be consistent, I think that each individual program is well-designed in terms of the user interface. The challenge for Adobe would be to better connect the consistencies between these programs so that the user can easily transition into each program masterfully. Shortcuts are readily available within Adobe programs and are clearly labeled next to each tool for future reference. These shortcuts are definite help for advanced users and lessens the amount work time. The informative feedback is fairly consistent and frequent, but I think the responses can be more simplified and helpful. The messages are usually a bit vague and uses terminology that would not be familiar to a beginner user. The sense of closure in Adobe is acceptable, but it would definitely help if the program utilized more sounds as a part of their feedback. Usually it only responds with a error sound if I do something wrong, but it might be worthwhile to implement some sounds when you do something right. Error handling is fairly simple in InDesign and users can easily utilize layers or keyboard shortcuts to undo a certain action. Adobe is definitely given less credit than it deserves as an interface for highly critical designers. I always hear designers complaining and even cussing out the programs while using them, but in the end they make great work through Adobe. I think that Adobe has done a fantastic job in managing to brand their identity so strongly, while still keeping the user interface design objective as possible. When I open up InDesign, I only see a blank canvas surrounded by tools. The aesthetic of its design does not inhibit me from creating my ideas. I think this is an important factor when it comes to user interface design, especially for an interactive system developed for users to create and design projects in.