Come on, guys...
From the link you provide:
"The CS6 link actually goes to a document that includes information about CS5, CS5.5/CS5.1, and CS6 versions of the application—all together. Unfortunately, there is no document for just the CS6 version of each application."
I just clicked on your link again.
Continued in parallel thread here:
That is the intent for the documentation for CS6: that it be in the same document as CS5 and CS5.1...
Every single Adobe executive up the chain of command who is even partially responsible for that astonishing, feeble-minded decision henceforth deserves the unqualifed epithet of idiot.
Waaaay beyond angry!
Wikipedia says that Adobe had 9925 employees as of 2009. I read a while back that only 69 of them work on the Photoshop development team, but have no idea if that includes the documentation team. I suspect not. Obviously no one from that team would have time to read this forum.
BTW Do any of the Adobe staff posting here know anything about this LINK (second from last paragraph)
So you opened and saved it, fine. But did you bother actually to read it?
What you have there is a disjointed collection of links to various non-Adobe and Adobe-sites describing some of the new features, stuck together on top of documentation for CS 5, CS 5.1 and CS5.5
It doesn't even have a bloody index, for Pete's sake!
It is a PDF, big deal, no one said it wasn't a lousy PDF. What I called you on was your including the damn link in a manner and in a thread that passes it off as the promised CS6-Only HELP documentation, which it categorically is not.
What we have a right to expect is the actual HELP files in PDF format, or a proper User Guide like there has been in the past, and which we can consult for each and every feature of CS6 without having to wonder whether each individual line or paragraph actually relates to CS6 and not to one of the three earlier versions included in that bloated blurb, which does not even remotely constitute adequate documentation.
Your post was particularly offensive and misleading because you personally claimed to have been reading it, while in reality you were just "opening and saving it" and all you can say about it is that "it is a PDF!" Well, wooptydoo to you!
One thing is being the messenger, and another one is being complicit in a shameful scam perpetrated by Adobe on their customers.
Adobe staff sounds far from happy about this. There's a startling admission in the other thread and a very restrained but unmistakable comment by an obviously unhappy Chris Cox.
Read posts 16 through 22 over there, please:The PDF photoshop_reference.pdf needs to be updated…
Apart from an introductory "What's new" section, the text and (blurry) images seem to be 99.99% CS5 documentation.
There is no need to be rude and abusive yourself either! Did I shout at you? -- "So you opened and saved it, fine. But did you bother actually to read it? " --
I was answering the original question in my original post!
"Your post was particularly offensive and misleading because you personally claimed to have been reading it, while in reality you were just "opening and saving it" and all you can say about it is that "it is a PDF!" Well, wooptydoo to you!"
Charming, very adult of you!
"One thing is being the messenger, and another one is being complicit in a shameful scam perpetrated by Adobe on their customers."
Get a life!!
You will obviously see this as a victory to yourself, if that pleases you then well done!
I do not intend to get into any further discussion with you regarding this anymore, you obviously have issues with Adobe over this and you treat me, a fellow human, the same! An apology for your rudeness would be nice, but I doubt you even think you have done anything wrong?
Of course I need a manual! Especially since I virtually skipped CS5, buying it at the last minute only to get CS6 for free.
But beside the actual need, I'm protesting as a matter of principle. A User Guide is implicit when a corporation sells a license to use an application, and the strange document they delivered just to make the "by June" deadline was a slap in the face.
This has put the last nail in the coffin of my customer relationship with Adobe.
I hesitate to reawaken the sleeping monster, but someone put this page full of offline Adobe help files in a flickr group I use.
In case anyone tries it, the Photoshop CS6 file is the same 18.85Mb PDF linked to through-out this thread.
[EDIT] All the CS6 documents I have checked from that list, refer to both CS6 and CS5, and even CS5.5 where applicable.
>I hesitate to reawaken the sleeping monster
I think a healthy nudge is in order. I just grabbed my "paper" version of the documentation from Photoshop v2 circa 1991 ( not CS2 ) and it puts the new PDFs to shame. Form and function has been lost in a medium that should be offering more flexibility with the PDF format. Produce a great example of how to use and design a PDF user guide. do better.
Oh you bring back memories!
I too miss my printed paper manuals, and still have all for PS, AI, PM, Type Align, Streamline, etc., going back to about the time that you mention.
Best that I ever saw was the old WordPerfect about ver. 1.5, from the 80's. It was a lovely ring-binder, that could open flat on the desk. For ever screen-cap, they used a matte varnish. Just lovely. About once per quarter, I got my addenda, and replaced the old pages with any corrections. Now, that IS the beauty of electronic, on-line Help Files - immediacy to corrections. No more waiting for the postman, and no more removing/inserting correction pages.
PDF's are almost as flexible as the on-line Help, and nearly as immediate. I see wisdom there. Though I liked the Indexes in the printed manuals, Search is obviously more powerful with electronic files - so long as you know the word to Search for. Still, I miss my printed manuals.
Hope that all forms of the Help Files get done, and uploaded, for all of the CS6 programs. I cannot recall ever having these sorts of problems with any previous release.
It's the height of irony that a company which produces leading software for creating publications is so third-rate at producing documentation for their own software.
Pure speculation on my part, but I would venture that it is not just a matter of re-writing for CS6, and publishing it, but adding all the necessary, and possibly different documentation for the Creative Cloud delivery too. I have a feeling that a lot of "midnight oil" is being burned by the documentation teams.
I am just wondering how much impact the large staff-layoffs at Adobe at the end of last year have had on the current debacle over the CS6 Documentation?
The quality of the content in the current edition of the User's Manual (in PDF format) is deplorable and this is particularly hard on new Users of Photoshop who have not only had to pay full-price but have also had little previous experience in using this expensive and complex software.
Photoshop Users are doubly screwed because Peachpit Press has apparently declined to publish a new edition of the one really comprehensive guide: "Real World Photoshop CS6".