My fundamental problem is that the new windowing model isn't properly exposed in the API. Also, it has some problems. Open a book, then open all files in book. Especially if it has many files, you get funny results -- the document windows nest within each other. I've raised this issue a number of times, and nobody seems to notice. I can't be the only person experiencing it. And forget about using Maker documents as a GUI for your plugins. There's just not enough control.
I think the plan is that you're supposed to have all windows fully expanded so it looks more like an IDE (or RoboHelp). I guess that's cool, but you often want to see docs side by side so you can copy/paste between them. I suspect the GUI changes were made by formula, rather than using a real design process based on: * User Profiles * Problem Statements * Use Cases * Feature Design It would be interesting to know how many authors want to work in a system that behaves like a coding IDE. It would be interesting to know how many separate use cases the new GUI explicitly addresses. Or how many problems it fixes. In short, what *are* the wins for this new GUI, compared to the cost? It could well be that the new GUI is well worth it, and I'm just an old fart. OTOH, if the plan was to just "make it look like other Adobe products" without any underlying design, then it's not surprising that legacy users can't find logic behind the new look and feel. Most other Adobe products are designed for things other than text. I Iguess I need to work with the ID GUI before I make any more pronouncements... cud