Actually, I think that converting .ATN into UXP panel will offer better protection. You can hide history. You can try to obfuscate code and workflow steps won’t be described in UI. So that would defeat non-devs. But there are still ways to listen to events made by other panels. That would be like action recording but not for manual work but someone else script. But it requires some skill. So I think that authors of .ATN actions should convert that and get rid of .ATN files for their own sake. If this would require zero skills then good for them.
1 Like
The trouble is that it has been a no-brainer for years. Actions (and their limitations, just as you summarize) have sat fully unattended by Adobe and in splendid isolation for a long time. Only developments taken independently - like the xtools initiative - have contributed to a better scope of application and improvements to automated processing…
This is exactly my own circumstance. I am fully supportive of the scheme which @kerrishotts has outlined. But, back to fundamentals, what I am saying is that Adobe needs to well understand the size of the warehouse already containing inventive and complex Actions.
p.s. there are examples where developers initially produced Action Sets for sale and then, based on user needs for simplification of the workflow, transcribed them to sit in CEP Extensions …
My guess is that Adobe already has a good understanding of what is on the market for actions.
It just doesn’t make sense to stop moving forward with better technology based on concerns for people selling unprotected actions on the old technology. It seems that the new system would offer much more protection for people… if they choose to use the new system.
I would like to think that you are correct. But I don’t recall seeing any tutorial material from Adobe’s in-house experts covering Action use and/or development in many years. And, where there is some coverage of specific image effect production directed at regular users, this has been coming from third-party sources (who have proven not so accomplished at automating the entire workflow … as an up-to-date example, see: Adobe Creative Cloud | Sign in)
I see this as more of an opportunity for people like yourself than anything else. Only a small percentage of action creators would even consider UXP. For the ones that do, it would truly separate them above the action crowd.
One thing with actions is there is so much redundancy floating around. It is difficult for the users to sort through them and know what the best options are between all of the similar actions. I think action integration into UXP could open up a big market for people such as yourself to separate your work from the work of people simply creating actions.
For myself, I have a stockpile of actions that I have never released just because I’ve been holding off waiting to put it into a plugin or scripts where it can’t be so easily copied. The problem is this takes a lot of time. It’s not nearly as simple as just recording actions. I really see the potential of embedding them in UXP. First, it would give the ability to build in adjustments, unlike what can be done with actions alone. Second, it is so simple to just create a basic UI that runs actions. even if there is a bit of logic involved with a few UI paramters. It is still so much simpler than embedding JS for everything.
2 Likes