Artificial limitation to script fu ?
This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.
This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.
| mailman.3.1231704005.511.gi... | 07 Oct 20:27 | |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Alchemie foto\\grafiche | 12 Jan 13:52 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | David Gowers | 12 Jan 14:13 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Martin Nordholts | 12 Jan 19:22 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Kevin Cozens | 13 Jan 00:12 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | saulgoode@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com | 13 Jan 01:00 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Liam R E Quin | 13 Jan 03:45 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Michael Schumacher | 13 Jan 10:48 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Martin Nordholts | 13 Jan 18:53 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Michael Natterer | 12 Jan 22:08 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Sven Neumann | 13 Jan 22:50 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Alchemie foto\\grafiche | 14 Jan 00:55 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | saulgoode@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com | 14 Jan 07:24 |
| R: Gimp-developer Digest, Vol 76, Issue 16 | Alchemie foto\\grafiche | 12 Jan 15:28 |
| mailman.236334.1231856033.1... | 07 Oct 20:27 | |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Alchemie foto\\grafiche | 14 Jan 01:53 |
| Artificial limitation to script fu ? | Michael Schumacher | 14 Jan 10:21 |
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
I believe there are some "artificial" limitation to the potential of script fu, derived by the exigence to "categorize " the scripts in 2 main categories: "Previous toolbox-scripts" that create a new imagine "imagine script" that should modify the active imagine
I suppose that division had some reasons to be with the old gimp layout.
But now ,after Gimp 2.4 i cannot imagine any reason to maintain such "artificial" distinction.
"artificial" because a script may do both and more Same script may work on the active layer,and/or create a new layer, and/or create a new imagine... Stressing the point , in general a good flexible script SHOULD do more, allowing to chose most logic input (except for "render" script" )and the output options
As now if a script is classified as "image script" users may overlook the fact that may also create a new imagine , because imagine scripts are not supposed to do that
As now a good and flexible script that can output on a new imagine, Or/and in a new layer of the active imagine or/and on the active layer or drawable will be always erroneously classified since there is not yet in Gimp a script category as "Good scripts without unneeded artificial limitations "
That is mostly evident with all the "Logos" and "alpha to logo " scripts
2 Groups of almost identical scripts with same names (I may assure here that most users will notice only 1 group, and ignore the other. or if by chance someone will notice the other group will believe that a different link for the same identical function since the names are identical)
Solve that chaos of the "Logos" -"Alpha to Logo" script may be become much easier if there is a commune agreement that a "LOGO_RELATED" script should allow to output the result
1) as new imagine (with a option to have Transparency as background ... not only a solid color as now)
2) as new layer(s) pasted on the active imagine
3) as modification of the active layer
4) any combination of the options above
This at least for the scripts to be bundled in Gimp, then the authors of extra scripts have obviously the freedom to offer less options if they wish, but they will get no more artificial limitation to the potential of their scripts..and no more the risk to have their script mis-categorized
(again limitation are more for users then for the scripts...if a script is a Imagine-script is supposed no to to create a new imagine, so most users will not look for such option even if available)
please consider that i am not expert in script fu, i wrote only 2 scripts and that was possible only with a great help.
But somehow i felt this a point to be discussed, if solved i believe also many usability issues of the Gimp "Logos" and "Alpha to logo" scripts may be solved much more easily (hopefully merging the 2 groups )
PS: Peter Sikking noticed that File/ Create/Logos and that Filter/Alpha to Logo twins Menus full of synonymous ?
Was some comment from the GUI redisign Team?
There are already some changes planned ?
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Alchemie fotografiche wrote:
I believe there are some "artificial" limitation to the potential of script fu, derived by the exigence to "categorize " the scripts in 2 main categories: "Previous toolbox-scripts" that create a new imagine "imagine script" that should modify the active imagine
I want to make this clear: In English language 'create a new imagine' is nonsense. imagine is a verb, as in 'I imagine I am eating a juicy watermelon'; it's an action, not a thing.
'image' is the noun, you can 'create a new image' or 'modify the active image'; All of the instances I have seen where you used the word 'imagine', 'image' was the appropriate word.
Personally, I often find your use of 'imagine' confusing, so I think you could improve the readability of your posts and how many people respond by making this change.
I suppose that division had some reasons to be with the old gimp layout.
But now ,after Gimp 2.4 i cannot imagine any reason to maintain such "artificial" distinction.
"artificial" because a script may do both and more Same script may work on the active layer,and/or create a new layer, and/or create a new imagine... Stressing the point , in general a good flexible script SHOULD do more, allowing to chose most logic input (except for "render" script" )and the output options
As now if a script is classified as "image script" users may overlook the fact that may also create a new imagine , because imagine scripts are not supposed to do that
As now a good and flexible script that can output on a new imagine, Or/and in a new layer of the active imagine or/and on the active layer or drawable will be always erroneously classified since there is not yet in Gimp a script category as "Good scripts without unneeded artificial limitations "
That is mostly evident with all the "Logos" and "alpha to logo " scripts
2 Groups of almost identical scripts with same names (I may assure here that most users will notice only 1 group, and ignore the other. or if by chance someone will notice the other group will believe that a different link for the same identical function since the names are identical)
Solve that chaos of the "Logos" -"Alpha to Logo" script may be become much easier if there is a commune agreement that a "LOGO_RELATED" script should allow to output the result
1) as new imagine (with a option to have Transparency as background ... not only a solid color as now)
2) as new layer(s) pasted on the active imagine
3) as modification of the active layer
4) any combination of the options above
This at least for the scripts to be bundled in Gimp, then the authors of extra scripts have obviously the freedom to offer less options if they wish, but they will get no more artificial limitation to the potential of their scripts..and no more the risk to have their script mis-categorized
(again limitation are more for users then for the scripts...if a script is a Imagine-script is supposed no to to create a new imagine, so most users will not look for such option even if available)
This is true. Personally I ignore script-fu.. There are some useful script-fu scripts, but most scripts seem to be about things like rendering logos, which is something I'll never use.
please consider that i am not expert in script fu, i wrote only 2 scripts and that was possible only with a great help.
But somehow i felt this a point to be discussed, if solved i believe also many usability issues of the Gimp "Logos" and "Alpha to logo" scripts may be solved much more easily (hopefully merging the 2 groups )
In theory, your idea sounds like a good improvement. As I said, I don't use this 'logo generating' type of script, so someone else who does might be able to offer you more useful feedback.
David
R: Gimp-developer Digest, Vol 76, Issue 16
"David Gowers"
wrote
I want to make this clear: In English language 'create a new imagine' is nonsense. imagine is a verb, as in 'I imagine I am eating a juicy watermelon'; it's an action, not a thing.
'image' is the noun, you can 'create a new image' or 'modify the active >image'; All of the instances I have seen where you used the word 'imagine', 'image' was the appropriate word.
Personally, I often find your use of 'imagine' confusing, so I think you could improve the readability of your posts and how many people respond by making this change.
OOPSS..you are right,thank to point this out Too bad i can't correct my previous post i will avoid in the future
I hope my poor english will not destroy the quality my arguments
Many ,if not most of the younger users of Gimp,begin to use gimp to create Sigs ,so they must immediately face this kind of usability issues.
I want make clear that i do not expect the Gimp staff spending energy and wasting time to fix that..i hope "old mess" be no a impolite word
What i hope is a agreement on the principle: a division between Image-Scripts and Toolbox scripts has no more sense now. Since same script may offer the all the options needed, there is no reason to split a good ,flexible script, in 2 scripts each offering less then half of the needed features.
Then if there is a agreement on this point most of the work of updating may be done by volunteers, as was done by volunteers (and result grouped by FX-Foundry ) the work to update the custom script from gimp 2.2 to 2.4
Just the guideline has to be set i believe a script should offer all the most logic options for input (if not a render script) and for output
And in case of "Logos-related" scripts should have options to use as input a text layer AND/OR to create a new text on the fly with user's chosen font and to output the result where the user wish.
What prevent this seems no limitations of script fu, but exigence of categorization that may be now obsolete
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
Alchemie foto\grafiche wrote:
I believe there are some "artificial" limitation to the potential of script fu, derived by the exigence to "categorize " the scripts in 2 main categories: "Previous toolbox-scripts" that create a new imagine "imagine script" that should modify the active imagine
I suppose that division had some reasons to be with the old gimp layout.
But now ,after Gimp 2.4 i cannot imagine any reason to maintain such "artificial" distinction.
[...]
I agree with basically all your points but to be honest I can't see why anyone would want to use those scripts at all. In my opinion these alpha-to-logo scripts all give unprofessionally looking results (at least all those I have tried). The best solution IMO is to remove them from the vanilla distribution but that could be considered breaking plug-in backwards compatibility so probably this won't happen.
BR, Martin
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:52 +0000, Alchemie foto\grafiche wrote:
I believe there are some "artificial" limitation to the potential of script fu, derived by the exigence to "categorize " the scripts in 2 main categories: "Previous toolbox-scripts" that create a new imagine "imagine script" that should modify the active imagine
(snip)
There is no such limitation any more. Any script can register anywhere and do anything.
Maybe I misunderstand what "limitation" you mean exactly, please elaborate.
ciao,
--mitch
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
Martin Nordholts wrote:
In my opinion these
alpha-to-logo scripts all give unprofessionally looking results (at least all those I have tried).
Feel free to suggest ways to improve the output from these scripts. Or is it the general effect the scripts are going for which you don't like alpha to logo or not?
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
If I understand correctly, Alchemie's complaint is that there are logo creation scripts (under /File/Create/Logo) which are quite similar to the scripts under /Filters/Alpha To Logo). The main difference between the two is that the creation script has text entry controls in the dialog and they do not permit the logo being created on a new layer in the active image.
If I am understanding this correctly then I personally don't see a way of improving (resolving?) this situation. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the "filters" and the "creators", nor is it always logical that there be one. Also, even though the /File/Create/Logo menu is in the image window, there is no guarantee that there is an image open.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding; if so, it might be helpful if an actual change were proposed.
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 19:00 -0500, saulgoode@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote: [...]
Perhaps I am misunderstanding; if so, it might be helpful if an actual change were proposed.
How about a new package, gimp-goodies, that contains these scripts, maybe more, and maybe some brushes and textures.
Advantages - mainline gimp package is smaller; release cycles can be different... people perceive that there's an extra package of goodies...
Disadvantages - it's work to do the separation, and to make a new package. The goodies package would need to be kept in sync for translation purposes, too.
Liam
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
If I understand correctly, Alchemie's complaint is that there are logo creation scripts (under /File/Create/Logo) which are quite similar to the scripts under /Filters/Alpha To Logo).
Just to make sure: does everyone know that it is the same script that does register both menu entries?
Michael
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
Kevin Cozens wrote:
Martin Nordholts wrote:
In my opinion these
alpha-to-logo scripts all give unprofessionally looking results (at least all those I have tried).Feel free to suggest ways to improve the output from these scripts. Or is it the general effect the scripts are going for which you don't like alpha to logo or not?
It is not as much the quality of the output as it is the quality of the infrastructure onto which these scripts live. For example fixing previews of the effect of these scripts in a good way (i.e. realtime) would be very hard, maybe even impossible. They simply do not have a future.
- Martin
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:52 +0000, Alchemie foto\grafiche wrote:
I believe there are some "artificial" limitation to the potential of script fu, derived by the exigence to "categorize " the scripts in 2 main categories:
"Previous toolbox-scripts" that create a new imagine "imagine script" that should modify the active imagine
There is no such distinction built into Script-Fu.
But now ,after Gimp 2.4 i cannot imagine any reason to maintain such "artificial" distinction.
"artificial" because a script may do both and more
If you actually look at the code, you will notice that these are the same scripts registering in two locations. There is no artificial distinction being made here. This is fully intentional. To be honest, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Sven
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
Sven Neumann
If you actually look at the code, you will notice that these are the
same scripts registering in two locations. There is no artificial
distinction being made here. This is fully intentional.
i look to the code i notice 2 different scripts with same name the fact that both are written on the same file (i.e. "neon logo.scm") do not seems to be much relevant
My point is that if i call "neon logo.scm" from Filter/Alpha to Logo" i may output the result on a active image that is what i wish, but i can't chose font, font size, font color. I may only use as input a text already done with a transparent background.
On the contrary if i call the "same" "neon logo.scm" from File /Create/Logos i can well chose Font Type, colour and size so is fine for the input
But then i can paste the result on my opened image, first i have to remove the background layer because in the option for background color absence of color=transparency was not included
Then i must save the image and only after all this steps i may finally add my logo to my image
That seems to me a Usability's Nightmare
My point is that the script should allow
1 to chose font 2 to paste painlessly the result on a opened image
Now if i call a Logo script from File/Create/Logos i may achieve point 1 ..but not 2 , no way
On the contrary if i call the "same" script from Filter/alpha to Logo then point 2 is achieved, but no way for point 1
OR i may chose font OR i may paste the result on my image, i can't do both with that LOGO script.
To be honest, I
don't understand the point you are trying to make.
My point?
I suppose a minimum requirement for a Logo script is allow me to chose a font, e Effect for that font,and to paste the result on a opened image
You may check and see that none of the dozen of Logo script included in Gimp allow this.
And this because the scripts are splitted in 2 ,
1 group offer a good input option (=allow Chose the font and the text)but poor output option the other group has poor input option (text has to be ready on a transparent layer)and poor output option (it can't output on a new image) but at least i may paste the output on the opened image
This is fully intentional.
If what i described was done intentionally i will fear Sadism
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
From: "Michael Schumacher"
Just to make sure: does everyone know that it is the same script that does register both menu entries?
Michael
Not exactly the same script
Same".scm" file for Logo-related script contains 2 script
A.. hem ex_Toolbar script that is available now from File /create /logos menu that has good input to chose the font and the text for the effect BUT has severe limitation to output the result (can't be pasted without fiddling on a chosen image, even if was the active image
The Twin, that is NOT the same script but has the same name, may be called from Filter/alpha To Logo
In this case the script do not allow to chose Font or text, but allow to paste the result on the active imagine
Basically or i can't chose font or i can't paste the result on the active image
Just to make sure: does everyone know that it is the same script that does register both menu entries?
I wish that, i wish was the same script offering all the needed options
But that kind of script for exigence to Categorize Script Fu was splitted in 2 half script each half has severe limits because miss the option available ONLY for the other half of the script
The fact that are on the same file do not make 2 script a single one
I may paste 20 script on same file giving them 20 different menu registration path but always the same name..that will not trasform 20 script in the "same script"
Only really merging that 2 half script in the same script will solve
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
Quoting "Alchemie foto\grafiche" :
If what i described was done intentionally i will fear Sadism
Uncalled for!
The GIMP developers have put a LOT of time into considering how to present dialogs, what controls should be provided, how to describe those controls, and how to place them in the menus so that the user obtains some intuitive feel for what the results may be.
I realize English is not your primary language but that is no excuse for accusing developers of willfully making GIMP painful to use. Even if your statement is partly in jest, it is not constructive towards communicating ways to improve operations of GIMP.
FWIW, I feel your suggestion bears little merit, and would in fact present the user with unnecessary and confusing options. Additionally it would require hundreds of hours of effort by the interface designers, developers, documenters, and translators.
Artificial limitation to script fu ?
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:53:46 +0000 (GMT) Von: "Alchemie foto\\\\grafiche"
An: gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU Betreff: Re: [Gimp-developer] Artificial limitation to script fu ?
From: "Michael Schumacher"
Just to make sure: does everyone know that it is the same script that does register both menu entries?
Michael
Not exactly the same script
Same".scm" file for Logo-related script contains 2 script
I stopped reading here. Please describe your level of knowledge in Script-Fu before you do continue in this thread.
Michael
