Layer entry - too little space?
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.
| Layer entry - too little space? | Ilya Zakharevich | 21 Oct 02:54 |
| Layer entry - too little space? | Jason van Gumster | 21 Oct 03:32 |
| Layer entry - too little space? | Ilya Zakharevich | 21 Oct 05:08 |
Layer entry - too little space?
"The developer's vision" of GIMP UI directions complains that there is no space on a layer entry (one in the layers list) to show layer grouping. My observations on the topic:
a) Current layer entry contains too little info anyway. There is no indication of presence of a alpha channel (moreover, the layer-mode and transparency lock are shown on current layer only).
b) The left 40-50 pixels (or somesuch) are used to visualize 2 bits of information only.
c) To visualize groups, you need about extra 5 pixels per extra level of depth (ask me if one doesn't see how).
So a solution which immediately comes to mind is:
1) merge 3-4 bits of info into 1 icon (using transparent icons as layers ;-).
2) make this icon twice as narrow as each of the current wasteful visibility/move-lock icons.
This would free enough space to 4-5-deep layer group hierarchy. The other layers will have more space for names, or may be used with larger icons.
How to implement (2): make the eye to look to the right instead of "at me":
/
/\
< O This icon may be of 1:2 aspect.
\/
\
How to implement (1): make icons (decreasing order in z-layer)
"eye": black on transparent; "chain": gold on transparent, along left edge; "has alpha": usual checkerboard.
If desirable, one can also add "lock" icon in LR corner (for transparency locking), and/or "Layer mode" icon in the UR corner (e.g. red "ASCII-symbol for the arithmetic operation").
Both below eye in z-order.
[I do not think that "transparency locking" is needed to be visible on all layers - it influences only editing, and one cannot edit non-current layers ;-). However, "non-normal" layer-modes should better be visible on all layers.
======================================================= DEFECTS:
Currently, one can switch "chain" on/off by clicking on chain icon. With a merge, this should be controlled separately (e.g., the same way as "transparency locking"?).
What do you think? Ilya
Layer entry - too little space?
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
a) Current layer entry contains too little info anyway. There is no indication of presence of a alpha channel
I could be wrong here, but at least for me layers without an alpha channel are named in bold text.
As for the merging of icons, how do you handle toggling visibility/locking/chaining/etc? If you merge icons, that means you'd have to have a separate control elsewhere (although I suppose you could cycle through multiple states, but that would be annoying). This means you'd have to do two clicks to change any non-active layer's state (one click to activate and a second to change visibility, etc.) That makes things particularly troublesome for changes that users make to multiple layers at once, like visibility and chaining. You could make it so clicking certain parts of the icon toggle one of the states (e.g. click just the chain portion) but that kind of requires more precise clicking which can lead to incorrectly toggled states.
Granted, I'm a nobody here, but it seems to me like while your suggestion may reduce some visual clutter, it complicates matters for users and could easily slow them down. Either that or I'm simply not understanding... again. :)
-Jason
Layer entry - too little space?
On 2009-10-21, Jason van Gumster wrote:
a) Current layer entry contains too little info anyway. There is no indication of presence of a alpha channel
I could be wrong here, but at least for me layers without an alpha channel are named in bold text.
Might be. But you see that it being non-self-documenting is as good as having no indicator...
As for the merging of icons, how do you handle toggling visibility/locking/chaining/etc?
Addressed in the OP. Toggle-visibility is as now (click on composite icon). Toggle-chaining must be moved elsewhere; the OP suggests moving to near lock-transparencey (where, IMO, it belongs anyway). (It might be duplicated in a context menu of the icon too.)
Locking - I have no idea what you mean here...
This means you'd have to do two
clicks to change any non-active layer's state (one click to activate and a second to change visibility, etc.) That makes things particularly troublesome for changes that users make to multiple layers at once, like visibility and chaining.
Toggling visibility is a non-issue. Chaining MAY BE an issue (although I can't comment - I never needed chaining). If judged important enough, toggle-chaining on non-active layers may be also implemented as Alt-Click (would be self-documented if mentioned in right-mouse context menu).
Thanks, Ilya
