2012/1/4 wwp :

1) you have only one image opened. No tab is shown. 2) you have two or more images opened, several tabs are shown.

Switching from situation 1) to 2) inserts what we can call a tab bar (tab widgets) and stretches down the image view to a narrower size. What the user sees is a clunky, chaning UI layer, widgets are inserted (might flicker a bit) and the global working area is rearranged - possible without respect to the visual arrangements made by the user.

Now switching from situation 2) to 1): same notes as above. Plus: if you were closing another tab but the current one, the current view will be resized (stretched up), what you now see is not what you were seeing before closing that other tab. This is even more sensible when the image fills the window.

IMO all this is not friendly, I dislike flickering and self-rearranging stuff, and most of all: it makes me feel that the visual working area is *unstable* and not respecting my view settings.

Hi again and thanks for the great clarification. I completely agree, there should be no flickering or re-arranging of layouts. The only change should be the insertion/removal of the tab bar (without moving any images in the screen coordinate system). Unfortunately I don't have the time to write the code to fix this :( Anyone else that want to take a shot might want to look how this is solved when Windows -> Hide Docks is toggled.

/ Martin

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:

Hi again and thanks for the great clarification. I completely agree, there should be no flickering or re-arranging of layouts. The only change should be the insertion/removal of the tab bar (without moving any images in the screen coordinate system). Unfortunately I don't have the time to write the code to fix this :( Anyone else that want to take a shot might want to look how this is solved when Windows -> Hide Docks is toggled.

I may take a look at it. Let's see if I understood the goal: Make tab bar show and disapear without canvas and anything on it moving. Correct? It sounds like the intuitive and nice way to do it.

2012/1/4 wwp :

Hello Alexia,

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:09:47 +0200 Alexia Death wrote:

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:

Hi again and thanks for the great clarification. I completely agree, there should be no flickering or re-arranging of layouts. The only change should be the insertion/removal of the tab bar (without moving any images in the screen coordinate system). Unfortunately I don't have the time to write the code to fix this :( Anyone else that want to take a shot might want to look how this is solved when Windows -> Hide Docks is toggled.

I may take a look at it. Let's see if I understood the goal: Make tab bar show and disapear without canvas and anything on it moving. Correct? It sounds like the intuitive and nice way to do it.

This will (should) be solved if showing the tab bar is always TRUE. Meaning, showing it also when only 1 document is open; I guess it's useless (but harmless) to show it when zero document is open.

When only 1 document is open, showing the tab bar wastes precious vertical screen real estate. We should not solve this by always showing the tab bar.

/ Martin

I think the same as Martin.

99% of time I work on one document. For me those few pixels are more useful than non-flickering window, especially because current tabs are big :)

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, wwp wrote:

Anyway, it's not because you work on one document 99% of the time that 99% of the users do so.

People who create original art(painters for example) work mostly on single canvas with lots of docks on the sides using tab to show and hide them. this is no less valid use-case than yours. I would even argue, that your usecase is quite rare, because you hover between one and may images. Photo manipulation use-case as a rule assumes several documents open at all times and photo-correction usually just the one.

In another RFE to the bug tracker, I suggested to move tabs to the left, instead of to the top. Since quite all screens are wider than high, this makes way less space lost (at least the impact is less sensible).

Docks in gimp are all vertical only. I personally feel that my horizontal space is much more cramped than vertical if I want to keep visible the few essential docks I need. It's so cramped that I usually end up with a barely square or even slightly portrait work area. The tab bar is also seen as a transitory feature. In the future the tab bar will be replaced by "image parade" concept and its quite possible its position and size will be customizable...

--Alexia

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM, wwp wrote:

In another RFE to the bug tracker, I suggested to move tabs to the left, instead of to the top.

This is what I call abomination unto usability.

Vertical tab captions are barely readable. Whoever thinks this is a good solution needs a good night's sleep, a cold shower and a cup of tea in the morning.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, wwp wrote:

Vertical tab captions are barely readable. Whoever thinks this is a good solution needs a good night's sleep, a cold shower and a cup of tea in the morning.

Abomination.. does this post turn to trolling now?

Your second remark started interestingly, but since the tab contents is not text but an image,

Wrong :) Please check facts: both text, text and icon and, since 2.7.x automatic choice based on available space are possible.

I don't think it's less readable vertically than horizontally, within less than one day of use any brain that doesn't lack flexibility could get to it. I must admit that a thumbnail in the tab widget doesn't look very nice, though, as some space is wasted. Doesn't fit very well!
Anyway, this seems to be quite subjective. And it would be nice if you could tell your opinion without using extreme terms and missing respect to other people ;-).

It is entirely up to you whether you choose to see respect to other people or not.

People should not need to train themselves doing things that are against common sense. This is simply bad design.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, wwp wrote:

Vertical tab captions are barely readable. Whoever thinks this is a good solution needs a good night's sleep, a cold shower and a cup of tea in the morning.

Abomination.. does this post turn to trolling now?

Your second remark started interestingly, but since the tab contents is not text but an image,

Wrong :) Please check facts: both text, text and icon and, since 2.7.x automatic choice based on available space are possible.

He is talking about the image tabs, not the dock ones ;)

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Alexia Death wrote:

He is talking about the image tabs, not the dock ones ;)

Oh well, silly me. Thanks for pointing out :)

Not sure about that one either, but then again no strong feelings against it (yet).

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 14:14 +0100, wwp wrote: [...]

The waste is there when you edit several documents, I hardly see what justifies it less when you edit one only.

The tabs are currently (or recently at least) always shown in full-screen mode; showing a tab in full-screen mode for a single image would be unfortunate.

For my part my screen is wider than it is tall, so I'd risk being called an abomination :-) and happily have the image tabs on one side or another - maybe the "image ribbon" will be a dock, and solve this that way.

Liam

On 01/04/2012 05:23 AM, Przemyslaw Golab wrote:

I think the same as Martin.

99% of time I work on one document. For me those few pixels are more useful than non-flickering window, especially because current tabs are big :)

+1 This is something I've been mulling over in general for a long time. Monitors used to be near square, but now they are all MUCH wider than they are high. Somehow we need to use less valuable vertical space and more horizontal space for UI elements. The problem comes in when you have text involved. While you COULD have tabs down the side with the text rotated appropriately, people wouldn't like it. They like to read normally. Hmmmm.

Patrick

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 16:20 -0800, Patrick Horgan wrote:

On 01/04/2012 05:23 AM, Przemyslaw Golab wrote:

I think the same as Martin.

99% of time I work on one document. For me those few pixels are more useful than non-flickering window, especially because current tabs are big :)

+1 This is something I've been mulling over in general for a long time. Monitors used to be near square, but now they are all MUCH wider than they are high. Somehow we need to use less valuable vertical space and more horizontal space for UI elements. The problem comes in when you have text involved. While you COULD have tabs down the side with the text rotated appropriately, people wouldn't like it. They like to read normally. Hmmmm.

Just to make life more interesting, the rotated direction differs depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on. USA likes text to read from top to bottom, Europe likes text to read from bottom to top. Just look at the spines of books in your library.

Actually, the difference is between individual countries in Europe; German and French books are upside-down in my library, English and Dutch books are right side up along with American books ;-)

Eric

On 01/04/2012 08:08 PM, Jeff Trefftzs wrote:

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 16:20 -0800, Patrick Horgan wrote:

On 01/04/2012 05:23 AM, Przemyslaw Golab wrote:

I think the same as Martin.

99% of time I work on one document. For me those few pixels are more useful than non-flickering window, especially because current tabs are big :)

+1 This is something I've been mulling over in general for a long time. Monitors used to be near square, but now they are all MUCH wider than they are high. Somehow we need to use less valuable vertical space and more horizontal space for UI elements. The problem comes in when you have text involved. While you COULD have tabs down the side with the text rotated appropriately, people wouldn't like it. They like to read normally. Hmmmm.

Just to make life more interesting, the rotated direction differs depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on. USA likes text to read from top to bottom, Europe likes text to read from bottom to top. Just look at the spines of books in your library.

Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2012 schrub Jeff Trefftzs:

[...]

Just to make life more interesting, the rotated direction differs depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on. USA likes text to read from top to bottom, Europe likes text to read from bottom to top. Just look at the spines of books in your library.

The spines of books are more a matter of usability than prefered reading direction: A book which lies face down on a table and has a "European" spine can still be identified while the American version is printed upside down.

Tobias