On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 10:12 -0700, Richard Gitschlag wrote:

Very tempted to file this one on GNOME already, but going to check here first in case I missed something (e.g. is it configurable?) .

When you hide a layer group in GIMP 2.8, all items inside it get a new eye-with-slash icon to indicate that they are visible individually but hidden as a group.

This icon is . . . too visible. It needs to be something LESS visible than the normal eye icon.

Attached is a mockup of what some alternate icons can look like. One uses a 50% opacity, and another uses a 50% dither. (Myself, I prefer the dither look.)

Response?

How exactly is that better?

On my monitor, your 50% opacity version looks hardly different from full opacity, and the dithered version is not exactly obviously different when quickly looked at it.

I don't see how going from something that is clearly distinguishable to something that is hardly different from a visible icon is any improvement of usability.

Regaeds, --mitch

Nice idea.

I think the slash across the eye serves a purpose: it conceptually differentiates that icon from the other eye icons, indicating that those layers are part of a group.

At least for me, the eye-with-slash allows for faster recognition of that difference.

I did some experimenting with your mock-up image.

Below is an image of 50% opacity and 50% dither with a solid grey line. I found dithering the dash made the icon not look very much like an eye. (I didn't test out making it opaque.)

I think I'm leaning more towards the 50% opacity with the line through it than the 50% dither with the line through it (simply because the icon is clearer), but both are pretty good.

[image: Inline image 1]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Richard Gitschlag < strata_ranger@hotmail.com> wrote:

Very tempted to file this one on GNOME already, but going to check here first in case I missed something (e.g. is it configurable?) .

When you hide a layer group in GIMP 2.8, all items inside it get a new eye-with-slash icon to indicate that they are visible individually but hidden as a group.

This icon is . . . too visible. It needs to be something LESS visible than the normal eye icon.

Attached is a mockup of what some alternate icons can look like. One uses a 50% opacity, and another uses a 50% dither. (Myself, I prefer the dither look.)

Response?

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Michael Natterer wrote:

On my monitor, your 50% opacity version looks hardly

different from full opacity, and the dithered version is not exactly obviously different when quickly looked at it.
I don't see how going from something that is clearly distinguishable to something that is hardly different from a visible icon is any improvement of usability.

How the icon looks on different monitors is indeed a consideration and probably a good reason to have the line over the eye icon. (Though the eye can still be 50% dithered or opaque.)

At least on my monitor, the 50% opacity or dithered look visually conveys that those layers are "in the background." It feels good to me.

An important part of this conversation is that people process visual information differently (we don't all see the same thing), so that may account for the difference in preference that crops up.

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Michael Natterer wrote:

On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 10:12 -0700, Richard Gitschlag wrote:

Very tempted to file this one on GNOME already, but going to check here

first in case I missed something (e.g. is it configurable?) .

When you hide a layer group in GIMP 2.8, all items inside it get a new

eye-with-slash icon to indicate that they are visible individually but hidden as a group.

This icon is . . . too visible. It needs to be something LESS visible

than the normal eye icon.

Attached is a mockup of what some alternate icons can look like. One

uses a 50% opacity, and another uses a 50% dither. (Myself, I prefer the dither look.)

Response?

How exactly is that better?

On my monitor, your 50% opacity version looks hardly different from full opacity, and the dithered version is not exactly obviously different when quickly looked at it.

I don't see how going from something that is clearly distinguishable to something that is hardly different from a visible icon is any improvement of usability.

Regaeds, --mitch

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Why re-invent the wheel?

Attached are Inkscape's. Very clear.

-Rob A>

Sorry - maybe not so clear!

It doesn't change the icon of sub layers when a parent layer's visibility is toggled.

-Rob A>

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Rob Antonishen wrote:

Why re-invent the wheel?

Attached are Inkscape's. Very clear.

-Rob A>

Hi,

as we already realized the current solution to show hidden layers' icons in groups is a bit confusing. IMO less opacity doesn't change this much. A slashed icon indeed has more visual weight than a non-slashed one. But this suggests exactly the opposite of the actual visibility. The second drawback is that the user has to keep a third state in mind: a visible layer in a hidden group. Actually two states are sufficient - a layer is visible or not.
Informations about visible sublayers are relevant only if the group itself is visible. So why not simply hide the icons in the sublayers if the group itself is hidden? This would show the facts and only the facts and thus be less confusing.

Best regards,

grafxuser

Good discussion. :)

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM, gfxuser said:

as we already realized the current solution to show hidden layers' icons in

groups is a bit confusing. IMO less opacity doesn't change this much. A slashed icon indeed has more visual weight than a non-slashed one. But this suggests exactly the opposite of the actual visibility. The second drawback is that the user has to keep a third state in mind: a visible layer in a hidden group. Actually two states are sufficient - a layer is visible or not.
*Informations about visible sublayers are relevant only if the group itself is visible. So why not simply hide the icons in the sublayers if the group itself is hidden? This would show the facts and only the facts and thus be less confusing.*

Good point.

We've been trying to improve the current icons, when perhaps something like what you suggested would be better. (A forest for the trees type situation.)

But that's okay. I feel all of this helps provide feedback and useful examples and ideas the developers can draw on.

Stratadrake, you could probably file this as an enhancement in GNOME and just link to this mailing list thread. We've probably covered most of the different ways of approaching this.

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM, gfxuser wrote:

Hi,

as we already realized the current solution to show hidden layers' icons in groups is a bit confusing. IMO less opacity doesn't change this much. A slashed icon indeed has more visual weight than a non-slashed one. But this suggests exactly the opposite of the actual visibility. The second drawback is that the user has to keep a third state in mind: a visible layer in a hidden group. Actually two states are sufficient - a layer is visible or not.
Informations about visible sublayers are relevant only if the group itself is visible. So why not simply hide the icons in the sublayers if the group itself is hidden? This would show the facts and only the facts and thus be less confusing.

Best regards,

grafxuser

______________________________**_________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/**mailman/listinfo/gimp-**developer-list