On Thursday 10 August 2006 00:50, William Skaggs wrote:

Rectangle Controls: An expander containing a set of spinbuttons and checkboxes used for specifying the shape of the rectangle numerically. There are checkboxes for "fixed width", "fixed height", and "fixed aspect". If any of these are activated, then the number entered in the corresonding spinbutton will be used to set the relevant dimension of the rectangle, and will not be affected by any mouse actions.

Please don't describe aspect ratio as a single float as this makes it impossible to quickly and intuitively enter aspect ratios such as 2:3, 3:2, 16:9, 9:16 without having a pocket calculator nearby. When using big selections then the current float entry with four digits precision is imprecise when describing certain aspect ratios (neither 0.6666 or 0.6667 is correctly describing 2:3 aspect ratio). Either go back to the old tool there, which simply allowed any multiple of the height/width values set when aspect was fixed or provide two spinbuttons for the aspect to be entered properly without having the user calculate the "aspect" each an every time.
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

First thanks for the new tool - it is growing on me. I love the highlight and the 3rds guides. I resisted using it until 2.3.10 but have used it for about 100 images now. The rect. select is the one tool I use on every image.

Not sure if you want a bug report (another bug report?) on the aspect ratio - but this still needs some clarified requirements or usage studies - what is the recommended way of cropping to "standard" aspect ratios? How do I easily go from 2:3 to 3:2? Many of these issues have already been discussed/debated - we just need to pull them together.

The interaction of the fixed width, height, and aspect ratio don't work as I expect. Should I open bug reports or can you clarify if/how they should interact. i.e. if I enter a height and width, should the aspect ratio automatically recalculate - does it matter if any of the three are checked or not?

Rectangle controls are always in pixels (except for XY coords.) even if the default unit of measure is inches - is this intended. Not a problem for me, but might be an issue for some.

Hi,

On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 15:50 -0700, William Skaggs wrote:

Rectangle Controls: An expander containing a set of spinbuttons and checkboxes used for specifying the shape of the rectangle numerically. There are checkboxes for "fixed width", "fixed height", and "fixed aspect". If any of these are activated, then the number entered in the corresonding spinbutton will be used to set the relevant dimension of the rectangle, and will not be affected by any mouse actions. It is possible for more than one to be activated. If, for example, both "fixed width" and "fixed height" are active, then the shape of the rectangle will be fixed, and dragging any edge or corner will simply move the rectangle as a whole.

At the bottom of the Controls are a set of four spinsbuttons that can be used to change the coordinates of the rectangle corners. Changing any of these has the same effect as dragging one of the rectangle edges using the mouse, including the application of any constraints that are active.

This part needs to be entirely redesigned. I didn't realize until now that you actually meant this to be the final state of the tool options. I always assumed that the controls are just there as a way to play with the internal properties. The properties are probably fine but I don't think we can present this to our users. It's way too complex and people have already expressed their concerns about it, especially when it comes to specifying the aspect ratio.

I suggest that we look at the old rect select and crop tools for this. Their user interface was IMO a lot cleaner and more intuitive.

Sven

may be i misunderstood your actual specification, but when you define modifiers, i only talk about multiselection modes. What about old options with Ctrl and Shift that does the same as "Expand from center" and "Make Square".
In fact it may confuse the user, because these options have to be checked before the selection is drawn. I agree with Sven on this : keep the old way, because users are accustomed to it. Options like this could be set in an expander for example.

An other thing : The last check box of the rectangle* tool is here told as "Tons vifs" and gives a temporary grey color to the area outside the selection square :
1. may be it is a translation trouble, but french words don't seem appropriate to me.
2. why not also having an intermediate grey color between rectangle and ellipse limit, because for the user the ellipse is as important as rectangle reference shape.

Cheers Cedric (pygmee)

Hi,

On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 13:15 -0700, William Skaggs wrote:

Concerning the aspect ratio, it should be possible to come up with a method that allows easy entry of integer ratios. It isn't clear that we will be able to come up with a menu of "standard" ratios for 2.4. If we could just use a fixed list, it would be simple, but it seems that it would be necessary to allow people to edit the list of possibilities, and that would require enough machinery that it might not be feasible to add it this late in the 2.4 cycle.

I think it would be sufficient if people could enter a width and a height in order to define the aspect ratio. That's how the old tool used to work. Perhaps add portrait and landscape buttons to it, like we have in the New Image dialog so that people can easily flip the aspect ratio.

Sven

On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 22:51 +0200, cedric GEMY wrote:

may be i misunderstood your actual specification, but when you define modifiers, i only talk about multiselection modes. What about old options with Ctrl and Shift that does the same as "Expand from center" and "Make Square".
In fact it may confuse the user, because these options have to be checked before the selection is drawn. I agree with Sven on this : keep the old way, because users are accustomed to it.

I don't think that we absolutely need to continue doing things the old way. Users get accustomed to new behaviour quite fast, as long as it offers everything they need.

I agree though that it is important to make "Expand from Center" and "Make Square" more easily accessible. I believe that we need to use modifier keys for this, quite similar to the way the old tools used to work. The old implementation was however rather unintuitive and hard to discover, mainly because pressing the modifiers didn't change the selection immidiately, you had to move the mouse first. This is due to a limitation in the tools code and cannot be fixed in the selection tools alone. It needs some changes to the tools infrastructure. But I think we need to do those changes now, simply because we can't implement a satisfying behaviour without them.

Mitch and me discussed this with Peter a while ago and our conclusion was that it makes sense to continue to use the modifier keys pressed when creating the selection to define whether the selection is replaced, added, subtracted or intersected. Then, while creating the selection, the modifier keys can be reused to add constraints such as "expand from center" and "make square". But in order to make this behaviour understandable by the user, it is important that there is immidiate feedback, unlike with the old tools. Pressing Ctrl should immidiately center the selection on the starting point, releasing the modifier key should restore it. Same for the Shift key. If you press it, the selection outline needs to change to a square/circle immidiately.

Sven

Sven Neumann wrote:

I think it would be sufficient if people could enter a width and a height in order to define the aspect ratio. That's how the old tool used to work. Perhaps add portrait and landscape buttons to it, like we have in the New Image dialog so that people can easily flip the aspect ratio.

That sounds like the simplest approach. I don't find the value with all the decimal places after it useful. After entering width/height to set the ratio you would just click the chain icon beside width/height so a change to one of the values adjusts the other accordingly and maintains the desired aspect ratio.

One feature I miss about the current crop tool is something I'm used to from the 2.2 GIMP. I have a habit of using the selection tool to mark a region then, when I pick the crop tool, use the "From Selection" option to set the crop limits based on the currently active selection.

I suppose I could get used to not having this option in the tool box (or a menu item to do the same thing) but it would be a nice feature to have back.

On 8/11/06, Kevin Cozens wrote:

One feature I miss about the current crop tool is something I'm used to from
the 2.2 GIMP. I have a habit of using the selection tool to mark a region then, when I pick the crop tool, use the "From Selection" option to set the
crop limits based on the currently active selection.

I suppose I could get used to not having this option in the tool box (or a menu item to do the same thing) but it would be a nice feature to have back.

Doesn't this essentially do this for you? I may not fully understand what you are attempting, but you can click inside the current selection, adjust selection/crop then do a Image->Crop to crop the image "from the selection".

you click inside

an existing selection, then a new, modifiable rectangular selection is created, whose bounds are just large enough to completely enclose the previous selection.

From: "William Skaggs"

The (New) Rectangle Select Tool

[ ... ]

An important different from the old tool is that the rectangle you get is modifiable, as indicated by handles at the corners. You should be able to click on any corner or edge and drag it -- the cursor should change to indicate when dragging is possible.

What the handles do in the tool?
In some other editor, the rectangle can be modified only by grabbing the 8 handles located at the corners and at the middle of edges. (That is an unnecessary limitation.)

The handles may confuse users if really the grabbing can be done by clicking in anywhere on the edge. (That is the preferred way to do it since the first interactive graphics system was written.) The handles should be removed.

Juhana

Tim Jedlicka wrote:

you click inside
an existing selection, then a new, modifiable rectangular selection is created, whose bounds are just large enough to completely enclose the previous selection.

Found it! Thanks, Tim. For some reason I missed that the other day or else I didn't realize it would crop to the current selection. Now I see that information appears in the pop-up tooltop for the menu entry.

Juhana Sadeharju wrote:

In some other editor, the rectangle can be modified only by grabbing the 8 handles located at the corners and at the middle of edges. (That is an unnecessary limitation.)

The handles may confuse users if really the grabbing can be done by clicking in anywhere on the edge. (That is the preferred way to do it since the first interactive graphics system was written.) The handles should be removed.

The "handles" aren't really handles like they are in many other software packages where you have to grab them to adjust the size of a selection.

In 2.3/CVS GIMP, the "handles" are four (yes, only four) tiny squares which appear in the inside corners of the selection. This provides a visual cue that the selection area can be altered. You need this cue since it is easy to toggle a selection between a fixed and alterable state.

When a selection is editable you move the cursor near an edge or corner of the selction. When you are close to the edge or corner the cursor changes to indicate that you can move that edge or corner of the selection (once you hold the left-mouse button down and drag that is).

I think this is a much easier method of resizing a selection than having to grab one of the 8 little handles that are used in most other programs.

First off, fantastic job on the new tool. I think it is great and have no great complaints about its implementation. FWIW, I would mildly desire integer-only aspect ratios and I would greatly desire having the "make square" and "expand from center" options be available as key modifiers.

One thing I noticed is that for the "subtract" and "intersect" modes (whether attained through the Mode buttons or through key modifiers), The marching ants of the currently drawn area become a solid line whereas for the "replace" and "add" modes they remain marching ants (this is true for both the Rectangular and Elliptical tools). Perhaps there is a very useful reason for this behavior, I just found it anomalous.

Hi,

From: Juhana Sadeharju

The handles may confuse users if really the grabbing can be done by clicking in anywhere on the edge. (That is the preferred way to do it since the first interactive graphics system was written.) The handles should be removed.

I know at least one professional in user interface design who strongly disagrees with this. When we asked Peter Sikking to have a look at the new selection tools, he strongly emphasized that the most important improvements should be done are:

(1) to use eight handles so that one can easily do horizontal and vertical resizing
(2) to enlarge the handles and to make only the handles grabbable (3) to add another handle in the center for moving the selection (4) to give immidiate cursor feedback on the handles and when pressing and releasing modifier keys

http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2006/07/working-on-gimp.html

I would strongly suggest to at least consider this advice before jumping to the conclusion that the handles should be removed.

Sven

If I have multiple views to the same image, is the rectangle tool, the crop tool, etc. visible in each view?

For example, I may have one view to the entire 5000x5000 image, and second view of size 500x500 in which I do precision placement of the tools.

Juhana

On 8/14/06, Sven Neumann wrote:

(2) to enlarge the handles and to make only the handles grabbable

(3) to add another handle in the center for moving the selection

Why make only the handles grabbable? I don't understand the harm in having all edges grabbable.
This is especially true for the center handle. Take the user case where I make a selection but now want to fine tune the placement of the selection ( i.e. I want to fine tune the placement of the SW corner). If I zoom the image such that the center handle is no longer displayed I have no way of moving the selection.

Hi,

On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 22:29 -0500, Tim Jedlicka wrote:

Why make only the handles grabbable? I don't understand the harm in having all edges grabbable.

I think the idea is that different actions are assigned to different handles. If you grab a handle in the middle of an edge, you only resize in one direction. So if only the handles can be grabbed, it would be clear what's going to happen. But I am not sure if this means that only the handles should work. I would probably appreciate if one could grab somewhere in the vicinity of a handle as well.

This is especially true for the center handle. Take the user case where I make a selection but now want to fine tune the placement of the selection (i.e. I want to fine tune the placement of the SW corner). If I zoom the image such that the center handle is no longer displayed I have no way of moving the selection.

You could still move it using some modifier key. But the center handle is much better discoverable than a modifier key. Currently, a lot of users simply don't know how to move a selection. If we offer a handle that they can grab, that problem would be solved.

Sven

Quoting Sven Neumann :

Hi,

On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 22:29 -0500, Tim Jedlicka wrote:

Why make only the handles grabbable? I don't understand the harm in having all edges grabbable.

I think the idea is that different actions are assigned to different handles. If you grab a handle in the middle of an edge, you only resize in one direction. So if only the handles can be grabbed, it would be clear what's going to happen. But I am not sure if this means that only the handles should work. I would probably appreciate if one could grab somewhere in the vicinity of a handle as well.

My strong preference is to have only the four corner "handles". Extra indicators clutter up the interface and a restriction to only moving the handles seems unnecessary and limiting.

Selections are the most important aspect of using the GIMP and they should be "streamlined" for proficient use; not designed to cater to the absolute novice. Clicking on an edge of selection frame and moving it is not inconsistent with the manner in which paths are edited, especially so when in the "polygonal" mode.

The current implementation is fine: the corner handles indicate an unconstrained move while anywhere else on the selection border constrains the motion. The constraint feature itself is not a requirement of using the tool and therefore, if "undiscovered", no real functionality is lost. (I would submit that even without any knowledge of the tool's operation, the constraint feature *will* be discovered and easily understood. I "discovered" it quite by accident and its functionality seemed very intuitive.)

Please reconsider what is gained by adding four more handles versus the clutter (and even confusion) that they bring to the interface.

From: Sven Neumann

I know at least one professional in user interface design who strongly disagrees with this. When we asked Peter Sikking to have a look at the

That was interesting, but he is simply wrong -- I'm sure he would design the tool differently after knowing the problem.

After making preselection on 5000x5000 image, if only handles are grabbable and one zooms in to details of the image, then the handles may not be visible. It becomes impossible to do precision selections. The edges are always visible when needed and edge-grabbability works.

I'm not UI professional or wanna-be but I had the problem a couple years ago and you suggested to use the guides at meanwhile. It is now good that we have a real solution to the problem.

I have no better solution for visual hint on that the edges can be grabbed. If the selection tool on and the edges are solid, then it might be ok to assume the edges can be grabbed and moved. The switch of icon when the pointer is over the edge would confirm the case. That is how it works in audio editors -- users expect the grabbability.

But how grabbability is indicated in Blender? Blender indicates the active object by using different color, but how Blender indicates that an object can be selected and activated? With nothing?

Can the handles be arrows like this "" across the edge?

Juhana

Juhana Sadeharju wrote:

After making preselection on 5000x5000 image, if only handles are grabbable and one zooms in to details of the image, then the handles may not be visible. It becomes impossible to do precision selections. The edges are always visible when needed and edge-grabbability works.

That is exactly the point I was going to make.

I have no better solution for visual hint on that the edges can be grabbed.

If users are that used to other programs and their 8 handles for resizing, then add the other four tiny little squares in the middle of the sides. If they think they need to click on one of the 8 squares to resize, the change in cursor as they get close to the 8 little black squares should make them realize they don't actually need to grab the "handles" to resize.

Can the handles be arrows like this "" across the edge?

I agree that it would make sense for the arrows to point in both directions when you are near an edge or corner. Right now, they point in only the "make it larger" direction.

Other than the two visual cue changes I wouldn't change anything about how resizing currently works. As I said before, I think it works better than any other program I have previously used.

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:38:52PM -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote: [cut]

Other than the two visual cue changes I wouldn't change anything about how resizing currently works. As I said before, I think it works better than any other program I have previously used.

Oh yeah! :-)