?no image? window: progress...
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.179968.1206633708.1... | 07 Oct 20:26 | |
| ?no image? window: progress... | Guillermo Espertino | 27 Mar 19:31 |
| ?no image? window: progress... | peter sikking | 27 Mar 22:00 |
| ?no image? window: progress... | Sven Neumann | 28 Mar 08:54 |
| ?no image? window: progress... | gg@catking.net | 28 Mar 13:41 |
| ?no image? window: progress... | Sven Neumann | 28 Mar 19:42 |
| ?no image? window: progress... | Kevin Cozens | 06 Apr 23:00 |
| mailman.180115.1206691321.1... | 07 Oct 20:26 | |
| ?no image? window: progress... | Guillermo Espertino | 28 Mar 17:27 |
| ?no image? window: progress... | Sven Neumann | 28 Mar 19:45 |
?no image? window: progress...
About the graying out toolbox, dockers and elements not used when no image is open, I think it breaks a functionality that is already present in gimp: the ability to custumize the interface (moving dialogs to dockers, changing the dimensions and position of elements, etc.) That's, imo, a regression. Having to open an image to be able to customize the interface adds an extra step that has no purpose.
The drop zone still makes me wonder. I can't avoid seeing it like the photoshop gray background. You say that gimmicks should be avoided but there is a button for the tip of the day at the bottom, wich apart of being some kind of gimmick, changes the morphology of the status bar. I wonder why the drop zone can't be divided in two blocks, one with the tip of the day (with a switch to not sowing it again if selected) and the suggested drop zone. But that would imply to create a sort of splash, welcome screen that is not encouraged in the specification. The empty drop zone without a label is no longer a gimmick, but now it's just an empty space, and again, if that window is resizeable and the toolboxes (even grayed out) have an always-on-top hint, it will look like the gray photoshop background where many of the users will suppose that image windows *should* be opened. My question is if that really will improve the user experience, or people will still be crying for the same, even after the change. Obviously, this specification at least removes the menu from the toolbox, wich is a great improvement.
In my honest oppinion, gimmicks aren't too evil. They help newcomers
and, if they can't be de-activated, don't bug advanced users too much.
A couple of days ago I tried the MSN messenger clone "emesene". They
used a very interesting idea for the UI customization.
There is a secition in the options where they placed a wireframe of the
UI blocks wich can be turned on or off with a single click (there is a
gray wireframe and the selected block is highlighted).
What about using that for the no-image window?
Change the empty window for a single window with construction blocks.
Default would be "drop zone", "common tasks", "tip of the day". Very
newbie friendly.
For advanced users, there could be a section in the prefs that allows to
simply turn-off those blocks, and get an empty, no-gimmicks drop zone.
Blocks may be "pluggable", so it would be possible to add new blocks to
customize the welcome window if it's needed. I can think of "recent
images lists", "acquire/ batch acquire", etc.
Gez.
?no image? window: progress...
Guillermo wrote:
About the graying out toolbox, dockers and elements not used when no image is open, I think it breaks a functionality that is already present
in gimp: the ability to custumize the interface (moving dialogs to dockers, changing the dimensions and position of elements, etc.)
the customisation is specified to work with no image open.
The drop zone still makes me wonder. I can't avoid seeing it like the photoshop gray background. You say that gimmicks should be avoided but there is a button for the tip of the day at the bottom, wich apart of being some kind of gimmick, changes the morphology of the status bar.
I spend a lot of time thinking about the tips, because it seemed so integrated with the no-image situation.
Tips (no longer of the day) are a good thing, as long as these tips are targeted to bring intermediates to expert level. So I want to promote them.
But soon I realised that tips are like cups of coffee: If you like coffee in the first place, then a couple of cups during a working day with GIMP is great. But no one should not be forced to drink one every time one closes an image.
So I set out to tickle curiosity by offering a tip in the no-image-
window.
Showing the tip in that window also means there is no price to pay
(an extra window opening) for seeing one. Users can consume a tip when
they feel like it, which is probably when no image is open (break).
While integrating the tip "switch" in the no-image-window, I was placing it elsewhere but this empty space in the status bar, where normally the unit and zoom sit was just shouting at me.
So there is went.
As you can see I have created something that encourages use, but without the need to 'click it away (forever)' which other schemes suffer from.
I wonder...
the point is to look broader. There is loads of patterns in working that I have to support. And quite a bit of that goes on outside GIMP.
The is why the no-image-window is freely resizable to fit everybody's desktop integration needs, it is now wilber branded to help with the drag & drop (see wilber? drop the files) as is the toolbox. it is also very Spartan to get on nobody's nerves and to be freely resizable (did I mention that before?). And all the normal ways of working with files work when you see one.
That was the point.
--ps
founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
?no image? window: progress...
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 15:31 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
About the graying out toolbox, dockers and elements not used when no image is open, I think it breaks a functionality that is already present in gimp: the ability to custumize the interface (moving dialogs to dockers, changing the dimensions and position of elements, etc.) That's, imo, a regression. Having to open an image to be able to customize the interface adds an extra step that has no purpose.
You are making some wrong assumptions here. The toolbox is fully functional and so are the docks. Nothing prevents you from doing all the things that you could have done without an image opened. They do all still work and will continue to work.
Sven
?no image? window: progress...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:54:59 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 15:31 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
About the graying out toolbox, dockers and elements not used when no image is open, I think it breaks a functionality that is already present in gimp: the ability to custumize the interface (moving dialogs to dockers, changing the dimensions and position of elements, etc.) That's, imo, a regression. Having to open an image to be able to customize the interface adds an extra step that has no purpose.
You are making some wrong assumptions here. The toolbox is fully functional and so are the docks. Nothing prevents you from doing all the things that you could have done without an image opened. They do all still work and will continue to work.
so why are they greyed out ?
it is a fairly universally established metaphore that greyed out means disabled. I dont think they should be disabled but the current situation seems to be niether on nor the other and in being a non standard state will confuse the user (as the earlier comment demonstrates).
If they are active and have a ligitimate function in this context why are they grey?
/gg
Sven
_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
?no image? window: progress...
As you can see from the responses to your mail, there are quite a few trolls on this list who aren't even willing to try the new stuff. Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten so many responses that are obviously based on wrong assumptions and that clearly show that people have not followed your invitation to try the stuff in SVN.
Your comment is, as usual, insulting.
It's not clear in the first Peter's message that the changes are already
in SVN. He talks about concept and specification.
So I just checked the wiki and, based on what is described there, gave
my oppinion.
In the same wiki Peter asks for feedback (but since it's a closed wiki,
the only feedback we can give is using this list).
You're assuming, as usual, that a final user should compile the svn
code, know how to deal with the installed version and the development
version in the same machine, etc. Otherwise the user can't speak his mind.
Personally, I think I would be able to compile myself gimp in my machine, but I don't know how that would affect my current installation. And, since I'm an end user, I use gimp for my everyday work and can't change my working installation to an unstable version. I try to contribute from my place, but it's clear that this kind of contribution is not welcome.
?no image? window: progress...
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 13:41 +0100, gg@catking.net wrote:
so why are they greyed out ?
They aren't. That's the wrong assumption you are making.
Sven
?no image? window: progress...
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 13:27 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
You're assuming, as usual, that a final user should compile the svn code, know how to deal with the installed version and the development version in the same machine, etc. Otherwise the user can't speak his mind.
I am assuming that people subscribed here, and actively taking place in the discussions, are GIMP developers. This is a developer list. If we wanted feedback from users, we had asked on the gimp-user list. And we will do that. But before this can happen we need to finish some more things and do a 2.5.0 development release.
Sven
?no image? window: progress...
Greetings, all.
FWIW, here are my initial thoughts and comments on GMIP and its niw.
The first time I ran GIMP after the introduction I only wanted to run something from the toolbox menu. I was surprised when I closed the unwanted window and found that GIMP went away.
I find I'm having a little trouble adjusting to the relocation of menus from the Toolbox to the niw. This is due to menus that were on top of each other under Xtns (for example) now appearing side by side. I'm slowly getting used to the new layout.
The two DnD targets seemed redundant at first until I realized the one in the niw disappears when it becomes a regular image window. As I never use DnD with GIMP the target area at the top of the Toolbox windows is just wasted space. I don't need to have Wilber staring out at me from the top of the Toolbox so it would be nice if there was an option to turn off display of the DnD target in the Toolbox.
I have image window menus turned off in my preferences. However, the niw still shows a menu bar. I don't have a problem with that as the menu bar still goes away once I have opened an image. Having the menu bar always appear in the niw is something that will help new users.
