Those who crave a PhotoShop interface almost "finally" have it. :)

Thanks for the link. I will pass on this..

Peace...

Tom

wayne Sent by: To gimp-user-bounces gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu @lists.xcf.berkel cc ey.edu Subject [Gimp-user] GimpShop 04/01/2005 11:26 AM

Anyone tried GimpShop yet? Just wondering what the buzz is all about.

http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241

Wayne

I tried it and didn't see any changes to the interface. GimpShop only rearranges the menu structure to emulate Photoshop's a little closer.

It's really meant for a PS user who is transitioning to the Gimp. If you're familar w/the Gimp, there's no need to use it (correct me if I'm wrong).

Eric P.

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:44:58PM -0800, Tom.Williams@diversifiedsoftware.com wrote:

Those who crave a PhotoShop interface almost "finally" have it. :)

Thanks for the link. I will pass on this..

Peace...

Tom

wayne Sent by: To gimp-user-bounces gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu @lists.xcf.berkel cc ey.edu Subject [Gimp-user] GimpShop 04/01/2005 11:26 AM

Anyone tried GimpShop yet? Just wondering what the buzz is all about.

http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241

Wayne

Eric Pierce wrote:

I tried it and didn't see any changes to the interface. GimpShop only rearranges the menu structure to emulate Photoshop's a little closer.

It's really meant for a PS user who is transitioning to the Gimp. If you're familar w/the Gimp, there's no need to use it (correct me if I'm wrong).

Eric P.

Yeah, you're right but what concerns me is this kind of interface will cause people to view The Gimp as a "free PhotoShop" vs "The Gimp". It it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... you get the idea. :)

I wonder if this will actually go anywhere. :)

Peace...

Tom

wayne wrote:

One thing good about GimpShop is that I am now able to run Gimp 2.2.4. Have not been able to install a RPM successfully till now.

Wayne

:)

Peace...

Tom

Maybe GimpShop should become an option in the Gimp preferences ?

You choose the interface you want when you install The Gimp, and you can change it in the Preferences...

PA.

--- Tom Williams wrote:

wayne wrote:

One thing good about GimpShop is that I am now

able to run Gimp 2.2.4. Have

not been able to install a RPM successfully till

now.

Wayne

:)

Peace...

Tom

On Samedi 02 Avril 2005 19:28, Pierre-Alexis wrote:

Maybe GimpShop should become an option in the Gimp preferences ?

You choose the interface you want when you install The Gimp, and you can change it in the Preferences...

This is really a good idea. Instead of having an other version, I think this could be integrated in the main Gimp developpement.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Pierre-Alexis wrote:

Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:28:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Pierre-Alexis
To: Tom Williams
Cc: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GimpShop

Maybe GimpShop should become an option in the Gimp preferences ?

You choose the interface you want when you install The Gimp, and you can change it in the Preferences...

The last thing the GIMP needs is another option at startup. Pick good defaults, and offer preferences.

Now, what I think would be really wonderful along these lines would be a setup whereby The Gimp can be easily "skinned" to a rearranged UI like this.
That way, we can have a Gimp skin that is familiar to Photoshop users, a Gimp skin that is familiar to FireWorks users, etc., and perhaps even some that are simply designed to be streamlined for a particular purpose - photo touchups, for example.

Would make transitioning easier from the other major editors, and would even give the Gimp a leg up none of them have - you could switch UIs between one that you feel is easier for one task to one that is easier for another without actually changing programs - or paying for multiple programs, or needing space on disk for more programs.

-Jonathan

On Saturday 02 April 2005 7:46 pm, Jonathan D Gibbons wrote:

Now, what I think would be really wonderful along these lines would be a setup whereby The Gimp can be easily "skinned" to a rearranged UI like this.
That way, we can have a Gimp skin that is familiar to Photoshop users, a Gimp skin that is familiar to FireWorks users, etc., and perhaps even some that are simply designed to be streamlined for a particular purpose - photo touchups, for example.

Would make transitioning easier from the other major editors, and would even give the Gimp a leg up none of them have - you could switch UIs between one that you feel is easier for one task to one that is easier for another without actually changing programs - or paying for multiple programs, or needing space on disk for more programs.

Although I'm all in favour of people working in the way that works best for them I think the discussion on this list is missing an important point.

Imagine someone (a new user) has set their gimp menus up to resemble photoshop. Now for some reason they can't figure out how to scale their image. So they wisely come to this list (they are using gimp after all) and ask their question "How do I scale an image?) Answer Look in the tools menu under transform.

Unfortunately , since their menus are non standard they don't have this menu. "Oh man, that gimp program sucks. I'm going back to pho..."

Not to disparrage the hard work that was put into this hack but... Let gimp be gimp and photoshop be photoshop. I don't expect to see a rush of hackers trying to change pho... to look like the gimp

I suggest the acronym for gimp should be changed to

Gimp Is Mnot Photoshop

Thats my 2 cents

David Herman wrote:

(snip)

Not to disparrage the hard work that was put into this hack but... Let gimp be gimp and photoshop be photoshop.

I completely agree.

Peace...

Tom

On Dimanche 03 Avril 2005 16:31, David Herman wrote:

Imagine someone (a new user) has set their gimp menus up to resemble photoshop. Now for some reason they can't figure out how to scale their image. So they wisely come to this list (they are using gimp after all) and ask their question "How do I scale an image?) Answer Look in the tools menu under transform.

Unfortunately , since their menus are non standard they don't have this menu. "Oh man, that gimp program sucks. I'm going back to pho..."

Yes, this is true. But in another hand, I think that it is better to explain how to use a tool instead of telling him "just click here, here and here, and that's it". If you know how to use tools such curves or level, and really know how they work, then you will be able to use either Gimp, Photoshop or whaterver soft you want.

If someone really want to use Gimp, he will find the menu. If gimpshop can help to migrate from Photoshop, this is OK. And if Gimp gives choice to arrange menus, this is great. Each one can choose the best solution for him.

And even if he ask for the place of a tool, there will be some other people using the same skin to help him.

My 2 euros...

Frédéric wrote:

(snip)

If someone really want to use Gimp, he will find the menu. If gimpshop can help to migrate from Photoshop, this is OK. And if Gimp gives choice to arrange menus, this is great. Each one can choose the best solution for him.

Based on the positive feedback on that blog, it sounds more like people are looking for a "free PhotoShop" than trying to migate to Gimp. The more Gimp looks and feels like PhotoShop, the more people will think of it like PhotoShop and then come the change requests to have Gimp behave more in a PhotoShop-ish manner.

When you use the phrase "migrate from PhotoShop", I interpret that to mean "utilize tools or information to help ease the transition from the old to the new," which is something I don't think will happen with GimpShop.

If you go back and read some of the commentary in the blog, people are indirectly associating a "good UI" with a "PhotoShop UI". This doesn't mean the PhotoShop UI is a "good" UI but since so many are familiar with it, they consider PhotoShop as having a "good" UI instead of the reality of it having a familiar UI.

Peace...

Tom

Jonathan D Gibbons wrote:

Now, what I think would be really wonderful along these lines would be a setup whereby The Gimp can be easily "skinned" to a rearranged UI like this.

Personally, I'd prefer that the developers work on enhancing the tool rather than making the tool look pretty (ier).

I'd suggest that if someone likes the idea of skins, they take up that project and do it. Then get it into the code.

Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 22:46:47 -0500 (EST) From: Jonathan D Gibbons
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: [Gimp-user] Re: GimpShop

Now, what I think would be really wonderful along these lines would be a setup whereby The Gimp can be easily "skinned" to a rearranged UI like this.

That is a whole lot of maintainance work, way more than you might think. I would hope optimistically that things could be adjusted to work well for all kinds of users and I think it would be better to make efforts to improve the defaults first (but developers will spend time on whatever they are most interested in).

If it is possible to make these kinds of changes and enough people are interested it will probably happen (like it just did) so it makes sense to try and allow it (and do so in a way that can be maintained) rather than telling people to fork if they do not like the user interface.

I think the point about finding menu items is worth considering but we already deal with users in various langauges (and therefore different lables for the same things) and I think this problem could be reduced if the PDB Browser could be improved to allow users to search for things more easily.

I have a custom version of PDB Browser that allows me to search by Name, Summary ('cause "blurb" is too much common slang), Description and a bunch of other fields too. (I'm not sure if I ever asked for the built in version to be improved, for some reason I have a feeling I might have.)

That way, we can have a Gimp skin that is familiar to Photoshop users, a

Although it is not exactly the kind of skin you are talking about I would like a GTK theme that had a nice triangular slider widget like in Photoshop. (I suggested such a change to the ClearLooks theme for Gnome but I haven't checked it recently to see if the idea was accepted.)

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Inkscape http://inkscape.org Abiword http://www.abisource.com
Dia http://gnome.org/projects/dia/
Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org

Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/

Even with the Mnot bit?

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 10:57:11AM -0700, Tom Williams wrote:

David Herman wrote:

(snip)

Not to disparrage the hard work that was put into this hack but... Let gimp be gimp and photoshop be photoshop.

I completely agree.

Peace...

Tom

On Monday 04 April 2005 00:07, Eric Pierce wrote:

Even with the Mnot bit?

Obviously, in time, it should be: Gimp Is More than P.

(just check CVS splash screen :-) )

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 10:57:11AM -0700, Tom Williams wrote:

David Herman wrote:

(snip)

Not to disparrage the hard work that was put into this hack but... Let gimp be gimp and photoshop be photoshop.

I completely agree.

Peace...

Tom

Alan Horkan wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Pierre-Alexis wrote:

Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:28:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Pierre-Alexis
To: Tom Williams
Cc: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GimpShop

Maybe GimpShop should become an option in the Gimp preferences ?

You choose the interface you want when you install The Gimp, and you can change it in the Preferences...

The last thing the GIMP needs is another option at startup. Pick good defaults, and offer preferences.

I agree with you, but what could be intersting for some people is an option at the first time you launch gimp (when the .gimp directory is created with the orange interface asking you the resolution and directories). It would be like the KDE first time wizard asking you the style of your interface options (Mac, Unix, Windows, KDE).

Regards,

Olivier.

Hi,

Alan Horkan writes:

That is a whole lot of maintainance work, way more than you might think. I would hope optimistically that things could be adjusted to work well for all kinds of users and I think it would be better to make efforts to improve the defaults first (but developers will spend time on whatever they are most interested in).

AFAIK, a bunch of people are already working on improving the menu hierarchy. Anyone who feels that he/she can contribute, should join this effort. This is definitely not something that should be done by developers, at least not by developers only. The developers have done their job already, the menu structure is easily editable since GIMP 2.2. Now it's up to the users to discuss menu structure and to come up with a reasonable proposal for changes. Implementing these changes is the trivial part.

Of course it should be kept in mind that the user manual as well as the translations need updating as well. For this reason I don't think that the menu labels and/or their order should be themeable. That would break translation and the documentation. Good defaults is what we should try to achieve.

I think the point about finding menu items is worth considering but we already deal with users in various langauges (and therefore different lables for the same things) and I think this problem could be reduced if the PDB Browser could be improved to allow users to search for things more easily.

I don't see how the Procedure Browser is relevent here since it is a tool for script and plug-in authors and doesn't deal at all with menus or the user interface in general.

I have a custom version of PDB Browser that allows me to search by Name, Summary ('cause "blurb" is too much common slang), Description and a bunch of other fields too. (I'm not sure if I ever asked for the built in version to be improved, for some reason I have a feeling I might have.)

I don't think you did and you know very well how to do this properly. Please open a bug report and attach a diff to it.

Sven

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:08:03AM +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:

Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 22:46:47 -0500 (EST) From: Jonathan D Gibbons
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: [Gimp-user] Re: GimpShop

Now, what I think would be really wonderful along these lines would be a setup whereby The Gimp can be easily "skinned" to a rearranged UI like this.

That is a whole lot of maintainance work, way more than you might think. I would hope optimistically that things could be adjusted to work well for all kinds of users and I think it would be better to make efforts to improve the defaults first (but developers will spend time on whatever they are most interested in).

If it is possible to make these kinds of changes and enough people are interested it will probably happen (like it just did) so it makes sense to try and allow it (and do so in a way that can be maintained) rather than telling people to fork if they do not like the user interface.

I think the point about finding menu items is worth considering but we already deal with users in various langauges (and therefore different lables for the same things) and I think this problem could be reduced if the PDB Browser could be improved to allow users to search for things more easily.

Given that all the string changes in GimpShop occured in translatable strings, one wonders why patching the source was needed at all. The only other changes were to the menu files, which have been external since the change to GtkUIManager.

In fact, with a slight change to GIMP to make the location for the menu files locale aware, one could make a en_US.pshop locale and dist just the .po and .xml files instead of having to track the entire source code base.

Ironically, I note that gimpshop doesn't appear to use the ps-menurc file by default.

-Yosh

Given that all the string changes in GimpShop occured in translatable strings, one wonders why patching the source was needed at all. The only other changes were to the menu files, which have been external since the change to GtkUIManager.

Maybe for the script-fus...

In fact, with a slight change to GIMP to make the location for the menu files locale aware, one could make a en_US.pshop locale and dist just the .po and .xml files instead of having to track the entire source code base.

Yep, would be worth a try. Having a separate package for trying GimpShop would be much better than the current solution.

Ironically, I note that gimpshop doesn't appear to use the ps-menurc file by default.

Huh? Something gives me the impression that the GimpShop author hould have spent more time in #gimp...

Michael

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Sven Neumann wrote:

Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:27:38 +0200 From: Sven Neumann
To: Alan Horkan
Cc: Jonathan D Gibbons , gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Re: GimpShop

Hi,

Alan Horkan writes:

That is a whole lot of maintainance work, way more than you might think. I would hope optimistically that things could be adjusted to work well for all kinds of users and I think it would be better to make efforts to improve the defaults first (but developers will spend time on whatever they are most interested in).

AFAIK, a bunch of people are already working on improving the menu hierarchy. Anyone who feels that he/she can contribute, should join this effort. This is definitely not something that should be done by developers, at least not by developers only. The developers have done

I use the term developer in a much broader sense than perhaps you do (I would include all kinds of contributors). I'm aware of the menu reoganisation plan but I lost interest due to the wiki downtime and I dont expect to have time to contribute to it again anytime soon.

their job already, the menu structure is easily editable since GIMP 2.2. Now it's up to the users to discuss menu structure and to come up with a reasonable proposal for changes. Implementing these changes is the trivial part.

Sure, I dont disagree with that.

Of course it should be kept in mind that the user manual as well as the translations need updating as well.

Very true, this is part of what I was getting at with point about the amount of maintaince work that would be needed.

For this reason I don't think that the menu labels and/or their order should be themeable. That would break translation and the documentation. Good defaults is what we should try to achieve.

I think the point about finding menu items is worth considering but we already deal with users in various langauges (and therefore different lables for the same things) and I think this problem could be reduced if the PDB Browser could be improved to allow users to search for things more easily.

I don't see how the Procedure Browser is relevent here since it is a

You probably know the GNU Image manipulation program like the back of your hand but I think using the Procedure Browser/Plugin Database it to search for things is a massively useful and underrated feature. It encourages users to more easily find things for themselves rather than needing to ask questions or trawl through the documentation.

tool for script and plug-in authors and doesn't deal at all with menus or the user interface in general.

Even though it doesn't cover the whole user interface it is still useful and if it did cover the whole user interface and even allow me to Apply a filter once I've found it it would make a very useful tool (maybe something like the effects browser found in Jasc Paint Shop Pro).

I have a custom version of PDB Browser that allows me to search by Name, Summary ('cause "blurb" is too much common slang), Description and a bunch of other fields too. (I'm not sure if I ever asked for the built in version to be improved, for some reason I have a feeling I might have.)

I don't think you did and you know very well how to do this properly. Please open a bug report and attach a diff to it.

It was just a comment. If I had time I was going to check it later and perhaps file a request, no need to jump down my throat. I did mention the ideas before and suggest improvements before but they were superceded by changes Yosh made. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156340

The custom code I had was in Python (very easy for me to prototype and test) and making a new patch against the PDB browser/Plugin database and properly testing it is quite a different matter. Providing a properly tested diff against the current codebase is another question entirely. Also the tradeoff of simply adding all the extra search buttons to the user interface is that it makes it look really ugly and cluttered (although buttons for just Summary and Description could be added relatively easily) and I never had time to think up a good way to present the other functionality.

I'll try and find time to file a new request but I have other work to do for now. Gotta go.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:13PM +0200, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Given that all the string changes in GimpShop occured in translatable strings, one wonders why patching the source was needed at all. The only other changes were to the menu files, which have been external since the change to GtkUIManager.

Maybe for the script-fus...

script-fu menu paths are translatable as well.

In fact, with a slight change to GIMP to make the location for the menu files locale aware, one could make a en_US.pshop locale and dist just the .po and .xml files instead of having to track the entire source code base.

Yep, would be worth a try. Having a separate package for trying GimpShop would be much better than the current solution.

Ironically, I note that gimpshop doesn't appear to use the ps-menurc file by default.

Huh? Something gives me the impression that the GimpShop author hould have spent more time in #gimp...

Yeah, a little constructive discussion would've gone a long way to produce something actually maintainable.

-Yosh

Hi,

Alan Horkan writes:

You probably know the GNU Image manipulation program like the back of your hand but I think using the Procedure Browser/Plugin Database it to search for things is a massively useful and underrated feature. It encourages users to more easily find things for themselves rather than needing to ask questions or trawl through the documentation.

You are confusing the Plug-In and the Procedure Browser. While the former is indeed useful to locate plug-ins (not core functionality though), the latter is only of interest to script and plug-in authors.

Sven

Hi,

"Michael Schumacher" writes:

Huh? Something gives me the impression that the GimpShop author hould have spent more time in #gimp...

He didn't care to ask any of the developers before starting this. All he did was asking a question in a GIMP forum that deals with resources like brushes, patterns and the like. I found this question by accident and asked him to join the menu reorganization effort instead but he ignored that advice.

Sven

On Monday 04 April 2005 15:29, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Alan Horkan writes:

You probably know the GNU Image manipulation program like the back of your hand but I think using the Procedure Browser/Plugin Database it to search for things is a massively useful and underrated feature. It encourages users to more easily find things for themselves rather than needing to ask questions or trawl through the documentation.

You are confusing the Plug-In and the Procedure Browser. While the former is indeed useful to locate plug-ins (not core functionality though), the latter is only of interest to script and plug-in authors.

Pardon Sven,
But Alan certainly is not confusing both things. I was working with him in the mentioned changes for the python PDB. The fact is that browsing the PDB entries added by plug-ins one can find out, in a consistent, although not proper, interface, what each plug-in in the GIMP does.

Regards,
JS
->

Sven

Personally, I'd prefer that the developers work on enhancing the tool rather than making the tool look pretty (ier).

I'd suggest that if someone likes the idea of skins, they take up that project and do it. Then get it into the code.

I was actally not suggesting that the primary developers should take up their time making the Gimp look shiny; just that it be made possible / documented on how to manipulate the arrangement and appearance of the UI with external files, and a dialog to facilitate switching between arrangements (Or, for starters, a command-line option or some such).

--change of replied-to emails--

That is a whole lot of maintainance work, way more than you might think. I would hope optimistically that things could be adjusted to work well for all kinds of users and I think it would be better to make efforts to improve the defaults first (but developers will spend time on whatever they are most interested in).

If it is possible to make these kinds of changes and enough people are interested it will probably happen (like it just did) so it makes sense to try and allow it (and do so in a way that can be maintained) rather than telling people to fork if they do not like the user interface.

Now, I readily admit that I haven't really looked into what this would take, and whether or not this is effectively already possible. I did a little bit of looking a while back, but not much.

I was mostly thinking of "Skinning" as a way to modularize the Gimp proper apart from alternate UI arrangements; that way, people who want to make it shiny can play with those parts, and what they make can take updates to the underlying code without patching/recompile of their skins.

disclaimer : I am just a gimp user, so every technical assertion below is probably wrong ;). Please take with a grain of salt.

Jonathan D Gibbons wrote:

I was actally not suggesting that the primary developers should take up their time making the Gimp look shiny; just that it be made possible / documented on how to manipulate the arrangement and appearance of the UI with external files, and a dialog to facilitate switching between arrangements (Or, for starters, a command-line option or some such).

I think this is just a question of time/resources. The possibility to change the gimp menus is quite new (since version 2.2). It took much time to restructure the old code in order to have this possibility. IIRC, glade introduced the xml-interface several years ago but it had to propagate through gtk first before being usable in gimp (without adding dependencies on libglade). Now it is possible, but not documented (I searched the wiki and devel.gimp.org and found nothing). Probably it will be documented if the need for it outweights the hassle to do it.

Then, it is true that the developers do not find this "interface skinning" desirable (it breaks documentation badly). The xml menus were first considered as a developer-only feature to simplify their work. Some people found it a new application, which is fine too.

Sincerely,

Oliv.

Then, it is true that the developers do not find this "interface skinning" desirable (it breaks documentation badly). The xml menus were first considered as a developer-only feature to simplify their work. Some people found it a new application, which is fine too.

About breaking documentation, what if:

The GIMP comes with a menu layout. The GIMP documentation relies on this layout. It also documents the ability to change this layout, so users can play with the xml files if they really want to. Some users provide completely changed layout to other users who need the same changes. These changes are not part of The GIMP, but something you have to get and to "apply" to The GIMP. So it's not an option in The GIMP configuration, it's a new thing that come on top of it. It's the responsibility of the provider of the new layout to document it / provide easy installation of the layout / whatever.

(I'm pretty sure mimicking-layouts are not a good way to learn The GIMP for new users, but now it has started I don't really see how to stop it, as some users do think it will help them. As someone else pointed out, if this is just about getting a free Photoshop they are going the wrong way and will discover it soon enough.)

Karine

Hi,

Olivier Ripoll writes:

I think this is just a question of time/resources. The possibility to change the gimp menus is quite new (since version 2.2). It took much time to restructure the old code in order to have this possibility. IIRC, glade introduced the xml-interface several years ago but it had to propagate through gtk first before being usable in gimp (without adding dependencies on libglade).

Sorry that I have to correct you, but before this spreads further I'd like to state that the GtkUIManager XML files are completely unrelated to Glade or libglade.

Now it is possible, but not documented.

It is documented in the GTK+ API reference and GIMP even ships with a DTD that describes the format.

Sven

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Olivier Ripoll writes:

I think this is just a question of time/resources. The possibility to change the gimp menus is quite new (since version 2.2). It took much time to restructure the old code in order to have this possibility. IIRC, glade introduced the xml-interface several years ago but it had to propagate through gtk first before being usable in gimp (without adding dependencies on libglade).

Sorry that I have to correct you, but before this spreads further I'd like to state that the GtkUIManager XML files are completely unrelated to Glade or libglade.

Thanks for the correction. My disclaimer was thus useful ;)

Now it is possible, but not documented.

It is documented in the GTK+ API reference and GIMP even ships with a DTD that describes the format.

I cannot find this in the API documents in developer.gimp.org. Could you please provide a URL ? IS the DTD available online too ?(without having to download the whole source code archive)

Regards,

Olivier

Hi,

Olivier Ripoll writes:

I cannot find this in the API documents in developer.gimp.org. Could you please provide a URL ?

I think I said it's in the GTK+ API reference, didn't I?

http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/gtk/GtkUIManager.html

Sven