On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Thomas Worthington wrote:

Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage in 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt and mouse at the same time, which is a problem on Linux.

It's a problem in some (most?) window managers, not with Linux itself. Personally, my preferred option is to change the WM's behaviour to move windows with the windows key + mouse instead of Alt + mouse.

How do I tell Gimp to use another shift-type key for that action?

I'm not sure if this is possible at all, especially not if from within GIMP. If someone else knows an answer, please go on.

Yours, Daniel

On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 21:18 +0000, Thomas Worthington wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:10:11 -0000, Daniel Hornung wrote:

On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Thomas Worthington wrote:

Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage in 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt and mouse at the same time, which is a problem on Linux.

I'm not sure if this is possible at all, especially not if from within GIMP.
If someone else knows an answer, please go on.

I second that.

Not sure if this is a reponse, but you can go to preferences and play with Input controlers.

Salut
Pere

Hi,

On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 21:18 +0000, Thomas Worthington wrote:

It's not a "problem" either with window managers nor Linux - the alt-mouse behaviour is standard and well established; it's a problem with the Gimp (assuming it can't be changed).

Applications such as GIMP used to use this modifier key long before some window managers started to grab it for their purpose.

How do I tell Gimp to use another shift-type key for that action?

It usually helps to press Shift together with Alt if you want the Alt key to end up being seen by the application.

Anyway, there is no action in GIMP that absolutely requires use of the Alt modifier. So if you can't change your window manager key-bindings and Shift-Alt doesn't work, you should still be able to use all functionality.

Sven

On December 19, 2007 01:10:11 pm Daniel Hornung wrote:

On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Thomas Worthington wrote:

Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage in 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt and mouse at the same time, which is a problem on Linux.

It's a problem in some (most?) window managers, not with Linux itself. Personally, my preferred option is to change the WM's behaviour to move windows with the windows key + mouse instead of Alt + mouse.

Windows key? What is this mythical key? It is certainly not evident on any of my keyboards.

Thomas Worthington wrote:

I've just reverted to 2.2

2.4 has too many problems to bother with; the alt key is the final straw.

I've been lurking on this list for several years. I'd LOVE to be able to use Gimp instead of paying the ever increasing price of Photoshop. But Gimp is NOT a suitable replacement for Photoshop for most image editing professionals and this alt-key problem highlights why. Gimp programmers make capricious changes in the software with total disregard for their user community. They expect that all users are programmers, that they can work around bad design decisions, handle bad UI decisions, deal with poor documentation, write their own patches, etc.

Gimp will never come into general use until these issues are fixed. Firefox is a true competitor to IE because the Firefox development team understands these issues and built a product that "average computer users" can easily use. The Gimp development team should give this serious consideration. It doesn't take a lot of "work" to fix Gimp - it just requires a small change in focus - design the program for non-programmers to USE, don't make capricious changes, don't BREAK things when you introduce new versions.

Back to lurking...

jc - professional photographer, Photoshop user since v4.0, currently using CS3.

JC Dill wrote:

Thomas Worthington wrote:

I've just reverted to 2.2

2.4 has too many problems to bother with; the alt key is the final straw.

I've been lurking on this list for several years. I'd LOVE to be able to use Gimp instead of paying the ever increasing price of Photoshop. But Gimp is NOT a suitable replacement for Photoshop for most image editing professionals and this alt-key problem highlights why. Gimp programmers make capricious changes in the software with total disregard for their user community. They expect that all users are programmers, that they can work around bad design decisions, handle bad UI decisions, deal with poor documentation, write their own patches, etc.

Gimp will never come into general use until these issues are fixed. Firefox is a true competitor to IE because the Firefox development team understands these issues and built a product that "average computer users" can easily use. The Gimp development team should give this serious consideration. It doesn't take a lot of "work" to fix Gimp - it just requires a small change in focus - design the program for non-programmers to USE, don't make capricious changes, don't BREAK things when you introduce new versions.

I generally remain silent in front of so strong statements, but this one is too typical.

Could you be only a little specific about these "capricious changes"? And what is this "alt-key problem"? From the beginning of GIMP, the alt key has been used for some specific uses, for example in the layer mask.

From the beginning of GIMP, it has been suggested, when the window

manager confiscated this key for its own use, to use Shift+Alt instead, or to change one's window manager. Does it really need to be a programmer to understand that, or to change the window manager parameters in order to free the alt key?

Note that such comments always come from people calling them true professionals, as if anybody else would be simple and stupid amateurs...

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 14:46 +0000, Thomas Worthington wrote:

I've just reverted to 2.2

2.4 has too many problems to bother with; the alt key is the final straw.

Sorry, but if there are problems with 2.4, then we would like to hear about them. So far the feedback has been very positive. And nothing really changed with regard to the Alt key, compared to 2.2. So what exactly are you talking about?

Sven

Thomas Worthington wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:29:12 -0000, Olivier Lecarme wrote:

Could you be only a little specific about these "capricious changes"? And what is this "alt-key problem"? From the beginning of GIMP, the alt key has been used for some specific uses, for example in the layer mask.

I'm not aware of any interaction with the layer mask which requires Alt and mouse movement (only click, which isn't a problem). Moving a selected region is a very common action and now seems impossible under normal Linux user interfaces. I can see the application of "capricious" to that situation. What was the benefit of changing the default drag action?

I don't think I'm using an abnormal Linux user interface : Debian Sid with Gnome. I asked the window manager (Metacity) to use the windows key for dragging a window, and all works perfectly. I imagined that you were using Windows, which of course cannot be parameterized.

From the beginning of GIMP, it has been suggested, when the window

manager confiscated this key for its own use, to use Shift+Alt instead,

Shift-Alt does not seem to work with the dragging motion, for me anyway.

or to change one's window manager. Does it really need to be a programmer to understand that, or to change the window manager parameters in order to free the alt key?

Suggesting that a system-wide setting should be changed to accomodate one application's arbitary decision that all users must use Alt instead of any number of other spare keys that keyboards have (AltGr, Windows, Menus, Meta, whatever) when it is well known that Alt-drag is used by desktops is perverse and lazy.

Whatever be the key choosed, it will be also be the choice for another application or component. And the decision from this application will seem arbitrary to others.

The problem seems to be with GTK rather than Gimp, to be fair. But it would have been nice if Gimp allowed it to be worked around. If it was the only problem with 2.4 I would do something about it myself by way of a patch, but it isn't and I've just personally had enough with 2.4. It offers very little new for a lot of hassle with functions that used to work fine.

Once again, you are making non-specific complains. What exactly if this lot of hassle ?

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 18:26 +0000, Thomas Worthington wrote:

I'm not aware of any interaction with the layer mask which requires Alt and mouse movement (only click, which isn't a problem). Moving a selected region is a very common action and now seems impossible under normal Linux user interfaces. I can see the application of "capricious" to that situation. What was the benefit of changing the default drag action?

Moving a selected region does not involve the Alt key in GIMP 2.4. What changed compared to 2.2 is that you need to float the selected pixels before you can move them. The benefit from this is that the new rectangle and ellipse select tools (as well as the crop tool) now allow you to edit the selection. Most users see this as a major improvement. Details about this change can be found at http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Selection_%2B_crop_tool_specification

We are open to improving these tools further and there is at least one change planned for 2.6 that is supposed to make it easier to select and move pixels. But it is not all impossible in 2.4, even if your Alt key is blocked. We are not stupid and know very well that some window managers decided to take away the Alt key. So we take care not to make any functionality depend on this modifier key.

Sven

On Thursday 20 December 2007, Robert Smits wrote:

Windows key? What is this mythical key? It is certainly not evident on any of my keyboards.

It's the one with the flying (i.e. moving) window. But I'm afraid some malicous company grabbed it as their trade mark without even implementing the moving of windows properly or understanding the concepts of modern window managers. Since penguins can't fly (but slide, at least downhill), there are some keyboards with those cute little creatures on instead.

On Thursday 20 December 2007 10:26:12 am Thomas Worthington wrote:

Moving a selected region is a very common action and now seems impossible under normal Linux user interfaces. I can see the application of "capricious" to that situation. What was the benefit of changing the default drag action?

Actually, moving a selection in Gimp 2.4 is easier than it was in 2.2. Simply left click within the selected region and drag... no modifier keys needed and no need to grab the edge of the selection when doing so. I just did this in 2.4.1 in KDE 3.5.8 on Kubuntu 7.10. The new selection tool features are much easier to use if you haven't already been trained to use the old methods from previous releases.

Suggesting that a system-wide setting should be changed to accomodate one application's arbitary decision that all users must use Alt instead of any number of other spare keys that keyboards have (AltGr, Windows, Menus, Meta, whatever) when it is well known that Alt-drag is used by desktops is perverse and lazy.

The problem seems to be with GTK rather than Gimp, to be fair. But it would have been nice if Gimp allowed it to be worked around. If it was the only problem with 2.4 I would do something about it myself by way of a patch, but it isn't and I've just personally had enough with 2.4. It offers very little new for a lot of hassle with functions that used to work fine.

Seems to me that with the new way of moving a selection in 2.4 that modifying a system-wide setting (Alt+Left-Click to move a window in KDE) is no longer necessary. That is a good thing. But if you want to go back to 2.2 and deal with its more familiar, but also less compatible, way of working, I understand... I guess... I think... maybe not.

Olivier Lecarme wrote:

JC Dill wrote:

Thomas Worthington wrote:

I've just reverted to 2.2

2.4 has too many problems to bother with; the alt key is the final straw.

I've been lurking on this list for several years. I'd LOVE to be able to use Gimp instead of paying the ever increasing price of Photoshop. But Gimp is NOT a suitable replacement for Photoshop for most image editing professionals and this alt-key problem highlights why. Gimp programmers make capricious changes in the software with total disregard for their user community. They expect that all users are programmers, that they can work around bad design decisions, handle bad UI decisions, deal with poor documentation, write their own patches, etc.

Gimp will never come into general use until these issues are fixed. Firefox is a true competitor to IE because the Firefox development team understands these issues and built a product that "average computer users" can easily use. The Gimp development team should give this serious consideration. It doesn't take a lot of "work" to fix Gimp - it just requires a small change in focus - design the program for non-programmers to USE, don't make capricious changes, don't BREAK things when you introduce new versions.

I generally remain silent in front of so strong statements, but this one is too typical.

Could you be only a little specific about these "capricious changes"? And what is this "alt-key problem"?

As was stated in the first post in this thread:

Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage in 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt and mouse at the same time, which is a problem on Linux. How do I tell Gimp to use another shift-type key for that action?

The behavior and use of the Alt key changed between 2.2 and 2.4, without providing any way for users to select or configure the older behavior in Gimp. That is showing disregard for your established user base. You may have good reasons to decide the new behavior is "better" but you should provide a way (within the software itself) for the user to configure the older behavior (in Gimp) rather than force them to go back to a prior version to use the software they way they have been using it, or to change how they use the software. This is basic backwards compatibility.

Note that such comments always come from people calling them true professionals, as if anybody else would be simple and stupid amateurs...

Now you resort to an ad hominem attack of the messenger instead of listening to the message.

I've seen this happen several times over my years of lurking on this list. I didn't call myself a "true professional" - I stated that I'm a professional photographer solely to give you context for my comments.

I'm a typical "potential Gimp user". I tried to use it many years ago (when I first joined this list) but it couldn't meet my needs. I've remained interested in Gimp, and stayed on the list to lurk and learn. I had hope that someday it would develop into a software product that I could use instead of Photoshop. I provided this background so you would understand the context for my comment - not to say I'm in any way better or special. If you want users like me to embrace and use Gimp you must consider our needs and comments when you make design decisions. The fact that few outside the programmer community use Gimp shows that you are not making inroads into this other possible user base - it's clearly because you don't keep these other users in mind when you design the program and UI.

A programmer friend (Linux user/programmer, avid open source proponent) asked me recently if I thought he should recommend Gimp to another friend. I told him what I'm telling you - it's not suitable for a non-programmer, especially when there are other choices (as abound on Windows and Mac OSs). There are a plethora of easier-to-use free products (like Irfanview) - if someone needs more tools than those free products offer, they are MUCH better off paying for Photoshop or Photoshop Elements than dealing with the quirky nature of Gimp and subject to the capricious changes that occur as new versions are rolled out. The benefit of saving a few bucks isn't worth the multitude of problems - particularly the poor documentation and lack of support. A Photoshop user has thousands of web forums and millions of other PS users as resources to learn how to do something in PS. Try taking any PS tutorial (especially one about programming an action) and applying to to Gimp. This is impossible for most users! So those resources aren't available to Gimp users. I came to this forum because I was trying to do something in PS and I was told "oh, you can do that in Gimp". I downloaded Gimp, tried to figure it out (and was dismayed at the poor documentation) and I came here for help. I couldn't get Gimp to do what I wanted and ultimately I found help to accomplish what I wanted (an Action) in Photoshop, and went back to Photoshop.

The inability to "record an action" is the biggest stopper (for me) to trying to use Gimp. (Script-fu isn't even close to the same thing.)

But the bigger stopper is the overall design focus - the way the developers design for themselves and other developers/programmers, ignore input from ordinary users, and provide poor documentation for ordinary users. This is why I use and regularly recommend people use Firefox and Thunderbird and Adium and other open source programs, but I do not use or recommend Gimp.

I would LOVE to recommend Gimp. Maybe someday it will happen.

You can learn from my feedback, or you can attack the messenger again, as you wish.

jc

On Thursday 20 December 2007, Scott wrote:

Actually, moving a selection in Gimp 2.4 is easier than it was in 2.2. Simply left click within the selected region and drag... no modifier keys needed and no need to grab the edge of the selection when doing so. I just did this in 2.4.1 in KDE 3.5.8 on Kubuntu 7.10. The new selection tool features are much easier to use if you haven't already been trained to use the old methods from previous releases.

Are we talking about the same thing? This thread's issue is (or so it seems to me) about moving the _content_ of a selection, as described in http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-using-selections.html#gimp-using-selections-moving

Yes, to simply move the border, you can also use the move tool in selection mode, without needing any modifer key.

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:17 -0800, JC Dill wrote:

The behavior and use of the Alt key changed between 2.2 and 2.4, without providing any way for users to select or configure the older behavior in Gimp. That is showing disregard for your established user base. You may have good reasons to decide the new behavior is "better" but you should provide a way (within the software itself) for the user to configure the older behavior (in Gimp) rather than force them to go back to a prior version to use the software they way they have been using it, or to change how they use the software. This is basic backwards compatibility.

Adding such an option adds a considerable amount of complexity to the code. We would have to maintain the old and the new code which means doubling the amount of code and thus doubling the chance for bugs and doubling the effort needed to maintain it. Sorry, but that is not an option.

We try hard to improve GIMP and that requires making changes to the user interface. Of course such changes have an impact on established work-flows and we know that. But if we want to move forward, then that is not avoidable.

Sven

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:17 -0800, JC Dill wrote:

I'm a typical "potential Gimp user". I tried to use it many years ago (when I first joined this list) but it couldn't meet my needs. I've remained interested in Gimp, and stayed on the list to lurk and learn. I had hope that someday it would develop into a software product that I could use instead of Photoshop. I provided this background so you would understand the context for my comment - not to say I'm in any way better or special. If you want users like me to embrace and use Gimp you must consider our needs and comments when you make design decisions. The fact that few outside the programmer community use Gimp shows that you are not making inroads into this other possible user base - it's clearly because you don't keep these other users in mind when you design the program and UI.

I don't know where you get that impression from. The ongoing redesign of the user interface is based on an extensive analysis of user feedback, workspace observations and analysis by user interface professionals. Our UI team is working on this for more than a year now, spending about twenty hours per week. And they are doing this in their free time. We, the developers, then pick up their suggestions and spend our free time implementing them. It would be nice if you could show some appreciation for this work. There are certainly many things that can be done even better. We are just beginning to incorporate the results of the usability evaluation that took place.

Sven

On Thursday 20 December 2007 11:30:40 am Daniel Hornung wrote:

Actually, moving a selection in Gimp 2.4 is easier than it was in 2.2. Simply left click within the selected region and drag... no modifier keys needed and no need to grab the edge of the selection when doing so. I just did this in 2.4.1 in KDE 3.5.8 on Kubuntu 7.10. The new selection tool features are much easier to use if you haven't already been trained to use the old methods from previous releases.

Are we talking about the same thing? This thread's issue is (or so it seems to me) about moving the _content_ of a selection, as described in
http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-using-selections.html#gimp-using- selections-moving

Yes, to simply move the border, you can also use the move tool in selection mode, without needing any modifer key.

Actually, the documentation you cite states: "If you only want to move the selection border and not its contents, then press the Alt key and click-and-drag the selection."

That is the old behavior from 2.2 and required changing the behavior of the same key combination in Window environments such as KDE. The new behavior does not require this. In fact, trying to use the old behavior in the new version does not work. This is the issue the op is having: "I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt and mouse at the same   time, which is a problem on Linux." He just needs to leave Alt alone and drag the selection (not its contents) by clicking in within the borders of the selection.

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:17 -0800, JC Dill wrote:

I'm a typical "potential Gimp user". I tried to use it many years ago (when I first joined this list) but it couldn't meet my needs. I've remained interested in Gimp, and stayed on the list to lurk and learn. I had hope that someday it would develop into a software product that I could use instead of Photoshop. I provided this background so you would understand the context for my comment - not to say I'm in any way better or special. If you want users like me to embrace and use Gimp you must consider our needs and comments when you make design decisions. The fact that few outside the programmer community use Gimp shows that you are not making inroads into this other possible user base - it's clearly because you don't keep these other users in mind when you design the program and UI.

I don't know where you get that impression from.

I get that impression from reading the posts on this list.

The ongoing redesign of
the user interface is based on an extensive analysis of user feedback, workspace observations and analysis by user interface professionals. Our UI team is working on this for more than a year now, spending about twenty hours per week. And they are doing this in their free time. We, the developers, then pick up their suggestions and spend our free time implementing them. It would be nice if you could show some appreciation for this work.

This is the first I heard of this work. How do you expect someone to appreciate something that they haven't heard about?

There are certainly many things that can be done even better. We are just beginning to incorporate the results of the usability evaluation that took place.

You admit you are "just beginning" to incorporate the results of the usability evaluation.

I can hardly be expected to know about something that hasn't been incorporated, or has just recently been incorporated but not widely announced. As I said - I'm a "potential Gimp user". I tried it several years ago, and I am subscribed to this list to stay abreast with the changes that are discussed on this list. I don't currently have it installed. Like millions of other potential Gimp users, I don't have time to install and test it every time you release a new version to see if it's "ready for prime time" yet. Rather than try to convince me it's great (while you also admit you are "just beginning" to incorporate needed changes as a result of a usability evaluation), it would be nice if you would just admit that it still needs a lot of work, and that you will let the user (and potential user) community know when you have actually done the work to make it easier to use for non-programmers.

I hope that documentation is high on your list. This is one of the weakest parts of most open source projects. Something like a browser needs little documentation. Something more complex like a mail reader needs more documentation. It's no coincidence that Firefox has more users than Thunderbird - the documentation in Thunderbird is not very complete. Gimp was (the last time I used it) very poorly documented. It is very important to document not just new features but also anytime you change how a feature works - such as this alt-key issue.

jc

On Thursday 20 December 2007 11:17:17 am JC Dill wrote:

Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage in 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt and mouse at the same time, which is a problem on Linux. How do I tell Gimp to use another shift-type key for that action?

The behavior and use of the Alt key changed between 2.2 and 2.4, without providing any way for users to select or configure the older behavior in Gimp. That is showing disregard for your established user base.

You already said you are not among that user base, "I'm a typical 'potential Gimp user'". Why are you acting all hurt over this change; it doesn't affect you?

you should provide a way (within the software itself) for the user to configure the older behavior... This is basic backwards compatibility.

Backward compatibility is not the holy grail of interface design. If it were, we would all still be using the command-line... or punch cards for that matter.

The fact that few outside the programmer community use Gimp

I don't think this is a given. I, for one, am not a programmer. There is a thriving non-programmer GIMP user community forum at http://gimptalk.com/. GIMP's user base may not be as large as Photoshop's, but it is not a given that it is largely programmers using it. I also personally know at least two professional photographers (they make their living doing photography) who use GIMP for all their digital image processing who are not programmers, either. I had a conversation with one of them less than a month ago. He said that GIMP provides all the necessary tools a professional photographer needs.

You say:

it's not suitable for a non-programmer...

And then:

Try taking any
PS tutorial (especially one about programming an action) and applying to to Gimp. This is impossible for most users! So those resources aren't available to Gimp users.

Without dwelling on the obvious contradiction in your remarks, GIMP does not attempt to clone Photoshop. I would not expect macros written for any program to work in any other that was not intended to clone that product. But if you insist, your argument could as easily be turned around and applied to making PS do what a tutorial or macro does in GIMP. Would it be easy to achieve the same results in PS without significantly reworking the examples? Probably not. Should we heap shame on PS for its poor compatibility with GIMP solutions? I don't think so.

You can learn from my feedback, or you can attack the messenger again, as you wish.

Or, we can also point out the flaws in your argument. What tools does Photoshop provide to professional photographers that is not only lacking in GIMP, but that have escaped the notice of my professional photographer acquaintances?

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:37 -0800, JC Dill wrote:

Gimp was (the last time I used it) very poorly documented. It is very important to document not just new features but also anytime you change how a feature works - such as this alt-key issue.

I don't think a user manual of more than 500 pages counts as very poorly documented. Yes, documentation is considered very important. Unfortunately it is not enough to put it high on the priority list, there also need to be individuals that are willing to contribute. Fortunately we have a small but very active group of volunteers working on the documentation. But they could certainly need more help. There is still a lot to be done to bring the user manual up-to-date for 2.4. If you want to help, please go to http://docs.gimp.org/ and check the paragraph at the bottom.

(And now I am sure you are going to tell us once more how Firefox does this a lot better...)

Sven

< Big snip >

I've seen this happen several times over my years of lurking on this list. I didn't call myself a "true professional" - I stated that I'm a professional photographer solely to give you context for my comments.

I also lurk and very occasionally make a contribution. You photograph horses and things and people around them and doubtless sell the images and make a good living. I am an amateur photographer and making images is my hobby. Equipment is expensive enough and I am very grateful for Gimp because I certainly could not afford Photoshop. I have the time to view helpful videos and read articles, which you may not have and I even bought a book which shows me around the latest version of Gimp. There are far more people like me in the world than like you and for us Gimp is very good, thank you.

Norman

< snip >

I recommend "Beginning Gimp" by Akkana Peck, ISBN 1-59059-587-4

I fully agree.

Norman

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 21:46 +0000, Thomas Worthington wrote:

The alt-key is covered in other posts but the other killer problem for me in 2.4 is the lack of a ratio display or lock on the crop tool. I need to crop to a ratio a lot and a display that always reads "current" is no use. It literally means I have to get the calculator out; I can do that, but arguing with the Alt key at the same time is too much. 2.2 just works.

That is actually the point where the 2.4 crop tool is a lot superior than the one in 2.2. Not only does it not pop up an annoying dialog as soon as you start to use it. It also features an entry for the aspect ratio that has a calculator built into it. You enter the desired aspect ratio in the Crop tool options, like 16:9, and it will use that whenever you press Shift (or lock the ratio using the check button next to the entry). Quite useful as soon as you discovered it. The fact that you didn't discover it should make us think though...

Sven

Scott wrote:

On Thursday 20 December 2007 11:17:17 am JC Dill wrote:

Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage in 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt and mouse at the same time, which is a problem on Linux. How do I tell Gimp to use another shift-type key for that action?

The behavior and use of the Alt key changed between 2.2 and 2.4, without providing any way for users to select or configure the older behavior in Gimp. That is showing disregard for your established user base.

You already said you are not among that user base, "I'm a typical 'potential Gimp user'". Why are you acting all hurt over this change; it doesn't affect you?

Oh, but it does. If you do this type of thing now (and don't see anything wrong with it), you can be expected to do it again. If I start with Gimp now, at some point I'll be urged to upgrade to take advantage of new features, but then discover that you changed how the program works - that old workflows no longer work in the same way.

you should provide a way (within the software itself) for the user to configure the older behavior... This is basic backwards compatibility.

Backward compatibility is not the holy grail of interface design.

Are you an interface designer, or a programmer?

If it were, we would all still be using the command-line...

The command line still works - and breaking command line programs when an OS is upgraded is one of the biggest problems with OS upgrades. You can put new features over the old (e.g. add a GUI over a command line interface), but you shouldn't break old features or old commands when you do that.

The fact that few outside the programmer community use Gimp

I don't think this is a given.

I assert that it's is quite obviously a given - based on the lack of widespread adoption of this program and continued strong sales for a similar program that costs hundreds of dollars. Why would people be buying Photoshop if Gimp were "just as good" and "just as easy to use"? Look at the adoption of Firefox when IE is free - if IE costs hundreds per computer Firefox would have totally taken over the market by now. The only reason IE has the user base it has is because MS gives it away for free and embeds it in the OS. But Photoshop is not given away for free, and is not embedded in the OS. Instead, people pay hundreds of dollars - usually every few years for the next version, to buy PS instead of using free Gimp. Clearly there are huge benefits for the average (non-programmer) user to stick with PS.

I, for one, am not a programmer. There is a thriving non-programmer GIMP user community forum at http://gimptalk.com/. GIMP's user base may not be as large as Photoshop's, but it is not a given that it is largely programmers using it. I also personally know at least two professional photographers (they make their living doing photography) who use GIMP for all their digital image processing who are not programmers, either. I had a conversation with one of them less than a month ago. He said that GIMP provides all the necessary tools a professional photographer needs.

I don't know of any professional photographer who doesn't use Actions. You can't "record an action" in Gimp - you have to program it. This makes it much harder to use for non-programmers, and makes it impossible to use Photoshop Actions recorded by others.

I do know some photographers who use Gimp - they are all programmers, all happy to spend their time fiddling with the programming aspects rather than having the tool do the hard work (actions) while they do the creative work (creative edits).

You say:

it's not suitable for a non-programmer...

And then:

Try taking any
PS tutorial (especially one about programming an action) and applying to to Gimp. This is impossible for most users! So those resources aren't available to Gimp users.

Without dwelling on the obvious contradiction in your remarks,

There is no contradiction.

GIMP does not attempt to clone Photoshop. I would not expect macros written for any program to work in any other that was not intended to clone that product.

I'm talking about following the concept of creating an action, following the ideas in the tutorial. The concept of "here is a way to do a thing" and "here is a way to program your software to do this thing over and over automagically" is not new in image editing software. Many methods of how to "do a thing" in PS and Gimp are similar (e.g. how to use a given editing tool such as a paintbrush or eraser), but the method for doing something over and over is fast and easy in PS (record an action) and laborious and complicated in Gimp (script-fu).

But if you insist, your argument could as easily be turned around and applied to making PS do what a tutorial or macro does in GIMP. Would it be easy to achieve the same results in PS without significantly reworking the examples? Probably not. Should we heap shame on PS for its poor compatibility with GIMP solutions? I don't think so.

I was speaking about the volume of support - there are many tutorials for PS users - there are few equivalent tutorials for Gimp users.

You can learn from my feedback, or you can attack the messenger again, as you wish.

Or, we can also point out the flaws in your argument.

Which you failed to do. So are you going to learn from my feedback, or continue to attack the messenger?

What tools
does Photoshop provide to professional photographers that is not only lacking in GIMP, but that have escaped the notice of my professional photographer acquaintances?

Perhaps you haven't been reading very carefully as I've already told you the #1 stopper - Gimp has no way to "record" a series of edits and then apply that same series of edits to other images. In Photoshop, this is an Action. In Gimp you can't "record" while doing the edits, you have to program what you want in script-fu and the methods for doing this are not nearly as simple, obvious, intuitive as recording an action. This is a UI design flaw.

jc

JC Dill wrote:

Perhaps you haven't been reading very carefully as I've already told you the #1 stopper - Gimp has no way to "record" a series of edits and then apply that same series of edits to other images.

This is what the following enhancement request deals with: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51937

As you can see in the comments, adding this isn't quite straight-forward.

HTH, Michael

Thomas Worthington wrote:

This discussion isn't going anywhere - you think 2.4 is a big improvement on 2.2 and I don't, is the bottom line here. I'm sure you have your reasons and I'm sure you think they're good reasons.

The reasons are described in detail at http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Selection_%2B_crop_tool_specification

HTH, Michael

On Dec 21, 2007 9:04 AM, Thomas Worthington wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:00:40 -0000, Sven Neumann wrote:

That is actually the point where the 2.4 crop tool is a lot superior than the one in 2.2. Not only does it not pop up an annoying dialog as soon as you start to use it. It also features an entry for the aspect ratio that has a calculator built into it. You enter the desired aspect ratio in the Crop tool options, like 16:9, and it will use that whenever you press Shift (or lock the ratio using the check button next to the entry). Quite useful as soon as you discovered it. The fact that you didn't discover it should make us think though...

So even when I go to the bother of typing in the ratio I want, I have to hold shift down or it ignores it, stops displaying it and says "current" instead?!

No.

Isn't the fact that I made the effort to type something in enough of a hint that I want it to be applied? That's really terrible.

Stop babbling and actually try it out. Me, I type 1:6 into the ratio box, it remains there, clearly visible, I check the 'Fixed' checkbox and go making 1:6 ratio'd selections. (the combobox should be set to 'Aspect Ratio', obviously.)

And why on Earth would you not at least display the actual ratio as the user works? Changing that (as compared to 2.2 which DOES display the

It does display the current ratio. See the 'size' boxes. If you want to use that as a fixed ratio, you just type it in like any other ratio.

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 22:34 +0000, Thomas Worthington wrote:

What should the fact that you thought that was a sensible way of doing it make me think about you?

Actually I am responsible for most design choices in the Crop tool UI in GIMP 2.2. Glad you like it :P

Sven

Sven Neumann writes:

That is actually the point where the 2.4 crop tool is a lot superior than the one in 2.2. Not only does it not pop up an annoying dialog as soon as you start to use it. It also features an entry for the aspect ratio that has a calculator built into it. You enter the desired aspect ratio in the Crop tool options, like 16:9, and it will use that whenever you press Shift (or lock the ratio using the check button next to the entry).

Sven:

In my 2.4.2 version running on Solaris 10/SPARC under gnome, the check-box does lock the crop aspect ratio. But if the check box is not selected, no key, including shift, seems to lock the aspect ratio and as soon as you drag out the crop window, the previously set aspect ratio is changed to "Current". Is that a potential bug in the Solaris build or am I missing something? In any case, I don't mind the current implementation.

Regards,

On Thursday 20 December 2007 2:34:56 pm Thomas Worthington wrote:

What should the fact that you thought that was a sensible way of doing it   make me think about you?

This from the guy who criticizes others for attacking the messenger. Thomas, you're a jerk.

JC Dill wrote:

I can hardly be expected to know about something that hasn't been incorporated, or has just recently been incorporated but not widely announced. As I said - I'm a "potential Gimp user". I tried it several years ago, and I am subscribed to this list to stay abreast with the changes that are discussed on this list. I don't currently have it installed. Like millions of other potential Gimp users, I don't have time to install and test it every time you release a new version to see if it's "ready for prime time" yet. Rather than try to convince me it's great (while you also admit you are "just beginning" to incorporate needed changes as a result of a usability evaluation), it would be nice if you would just admit that it still needs a lot of work, and that you will let the user (and potential user) community know when you have actually done the work to make it easier to use for non-programmers.

Troll back to Photoshop please.

I for one, appreciate the work the GIMP developers have done and continue to do on this wonderful application. JC, you just doesn't get it. I guess you missed the reference to the fact that ALL the work put into GIMP is done by the developers on their time.

On Thursday 20 December 2007 2:20:36 pm JC Dill wrote:

Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage in 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt and mouse at the same time, which is a problem on Linux. How do I tell Gimp to use another shift-type key for that action?

The behavior and use of the Alt key changed between 2.2 and 2.4, without providing any way for users to select or configure the older behavior in Gimp. That is showing disregard for your established user base.

You already said you are not among that user base, "I'm a typical 'potential Gimp user'". Why are you acting all hurt over this change; it doesn't affect you?

Oh, but it does. If you do this type of thing now (and don't see anything wrong with it), you can be expected to do it again. If I start with Gimp now, at some point I'll be urged to upgrade to take advantage of new features, but then discover that you changed how the program works - that old workflows no longer work in the same way.

So what? Program interfaces do change. Even Photoshop's: http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9811974-39.html

"November 6, 2007 1:12 PM PST Brace yourself for Adobe's Photoshop overhaul Posted by Stephen Shankland

"Adobe Systems wants to transform its flagship Photoshop software with an interface customized to the task at hand, a potentially radical revamp for software whose power today is hidden behind hundreds of menu options.

"A new user interface will help Photoshop become 'everything you need, nothing you don't,' said Photoshop product manager John Nack, describing aspirations for the Photoshop overhaul on his blog Monday...

"A new Photoshop approach could let new users get started faster, help Adobe phase out old features..."

Phase out old features? Change the user interface? They are talking about doing all of this without breaking current work flows, but I doubt they will be able to achieve that. And the changes they want to make are not small, incremental changes. They are talking about sweeping, radical changes to the user interface. They are also talking about making it a modular program, meaning you purchase it in pieces, making it more expensive than it already is.

Instead of focusing your energy criticizing a program you don't even use, you'd better give your input to the company behind the tool you already rely on before it's too late. I'm sure they'd be happy to put you in direct contact with the developers responsible for implementing the new user interface, whoever they are.

you should provide a way (within the software itself) for the user to configure the older behavior... This is basic backwards compatibility.

Backward compatibility is not the holy grail of interface design.

Are you an interface designer, or a programmer?

If it were, we would all still be using the command-line...

The command line still works - and breaking command line programs when an OS is upgraded is one of the biggest problems with OS upgrades. You can put new features over the old (e.g. add a GUI over a command line interface), but you shouldn't break old features or old commands when you do that.

Unless you have a good reason... The GIMP developers had a good reason for changing GIMP's behavior as has been explained to you. And the changes to the GIMP's interface are not radical. They are incremental and relatively easy to adapt to.

The fact that few outside the programmer community use Gimp

I don't think this is a given.

I assert that it's is quite obviously a given - based on the lack of widespread adoption of this program and continued strong sales for a similar program that costs hundreds of dollars.

There is no obvious connection between lack of widespread adoption and a high percentage of programmer users. You haven't provided anything to back up this claim other than "because I say so".

Why would people be buying Photoshop if Gimp were "just as good" and "just as easy to use"?

Simple. They are unaware of the alternatives available to them.

I, for one, am not a programmer.
There is a thriving non-programmer GIMP user community forum at http://gimptalk.com/. GIMP's user base may not be as large as Photoshop's, but it is not a given that it is largely programmers using it. I also personally know at least two professional photographers (they make their living doing photography) who use GIMP for all their digital image processing who are not programmers, either. I had a conversation with one of them less than a month ago. He said that GIMP provides all the necessary tools a professional photographer needs.

I don't know of any professional photographer who doesn't use Actions. You can't "record an action" in Gimp - you have to program it. This makes it much harder to use for non-programmers, and makes it impossible to use Photoshop Actions recorded by others.

I don't find it hard to use. And GIMP script-fu's are just as impossible for PS users to use. So what?

I do know some photographers who use Gimp - they are all programmers, all happy to spend their time fiddling with the programming aspects rather than having the tool do the hard work (actions) while they do the creative work (creative edits).

Maybe the ones you know are all programmers; the ones I know are not. And they apparently still get their work done. Hmmm... how DO they do it?

You say:

it's not suitable for a non-programmer...

And then:

Try taking any
PS tutorial (especially one about programming an action) and applying to to Gimp. This is impossible for most users! So those resources aren't available to Gimp users.

Without dwelling on the obvious contradiction in your remarks,

There is no contradiction.

No, not if you ignore "[GIMP is] not suitable for a non-programmer" and then use the example of programming Photoshop to support your point.

GIMP does not attempt to clone Photoshop. I would not expect macros written for any program to work in any other that was not intended to clone that product.

I'm talking about following the concept of creating an action, following the ideas in the tutorial. The concept of "here is a way to do a thing" and "here is a way to program your software to do this thing over and over automagically" is not new in image editing software. Many methods of how to "do a thing" in PS and Gimp are similar (e.g. how to use a given editing tool such as a paintbrush or eraser), but the method for doing something over and over is fast and easy in PS (record an action) and laborious and complicated in Gimp (script-fu).

And again:

But if you insist, your argument
could as easily be turned around and applied to making PS do what a tutorial or macro does in GIMP. Would it be easy to achieve the same results in PS without significantly reworking the examples? Probably not. Should we heap shame on PS for its poor compatibility with GIMP solutions? I don't think so.

I was speaking about the volume of support - there are many tutorials for PS users - there are few equivalent tutorials for Gimp users.

You haven't looked in the right places. There are many available... too many to have time to read them all.

You can learn from my feedback, or you can attack the messenger again, as you wish.

Or, we can also point out the flaws in your argument.

Which you failed to do. So are you going to learn from my feedback, or continue to attack the messenger?

I didn't attack you... yet. You, on the other hand, ARE attacking others here: "And why on Earth would you not at least display the actual ratio as the user works? Changing that (as compared to 2.2 which DOES display the current ratio) was just nuts, frankly.

"What should the fact that you thought that was a sensible way of doing it make me think about you?"

You don't use the GIMP. You attack the developers and attempt to shame anyone here who might attack you, "the messenger". You waste other's time. What should all of that make us think about you?

It leads me to conclude you are a troll with nothing better to do. It leads me to think of you as a jerk.

What tools
does Photoshop provide to professional photographers that is not only lacking in GIMP, but that have escaped the notice of my professional photographer acquaintances?

Perhaps you haven't been reading very carefully as I've already told you the #1 stopper - Gimp has no way to "record" a series of edits and then apply that same series of edits to other images. In Photoshop, this is an Action. In Gimp you can't "record" while doing the edits, you have to program what you want in script-fu and the methods for doing this are not nearly as simple, obvious, intuitive as recording an action. This is a UI design flaw.

That's your killer feature? Then, by all means, stick with Photoshop. It obviously so outshines anything as pitiful as the GIMP that deigning to spend your time here instead of creating wonderful images in the only program that matters is unworthy of your effort.

Sven Neumann writes:

You enter the desired aspect
ratio in the Crop tool options, like 16:9, and it will use that whenever you press Shift (or lock the ratio using the check button next to the

Jeffery Small writes:

In my 2.4.2 version running on Solaris 10/SPARC under gnome, the check-box does lock the crop aspect ratio. But if the check box is not selected, no key, including shift, seems to lock the aspect ratio

For me (on Linux), Shift locks the aspect ratio, but only if I press it after I start dragging. If I hold Shift before I start the drag, it doesn't do anything as far as I can tell. Is that intentional?

That said, I love the new crop tool. I do a lot of fixed aspect ratio crops, and it's SO much easier now than it was with 2.2.

...Akkana

Geoffrey wrote:

JC Dill wrote:

I can hardly be expected to know about something that hasn't been incorporated, or has just recently been incorporated but not widely announced. As I said - I'm a "potential Gimp user". I tried it several years ago, and I am subscribed to this list to stay abreast with the changes that are discussed on this list. I don't currently have it installed. Like millions of other potential Gimp users, I don't have time to install and test it every time you release a new version to see if it's "ready for prime time" yet. Rather than try to convince me it's great (while you also admit you are "just beginning" to incorporate needed changes as a result of a usability evaluation), it would be nice if you would just admit that it still needs a lot of work, and that you will let the user (and potential user) community know when you have actually done the work to make it easier to use for non-programmers.

Troll back to Photoshop please.

I for one, appreciate the work the GIMP developers have done and continue to do on this wonderful application. JC, you just doesn't get it. I guess you missed the reference to the fact that ALL the work put into GIMP is done by the developers on their time.

My sentiments exactly!

GIMP on!

Eric P.

Jeffery Small writes:

In my 2.4.2 version running on Solaris 10/SPARC under gnome, the check-box does lock the crop aspect ratio. But if the check box is not selected, no key, including shift, seems to lock the aspect ratio

Akkana Peck writes:

For me (on Linux), Shift locks the aspect ratio, but only if I press it after I start dragging. If I hold Shift before I start the drag, it doesn't do anything as far as I can tell. Is that intentional?

Ah yes, now that Akkana pointed this out, this is how it is also working on Solaris. This behavior seems odd. I think if you hold shift before beginning to drag the mouse, then it should also lock the aspect ratio.

Regards, --
Jeffery Small

You are describing what 2.2 does for me. 2.4 simply dragged the selected region, NOT its contents.

At the top of HTML help pages, you have a "Revision date" and you can see that Moving Selection has not been updated yet.

In Gimp 2.4, you move the selection outline. To move the selection contents, you have to use the Selection/Floating command.
You can't move the selection contents without emptying the original place. But you can do a copy-paste for that.

j.h

Hi julien,

On Dec 21, 2007 4:22 PM, julien wrote:

You are describing what 2.2 does for me. 2.4 simply dragged the selected region, NOT its contents.

At the top of HTML help pages, you have a "Revision date" and you can see that Moving Selection has not been updated yet.

In Gimp 2.4, you move the selection outline. To move the selection contents, you have to use the Selection/Floating command.
You can't move the selection contents without emptying the original place.

Actually you can. Alt+Shift+Drag. (Alt+Ctrl+Drag to cut it out and move it, instead of moving a copy of it.). Try them.

Geoffrey wrote:

I guess you missed the reference to the fact that ALL the work put into GIMP is done by the developers on their time.

I put in many years as one of the primary list admins for an open source project's -users list (similar to gimp-user) and -dev list, organizing and adding to the the FAQ, answering questions on both lists, writing documentation, submitting bug reports, feature requests, and proposing UI improvements. I'm quite aware of how open source projects are developed, and I've paid my dues volunteering. I have a right to give my feedback when I feel an OS project is misguided and has overlooked critical aspects of design such as consistent tool use (backwards compatible), intuitive UI, and good documentation.

jc

Scott wrote:

I didn't attack you... yet. You, on the other hand, ARE attacking others here: "And why on Earth would you not at least display the actual ratio as the user works? Changing that (as compared to 2.2 which DOES display the current ratio) was just nuts, frankly.

"What should the fact that you thought that was a sensible way of doing it make me think about you?"

I didn't write either of those quotes.

You are now attacking me based on what others wrote.

You don't use the GIMP.

I said I used Gimp in the past. (The person who wrote the erroneously attributed quotes above is a current Gimp user.)

When I used Gimp in the past, I had problems that I was not able to overcome, despite reading tutorials, documentation (such as it was), googling, and asking for help on this very list. I'm not a novice at using computers - I've been using computers since 1979 (TRS-80 - I wrote programs in DOS). I had experience using PSP, PS, and other image editing tools. I'm an "early adopter" - yet I was unable to do some basic things with Gimp due to the poor design of the program for these particular (common) image manipulation tasks. I gave you my feedback on that. All I have received in reply are attacks. Not one person on this list has said "you have a good point, some of the things you have mentioned are real problems and we should work on that more (or "we are working on that now"). The closest anyone has come was a reply from Michael (thank you, Michael) referring to the bugzilla thread (going back to March, 2001, almost 7 years now) on why it's hard to fix my #1 stopper problem due to some initial poor design decisions.

You attack the developers and attempt to shame anyone here who might attack you, "the messenger". You waste other's time. What should all of that make us think about you?

It leads me to conclude you are a troll with nothing better to do. It leads me to think of you as a jerk.

Look in the mirror. I haven't called you names. I've given you my feedback. You can't even keep straight who said what, and now you are the first to call others names - calling two different people "jerks" because they have been willing to take the time to explain the problems they have with the program.

An intelligent, mature, and humble person would quickly apologize profusely for these mistakes. An arrogant, immature, or unintelligent person would be quick to splurt out more excuses, or attack yet again. Let's see which approach you take...

jc

Von: JC Dill

An intelligent, mature, and humble person would quickly apologize profusely for these mistakes. An arrogant, immature, or unintelligent person would be quick to splurt out more excuses, or attack yet again. Let's see which approach you take...

How about the "Switch to private mail, to spare this list from another flame war" approach?

Thanks in advance, Michael

On Friday 21 December 2007, Jeffery Small wrote:

I think if you hold shift before
beginning to drag the mouse, then it should also lock the aspect ratio.

I'd guess this is to make the crop tool's use consistent with the rectangle/ ellipse selection tools, where pressing modifier keys _before_ switches the normal/add/subtract/intersect mode, so pressing it afterwards was still "free". And, btw, there's nothing lost if you can press shift as late as you want, but you win the ability to decide on the final shape until you let go of your mouse button.

JC Dill wrote:

Geoffrey wrote:

I guess you missed the reference to the fact that ALL the work put into GIMP is done by the developers on their time.

I put in many years as one of the primary list admins for an open source project's -users list (similar to gimp-user) and -dev list, organizing and adding to the the FAQ, answering questions on both lists, writing documentation, submitting bug reports, feature requests, and proposing UI improvements. I'm quite aware of how open source projects are developed, and I've paid my dues volunteering. I have a right to give my feedback when I feel an OS project is misguided and has overlooked critical aspects of design such as consistent tool use (backwards compatible), intuitive UI, and good documentation.

Care to share what this open source project was?

Alt+Shift+drag and Alt+Ctrl+ drag seem to work on some Linux system only, such as Ubuntu.
But it doesn't work on my OpenSuse 10.2 nor on my WinXP. Unless there is some setting I don't know...

At the top of HTML help pages, you have a "Revision date" and you can see that Moving Selection has not been updated yet.

In Gimp 2.4, you move the selection outline. To move the selection contents, you have to use the Selection/Floating command.
You can't move the selection contents without emptying the original place.

Actually you can. Alt+Shift+Drag. (Alt+Ctrl+Drag to cut it out and move it, instead of moving a copy of it.). Try them.

On Friday 21 December 2007 1:12:41 am JC Dill wrote:

Scott wrote:

I didn't attack you... yet. You, on the other hand, ARE attacking others here: "And why on Earth would you not at least display the actual ratio as the user works? Changing that (as compared to 2.2 which DOES display the current ratio) was just nuts, frankly.

"What should the fact that you thought that was a sensible way of doing it make me think about you?"

I didn't write either of those quotes.

You are now attacking me based on what others wrote.

You're right... I did mistake you for Thomas... sorry. But Thomas is attacking others and does deserve to be called a jerk.

Hi,

On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 16:14 +0000, Thomas Worthington wrote:

Anyway, the answer to my original question is clearly "We think the Alt key is fine as it is and we're not going to fix it". That cripples my useage of the Gimp and I might well write a patch myself but I think it's a pretty lousy attitude. The Alt key is VERY WELL KNOWN to be in use for WM functions and it is also known that most keyboards have other "spare" keys that could be used; providing some way to get the Alt-functionality linked to those keys would appear to be a no-brainer, but then what do I know? I would never have linked common functions to a key that wasn't free in the first place!

Looks like despite many attempts to explain it to you, you still did not understand that you misunderstood how the tool works in GIMP 2.4 and that you don't need the Alt key in order to use it.

Sven

Thomas Worthington wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:40:09 -0000, Sven Neumann wrote:

[..]

Since I use the click-drag a lot when working on websites, an extra twiddle with an extra menu is a nuisance and 2.2 remains the better choice for me especially as I also do a lot of cropping and I need to see the ratio as I select the area to be cropped. I've just re-installed 2.4 and confirmed that this is simply impossible now, whereas it was part of the default display on 2.2's crop tool. That's a clear step backwards by any rational measure of usability, and if you can't see that then I'm at a loss as to what is going on in your mind.

Excuse me for jumping in, but maybe I've missed something in the "discussion"; I'm not really sure I understand what you are trying to achieve.

a) Do you know the ratio you want to end up with before you start cropping?

b) Or, do you want to crop an area you like, and end up with whatever that ratio happens to be, and be able to see it and take note of it (and probably use that value later)?

If a), then I don't follow why setting the exact ratio in the tool is difficult to do. It ensures the crop will be exactly what you want, without having to watch the current ratio and stop dragging at just the right spot.

If b), then I agree that 2.4 does not show the ratio information, as far as I can see.

Thomas Worthington wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:42:54 -0000, Bob Long wrote:

[..]

a) Do you know the ratio you want to end up with before you start cropping?

I usually have a target ratio and some leeway. So I might know that the ideal is, say, .618 but that .6 to .63 will look okay if that's what I have to use to clip out something that I don't want in the picture. I don't think this is an unusual situation to be in. I know the ratio of the target space or page but I also know that the user won't notice/care about a minor deviation in margin sizes.

Ok - thanks for the explanation. That makes sense, and I can now understand what you require. On that basis, maybe it's something that the developers can consider to be added back to a future version.

Here it is,
http://www.pion.com.br/python/ratio_info.py

now please, help us doing something constructive here.

I see hat a small misundesratnding on teh e-mails had degenerated into an unneded flamewar.

Thomas,
I see what you want and is lacking: the "real time" display of the selection's aspect ratio. i don't know why Sven has failed to identify this is what you were talking about from the very beginning, and as a matter of fact I do not care about this.

I have to say I dislike the way you have reacted so far against the project and the developers, as for the wording used. We all - developers, and users, had spent a lot of time in this discussion that could otherwise be more productive.

The above python script is a hackish way to display the aspect ratio of the selection whenever you release the mouse button. To make use of it, drop it in your plug-ins directory, mark it as executable (only needed under unix/linux), and activate it in the select menu. (If you are under windows you may have to install some extra things in order to have python scripts running)

Now if you can write without offending people, I am sure that displaying the aspect ratio while the selection is being done can be considered for 2.6

Regards,
js
->

On Saturday 29 December 2007 19:08, Thomas Worthington wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:42:54 -0000, Bob Long

wrote:

Thomas Worthington wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:40:09 -0000, Sven Neumann wrote:

[..]

Since I use the click-drag a lot when working on websites, an extra twiddle with an extra menu is a nuisance and 2.2 remains the better choice for me especially as I also do a lot of cropping and I need to see the ratio as I select the area to be cropped. I've just re-installed 2.4 and confirmed that this is simply impossible now, whereas it was part of the default display on 2.2's crop tool. That's a clear step backwards by any rational measure of usability, and if you can't see that then I'm at a loss as to what is going on in your mind.

Excuse me for jumping in, but maybe I've missed something in the "discussion"; I'm not really sure I understand what you are trying to achieve.

a) Do you know the ratio you want to end up with before you start cropping?

I usually have a target ratio and some leeway. So I might know that the ideal is, say, .618 but that .6 to .63 will look okay if that's what I have to use to clip out something that I don't want in the picture. I don't think this is an unusual situation to be in. I know the ratio of the target space or page but I also know that the user won't notice/care about a minor deviation in margin sizes.

b) Or, do you want to crop an area you like, and end up with whatever that
ratio happens to be, and be able to see it and take note of it (and probably
use that value later)?

I need to do do this quite often too. Certainly in a set of pictures I need to keep each one to the same aspect ratio even if the one choosen is not the "ideal" one.

If a), then I don't follow why setting the exact ratio in the tool is difficult to do. It ensures the crop will be exactly what you want, without
having to watch the current ratio and stop dragging at just the right spot.

If b), then I agree that 2.4 does not show the ratio information, as far as I can see.

I think this is the case. 2.2 worked very nicely for real-world situations where an exact ratio was not as important as a decent picture (within reason) while *also* making it quite easy (albeit not AS easy as 2.4) to hit that exact ratio when needed. As I say, the 2.4 method seems a clear step backwards to me.

TW

Hi Joao,

On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 22:36 -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:

I see what you want and is lacking: the "real time" display of the selection's aspect ratio. i don't know why Sven has failed to identify this is what you were talking about from the very beginning

You may not have noticed, but I identified the problems that have been raised here and I also acknowledged that the new tools have some problems. But then I have not been involved in the redesign of the tools and it's absolutely irrelevant whether I identify the problems or not.

What needs to happen is that someone summarizes the usability problems raised here and forwards them to the people who are responsible for the current design so that they can consider possible improvements for 2.6.

Sven