I've nothing against icons as an option that can be toggled on/off (or at least minimized) in order to get more real estate. I just object to them as the initial, only, or default interface.
(BTW -- My Gmail is all buttons and text.) On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Luke Frisken <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you are right in one sense. But, I look up here at a toolbar in my > gmail and see icons that I have never clicked on and I'm pretty sure I know > what they do. I'd call that self explanatory... I guess it takes a knowledge > before hand of the function, or a previous encounter with a similar looking > icon to be able to guess what it means. So, for a tool shelf you could use > something that looks like a tool... Either way it can be hard to guess > exactly what it is, even after clicking on it, or finding it in a menu and > clicking on it; like you suggest. This is where tooltips are fantastic at > filling in the gap between proper wiki documentation, and none at all. It > allows people who know vaguely what they are doing to have a better guess at > what the function is supposed to do. > > The sense in which I think you are certainly right is that the current > menu hierarchy is the standard way of finding this functionality, and is > something we shouldn't change, because many users rely on this to find what > they need, and this is also standard behaviour in any software. This is a > good thing I think. Buuut, the thing is, that T and the N panel are toggled > on and off very frequently in my workflow (and I would guess others, because > otherwise this issue wouldn't have been raised), so having as > a separate icon in the corner, (like where the plus sign was), would help > greatly for people who prefer to use the mouse (less clicks and mouse > movement required), and be an even bigger improvement for people who use the > tablet. Or, do we want to take the direction of favouring keyboard support? > I'm not personally against that, but I know people who are better at > remembering positions of icons than random letters on a keyboard. I think I > can guess T, but what does N even stand for!? For Non-English, or English as > a second language users I reckon this would be even harder, because they > would have a harder time guessing what T stood for and associating it with > the functionality in blender. > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Jim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have never found any icon scheme self-explanatory. I think >> absolutely everything should be available through a menu hierarchy so >> everyone, even beginners, knows that there is at least one way to find >> anything. (I do mean everything, including text fields, checkboxes, >> and dropdowns. It doesn't have to be a shallow hierarchy.) If you >> have that then you can provide the hotkeys in the menu and do >> everything with hotkeys and pop-ups too. People will look up the >> hotkeys in the menu and learn them for anything they use a lot. If >> you don't have everything on a menu then there will be a constant >> stream of questions asking where and how for simple stuff. With >> everything somewhere on a menu people will groan and hunt it down. >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Felix Schlitter >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I couldn't agree more with Michael. Hotkeys for restoring headers, or >> > locking them would be wonderful! >> > >> > And on topic: I also never use the toolshelf for anything during >> modelling >> > other than getting access to the operator panel. F6 is awesome but it >> would >> > be more convenient to have it sitting in a compact shelf (especially for >> > complex operators like the tree generator and stuff). >> > >> > I like the proposal, however it would mean that the user has to learn yet >> > another hotkey or move the mouse all the way over. Atm, I kinda like the >> > whole N/T hotkey scenario where I press the T, which lays on the left >> side >> > of the keyboard (for english keyboards anyway) to hide the left sidebar >> and >> > vice versa. >> > >> > Maybe a "Maya toolshelf" could be taken into consideration, which sits on >> > top of the screen and can also be hidden like a header. Then we could use >> > icons instead of text in order to save space. We would just need to make >> > sure that the icons are a bit more self explanatory than those used in >> Maya. >> > Then the operator would sit in the left sidebar by itself, or could get >> > company some of the items from the right toolbar. >> > >> > Just an idea >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:44 PM, michael williamson < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Sadly there's no key to restore a minimised header! (they're all to easy >> >> to close when using a tablet with no way to restore in the cycles >> >> branch! (for headers I'd like to see the old 2.49 way and disable >> >> minimising them....) >> >> >> >> ON TOPIC, >> >> I'd prefer tool props to be its own panel.... it's too small when at the >> >> bottom of the toolshelf I always use F6 in preference.... >> >> >> >> The toolshelf itself is invaluable in paint, sculpt etc but something I >> >> don't use ever when modelling... the operator panel on the other hand is >> >> something I'd very much like to have on screen all the time when >> >> modelling but hardly ever when painting! >> >> >> >> I only mention to illustrate that people are different and like >> >> different things and a flexible UI should accommodate ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13/06/11 10:01, M.G. Kishalmi wrote: >> >> > I like how Brecht solved this in the cycles branch: >> >> > he removed the (+) icons all together. >> >> > >> >> > there are keys for props [N] and tools [T] >> >> > and menu entries (in view) for all 3. >> >> > maybe we can simply add a key for tool-props? suggestion: [ALT]+[N] >> >> > >> >> > or maybe.. don't allow the tool-props to be hidden at all? >> >> > just find a way to have it sit there at the top/bottom of the tools >> >> nicely. >> >> > >> >> > cheers, >> >> > mario >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Jonathan Smith<[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> You are probably right, using a lot of space doesn't seem to be the >> best >> >> >> answer.. back to drawing board. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Jim Williams<[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I'd agree. Find ways to use less real estate, not more. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Aurel W.<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>>> Hi, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I think that this would be rather unpractical, it takes way to much >> >> >>>> visual space for what it represents. If i want to collapse those >> >> >>>> panels, i want them gone, not taking a lot of space on the screen >> like >> >> >>>> those huge buttons. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Blenders gui already got way too unefficient in 2.5, especially >> when >> >> >>>> it comes to, space needed for certain gui elements and panels. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> aurel >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 12 June 2011 13:28, Jonathan Smith<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> I have written up a mockup/proposal on a different way to do the >> >> closing >> >> >>> and >> >> >>>>> opening of the Tool Shelf and Properties Shelf UI, other than >> using >> >> the >> >> >>>>> little plus icons, on my talk page. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php?title=User_talk:JayDez >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I am, unfortunately, not a good enough coder to actually implement >> >> this, >> >> >>> so >> >> >>>>> I'm just putting it out there as an idea, either for another coder >> to >> >> >>>>> implement, or just to promote discussion about the way this works, >> >> since >> >> >>> I >> >> >>>>> don't think that it is done very well in the current version of >> >> Blender. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Any comments on or critiques of the mock up would be welcome. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Cheers, >> >> >>>>> Jonathan >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>>> Bf-committers mailing list >> >> >>>>> [email protected] >> >> >>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>> Bf-committers mailing list >> >> >>>> [email protected] >> >> >>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action. >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> Bf-committers mailing list >> >> >>> [email protected] >> >> >>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Bf-committers mailing list >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Bf-committers mailing list >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Bf-committers mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Bf-committers mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action. >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > > > > -- > >From Luke > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action. _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
