[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2002-02-16 at 0929.47 +0100):
> Well done! I still have some comments though, see below.

Thanks, that is why I post. :]

> I think we need to think very hard about Plug-ins, Filters, Script-Fu, and 
> Tools.

Another I forget: no more differences about script-fu, pygimp,
perl-fu, C or whatever. If it is under Filter, it is a "filter" and
must behave like any other.

> I'd like to define a Tool as something that changes the image depending on 
> the coordinates sent by the pointer device. This means that Flip and 
> Transform (which always work on the whole image or the whole selection) 
> aren't tools at all. Things like the Image>->Color->* functions, which seem 
> to be implemented as Tools in 1.2, aren't tools either.

Interesting definition. Note the implementation is one thing, and you
are talking about menu, in this case they are in the right place
(well, the one I posted, cos they are Layer level, not Image).

> I'm not quite sure what to do with the remaining functions. I don't
> think the user should be able to see the difference between
> Plug-ins, Script-Fu scripts, and Perl scripts in the interface. That

No, they should not. We need a definition for tool, filter and so
on. Your "tool" seems fine, at least to begin with.

> means that the Xtns->Script-Fu menu entry should go. Throwing them

Perl script register under Filter or other places, like C based
functions, and that is the way to go with script-fus too.

> all in one big menu under Filters may be overkill though. I'm open
> to suggestions for splitting this up (in a way that is based on the
> function of the plugins) into smaller more manageable parts.

By kind, like is now, we have to create the review kind list (starting
with current classification, to avoid starting from scratch).

> Thirdly, we now have three different Transform options. I know that
> Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot, but with
> this you can't see the trees for the forest. Why not just a single
> transform tool, and an option there to do the whole image or just
> the current layer? Or better even, allow the selection of multiple
> layers in the layers dialog box, so that you can have finer-grained
> control over what you are changing and what not.

Transform menu entries do some basics and in some cases pretty
hardcoded (rotate 90*n degrees), and transform tool is more like the
tool definition you use, it uses the mouse, and is more free.

> Lastly, I think we should look at the names of the functions in
> relation to their locations in the menu. In GIMP 1.2, there is a
> function Image>->Filters->Color->Map to Gradient..., which is rather
> confusing. Thing is, there's also an Image>->Filters->Map submenu,
> and I always end up looking for Map to Gradient in the Map
> submenu. Function-wise I think this is a logical way to organise
> things, but linguistically it's confusing.

I left the Filters one for next step, cos it is tricky, have to add
all the scripts, move things around, etc. I wanted to have the basic
structure and the other submenus, not the Filter area.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to