On 25 Nov 2003 14:07:12 +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RaphaŽl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For what reason do we want to call one of them "the toolbox" and treat
> > it in a special way in the code and in the docs? Why couldn't we call
> > any of the top-level control GIMP windows "a toolbox" or "a dock",
> > without having to care about how this window was created? If the list
> > or grid of tools can be moved to any dock, wouldn't it be more
> > appropriate to use the term "toolbox" for whatever window happens to
> > contain the tool icons?
> But why should we make the tool buttons detachable? It would only lead
> to confusion and wouldn't add any extra value.
I was talking about the list or grid of tools (the "Tools" dockable),
not the current tool buttons. Currently, we have two ways to display
the tool icons: either as buttons (as shown in the current toolbox), or
as a dockable list or grid of tools. Although the latter should be
improved to have the same features as the current buttons (tooltips), it
is more flexible because the user can customize how the icons are
displayed. In order to reduce the amount of partially redundant code,
we could get rid of the current toolbox replace it by the dockable grid
of tools. Then we would call this the "toolbox" and it could be moved
to any dock. That's what I tried to explain two messages earlier, in my
reply to your first comments. Sorry if that was not clear enough.
> > So call me thick if you want (or just persistent), but I still do not
> > see a good reason to have this artificial difference between the
> > toolbox and the other docks. The argument from Simon about the
> > "minimal GIMP GUI" seemed interesting at first, but on second thought
> > it is not very good either: as the current toolbox window is also a
> > dock containing several tabs, it is usually far from "minimal".
> The default setup for the toolbox is just the tool buttons and the
> tool options docked to it. We allow the user to add more tabs here but
> it is certainly not what most people are using.
I thought that "minimal GIMP GUI" was used in the sense of "small", i.e.
that it would not take too much space on the screen. Even with a default
setup including a single tab, this doubles the amount of space that would
otherwise be taken by the toolbox. Adding more tabs does not change the
amount of space used, unless this is done by stacking another dock area
below the existing one. That's why I wrote that ``a better "minimal GIMP
GUI" would only show the toolbox (i.e., just the list or grid of tool
icons) and maybe the menu, but not any of the other dockable items.''
Anyway, it looks like neither of us will manage to convince the other one
that one user interface model is easier to understand and use than the
other one ("toolbox must be special" or "all docks must be equal"). So I
propose that we leave it at that for the moment and only revisit this
issue if we get significant feedback about this.
Gimp-developer mailing list