On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
> >From: Roman Joost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Tasks for the first test (all-day-usage; all of the are common tasks for
> >all people, except the one where the indicated group is mentioned):
> Could you also make a proper usability test for the rectangular
> selection? I seem to be forced to use the re-try approach where
> I start making the rectangular selection from scratch if it goes
> wrong (and the initial fine-tuning never goes right at first time!).
> It also seems to be impossible to make precise selections in large
> images (e.g., 800x800 to 6000x6000). Both large selections and long
> narrow selections on large images are trouble. If zoom-in is used,
> even relatively small images becomes "large".
This is a good idea for a usablilty test subtask. While the difficulties
with the selection tools are well known by the developers, that doesn't
change the fact that a usablilty test can show the extent to which it is a
problem. (In fact, usablilty tests often start with known or suspected
weaknesses.) I for one would be interested in seeing the results, should
your suggestion be added to the test.
> Test the crop tool too -- it fails for large images as well, or when
> zoom is used for seeing image details.
It would be very useful if we can determine which are the biggest
impediments to usability here. There are three factors which come to the
top of my mind:
1) The extreme brokenness of autoscroll. Autoscrolling tools currently
scroll far too quickly to be useful in most cases.
2) Users may not be aware of how to change zoom levels without loosing
tool state. Or, in the case of the rectangular select tool, there is no
real way to usefully change the zoom, since the entire operation must be
performed in a single drag manuver.
3) The interface mechanics (feel) of the tools may need some redesign.
For instance, maybe the crop tool should automatically size itself to the
bounds of the current selection. Perhaps the rectangular selection tool
should work somewhat like how the old bezier select tool did (where you
could edit the outline of the selection by clicking at the right points,
or cause the selection change to actually occur by clicking in the
center.) This would, of course, make selection CSG operations more
difficult, so perhaps a third method, where the only selection operations
are select the interior of a path, invert, and QuickMask, may actually be
more useable, and should be tested as well.
> I'm puzzled: do you people make perfect initial selections or how
> you scope with the problem?
Generally what I do is make a "rough cut" in the large and then adjust the
selection using the CSG operations. This is pretty unsatisfying
sometimes, as you mention, like when you need to move the boarder of a
wide selection up a few pixels. Often that requires a lot of adding and
subtracting before you get it right.
> If anyone wants implement the unirectangular selection tool and/or
> improve the crop tool, please don't hesitate ask my improved designs.
> (No patent pending.)
If you have any suggestions I haven't covered here, I would be interested
to hear them.
> (GIMP does not anymore compile in my Linux -- we should work out the
> tools together, if at all.)
I'm having a difficult time understanding what "we should work out the
tools together, if at all" means, but I assume you meant to say that you
wouldn't mind help getting GIMP to compile on your machine, which of
course the GIMP developers are more than happy to help with.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that there are many things that could
potentially be at issue here, and Burrito, the GIMP developers' official
psychic, has been a little vague as of late, it would probably help us to
know more specifically what problem you are having. The last error
messages you got (other than the annoying "Make : leaving subdir
foo/bogus/stuff: Error 1" messages) are most likely to be useful.
Gimp-developer mailing list