On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:10:18 +0100, Daniel Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20.01.2005, at 22:07, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > That sounds akward. Why would I have to convert a selection to a
> > selection? This should be hidden from the user.
> A generic way to manipulate active selections would certainly
> be preferable so that arbitrary shaped selections can be moved
> and (re-)sized by any amount in either directon instead of just
> manipulated by boolean operations with new selections or
> grown/shrunk.

Several proposals for the selection tools have already been discussed
in 2002.  I like the idea of being able to modify the current shape
freely until it is "confirmed" in some way.  This could be done for
the rectangle and ellipse (and rounded rectangle if we ever add this)
by having a generic way to adjust the bounding box of the selection.
After the shape is applied/confirmed, it could be combined with others
using the usual boolean operations.  See this interesting bug report
for more details: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91934

A similar discussion took place for the crop tool:

> > This is also akward. The crop tool shouldn't have a dialog, nor should
> > we add one to a possible new rectangle tool. The current rect-select
> > tool shows how the tool-options can be used for this.
> However, as long as such a generic method does not exist, I'd
> rather have a well-known interface like the one of the crop
> tool instead of the current behaviour. The current selection
> tools are annoying enough to be barely of any use without
> rulers for anything larger than a 100x100 pixel icon with some
> heavy magnification.

I agree with Sven here: we should get rid of all pop-up dialogs for
the tools.  If additional input such as dimensions or aspect ratio
is required for a tool, then this should be part of the tool options
instead of having a separate window which often gets in the way and
can steal the input focus, etc.  See also bug #85579.

> >>   As always, everything is open to change, and nothing is written in
> >> stone, and all feedback is welcome.
> > I will try to sit down later today and write up a completely different
> > proposal since I don't like your's at all.
> I for one prefer Bills' approach much to what we have now; but
> lets see what you'll come up with.

I also think that Bill's approach is interesting, but I would prefer a
generic concept that can be applied to all selection tools and could
also be used to improve the crop tool.  I hope that Sven will come up
with a good proposal.  In the meantime I recommend that you have a
look at bug #91934 (linked above), especially comment #5 from Simon.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to