On Sunday 13 February 2005 08:25, David Neary wrote:
> Hi,
Ok...
Iá say I agree fully with Dave's comments. I'd have something to add
here:
>
> One usability change which would be great, but I know that it is
> a lot trickier, is to have the selection be both a selection and
> adjustable at the same time. It would be great to be able to drag
> the corners (or even, why not, the edges) of a selection to move
> it around & resize it dynamically, but have it actually be a
> selection if I do something like apply a filter. The question is
> whether the adjustableness would only apply to the last element
> added to the selection (ellipse, rectangle, or why not,
> freehand?) or to the bounding box of the entire active selection.
> I haven't thought a whole lot about it.
>
Great - I think that if the selection was not replaced by the
rectangle, the adjustment could be - for the time being - on the
boundng box of the selection. I say "for the time being" - because
the olny satisfactory UI I can perceive for this is to have each
element on the selection adjustable - that means that sucessive
erctangle selects, ellipse, free hands, select by colors, use of
quickmask, etc, should be individually "pickable" and re-edited.
The only way this functionality might be implemented is if - or rather
- when - Pippin's suggestions for what could be called an 'action'
model for the drawables is implemented. That is - the GIMP would
record not only the actuall raster data, but each action performed on
a drawable as a "data independent" model. That would also allow for a
great macro recorder, out of order undo/redo, per drawable undo/redo
- and this - a fully readjustable selection. Maybe we could put some
more thinking in how this proposed model would be achievable.
> Cheers,
> Dave.
Regards,
JS
-><-
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
