Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok, replace "proposed solution" with "suggested placement of the button"
> > or whatever. Do you have an example use case where the user would
> > benefit from that placement?
> Alice and Bob are looking for the layer named "Foobar".
> Due to the introduction of three new toggles in each row of the layer
> list and the inclusion of the opacity slider (after all it belongs
> there, doesn't it?), Alice needs to scroll the view horizontally in
> order to see the layer names.  Alternatively she could make the layers
> dialog a lot wider.

Actually I pondered about moving the opacity slider and yes, there are
good reasons to move it more closely to the layer representation in the
layers dockable. The major drawback of course is the necessary screen
estate, and I don't think it'd be worth it. The same holds for the mode

> Bob uses a different layout. Only the visibility and linked toggles
> are in the row. The controls for opacity and state of the different
> locks are placed above the layer list. Bob can easily identify the
> layer he's looking for w/o having to scroll horizontally.

Sure, if you'd naively extend the layers dialog with more columns it
would become wide very quickly.

A way to overcome this is to have e.g. two lines per layer. A sample
mockup is available at

When looking at this mockup the icons are awfully small, they probably
need to become bigger, maybe making the layer entry higher. They also
interfere with the readability of the layer names which probably can be
remedied by sprinkling some design on them.

There probably are better ways to layout the additional buttons without
making the layer dockable wider. An advantage of these small
indicators/toggles is, that we could get rid of the weird indicator for
the existance of an alpha channel. Bold vs. Normal Text for the layer
name is not very discoverable, a small icon could help (if we don't
manage to get rid of the need for this indicator anyway).

> > But IMHO it is important to be able to quickly toggle the locking
> > for multiple layers.
> How is it important? Do you have an example use case?

Actually I already described how I frequently use that feature in
Skencil. To protect myself from working accidentially on the wrong layer
I tend to lock a lot of layers there. Since my objects of interest
usually are distributed among multiple layers I need to lock/unlock
multiple layers at once. It were quite painful if I had to move the
mouse between two different locations in the dialog instead of moving it
from row to row in a sequential manner.

There is an important difference between Gimp and Skencil though, which
makes it less of an issue for Gimp. In Skencil you by default can
operate on all objects in an image, regardless of their association to a
layer. So yes, it is more important for Skencil than for Gimp to lock


              [EMAIL PROTECTED]    
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to