On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 04:36:53 +0200, Saul Goode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

gg wrote:

I also find as a user that menus often go too deep.

One sub-menu is acceptable , two starts to get unwieldy. Eg. I ofter
a selection and Paste As New , this is three levels deep. I'd like to
this at the same level as Cut:  Cut | Paste | Paste as New. I crated a
hot-key as a work around but as others have said , I would rather keep
eyes on the screen except for typing numbers etc.

Is there a reason you don't use tear-off menus? Having small sub-menus
actually enhances this utility.

I assume a "tear-off" menu is the context menu I get from a right-mouse click. I dont see the gain here, it's actually one click more than using the edit menu.

If I misunderstood, could you explain what a tear-off is?

Another improvement would to clean up some menus. The Blur menu seems to
contain several, largely equivalent filters. Two would suffice and could
be incorporated into Enhance.

Which two would suffice? Personally, I find all of them useful and I
wouldn't recommend combining filters that use different algorithms into
one interface -- not only would this complicate maintenance and
development but menu grouping is a great indicator of a command's function.

This menu could use some work, pixise is not a blur, it may be better in distortions menu. Gaussian blur, Selective Gaussian blur and tile seem to do basically the same thing with more or less options on the interface. I have not looked at the source but it seems they could be combined. This may actually reduce any future maintainance.

Whether the non-adjustable blur is useful next to these may be worth thinking about.

Motion blur clearly is a separate tool.

If sharpen is an "enhancement" so is it's complement blur. It would probably be helpful for them to be together in Enhancement menu.

I also created a bug about making sure sub-menus did not jump from one
side to the other. This is appalling from a usability point of view but
the comment did not get a very positive response.

If your proposal were accepted, there would be reports submitted
complaining that all the submenus appear on the left when there might be
only one that's overly-long. My preference is to minimize the number of
times that my eyes have to "jump" from the far right of menu text to the
far left of sub-menu (much less appalling to just "continue reading left
to right").

I'm not sure we're talking the same language here.

my complaint was exactly that , that from one submenu to another the submenu can come up left or right which is visually distruptive.


Some real basics like flip and rotating an image to straighten it up
should be on the image menu.

Erm, they are.

I dont know what gimp you are looking at, I refer to 2.3.12 from cvs. There are no rotate operations on the image menu, all are in a submenu.

Some anomolies could be looked at, I can free-rotate a layer but not an

Erm, you can.

Can you please clarify what you mean. I look at the Image | Transform and I only get the simple 90deg and flip options.

Where do you see rotate image?

Colors | Retinex  ?? What's that supposed to tell the user?

It tells me that it performs an operation called Retinex on the image.
If I did not know what the word Retinex meant then, just like any other
word with which I was unfamiliar, I would look it up. If Retinex is an
inaccurate description of the processing taking place, a change in name
might be called for but otherwise I would submit that the purpose of the
GIMP is not to serve as a dictionary of graphics terms.

The hint is good here. "Enhance contrast with Retinex method" . So what is the key information here? I would suggest "Enhance contrast" makes more sense as an entry in the color menu than an obscure name of the algorithm used. The hint then gives the extra info about what method is applied.

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to