I had our evaluation notes dug out to see what we have to say about
>> I'd like to help to keep the healing tool alive.
> That would be very much appreciated since otherwise we would likely
> disable the heal tool for the 2.4 release.
yep, we can see it does not work right now.
>> Finally I don't understand what the healing tool has to do
>> with a 'brush' (as it is currently implemented)
> Painting with a brush is just a way to select an area. And a very nice
> and intuitive one also.
> The problem with the current implementation is
> however that it tries to heal while you are painting. This doesn't
> work. I think it would be better if, while you are painting, the tool
> would work like the clone tool. Then, when the mouse is released, the
> healing algorithm should be applied on the area selected by the paint
hmmm, how would you know you had done enough healing?
>> A bug has been reported when source and destination areas are of
>> different depth. Since, IHMO, the healing tool doesn't make sense
>> in that case, I'd suggest to simply abort with an informative
>> error message.
> Why does it not make sense to heal a region in an image using a
> from another image, or from another layer in the same image?
we saw in the workspace observation users who have collections of
skin texture to do cloning with. Since healing is an refined
extension of that, I can see the use of this.
principal user interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
Gimp-developer mailing list