> First off, I want to apologize - it's not my intention to be
> combative, and I can be a total ass sometimes.
don't worry, I am also fired up about this one. here is why:
people have talked to me a week or more ago on the irc along the
line of: "what's the big deal, one way or another will do."
here is the big deal: for my pov the dockable magnifier is
just-another-feature, it will make some people happy in some
situations. the pop-up loupe however, has the potential to be
a transformational feature. It has the potential (when properly
designed) to fully transform the way most people work with GIMP
in work-macroscopic/change-microscopic situations, that go way
beyond the mentioned setting selections pixel-precise.
"saul" on the irc made this film (thanks):
I could imagine here some dust spotting going on, on a
macroscopic scale the photog decides what really needs to be
spotted, pops up the loupe and makes a precise change.
I would spec some things different than saul shows us here:
enlarged area much closer to the smaller mouse area;
semitransparent frame to make the tool less obstructive;
real tool display in the enlarged area.
> Secondly, I wonder if
> we should make two feature requests: the first for a dockable
> magnifier with options, and the second for a key-triggered pop-up
> version of the same magnifier. Should there be no objections, I'll
> file the first request in BZ.
practically speaking, this will have to wait for cairo,
and I see you are already off the mark.
> Peter, do you have any problems with
> writing up the second request? Sounds like you have a clearer vision
> of how it should be implemented.
I am not sure if Sven wants another feature request in bugzilla.
If so I will write it.
principal user interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
Gimp-developer mailing list