Sven wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 21:05 +0100, peter sikking wrote:
>
>> and I can't believe that proposing an alignment of GIMP UI with
>> the realities of users expectations meets such a dogged resistance.
>
> There is no dogged resistance. I just had the impression that you
> believed that storing selections would be the only use of channels.
no, my diagnosis is that it is just abuse of channels.
> It
> is more like a useful side-effect of it. Perhaps it makes sense to
> make
> it more obvious how to save and restore selections, but we also need
> to
> make sure that we are not taking away important features. Channels is
> really an area where GIMP is lacking. If we want to be taken
> seriously,
> then there should be much more emphasis on channels. Removing them
> from
> the default UI is not a step towards that.
so we were solving two different problems. You were resurrecting the
channels and I was resurrecting the selections.
looking at channels: I am not the one to come up with suggestions what
else channels can do. a discussion of this would be welcome.
what I can say is that "how are we going to get graphical
information into channels" needs to be brought up to a level
that there is for layer masks (but taking the global nature of channels
into account).
I was reviewing the transport of graphical information between
layers, masks, selections, channels. the weaker part seems to be
the channels and also the alpha channel, I am still mesmerised
that it cannot be made visible, tangible like the layer mask.
--ps
founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
