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.


         founder + principal interaction architect
             man + machine interface works
 : on interaction architecture

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to