Nathael Pajani (g...@nathael.net) wrote:
> Right. Because I do not see why there are now two windows at startup.
> Yes, you pointed to the wiki explanation already. It seems you are all OK for
> this empty unuseful window at Gimp startup
Please don't confuse your opinion with facts. This window is useful and
why it is useful has been discussed already or is described in the spec.
> With screens becoming wider, a vertical toolbox is not too much space wasted,
> but that big empty window is here for nothing. You even had to specify what
> should look like for it not to be mistaken for an image window. This was
> impossible with the toolbox window.
But the toolbox window cannot fulfil the tasks of the no-image window.
For a start it cannot show the proper global menu.
> > If the complexity increases logarithmic or linear is not that
> > impotent. But I don't understand, why you are trying tu discuss facts.
> > Every option is expensive. It costs time in programming, testing,
> > documenting, supporting ...
> And ?
> Gimp is not a "paint". I thought free software were not bound to
> create releases in time at the lowest possible cost.
Gimp not being "paint" - which in itself is a polemic and not-helpful
non-comparison - does not mean that we *have* to make our life harder
> >> Right and wrong.
> >> Right, the UI must not come as an afterthought.
> >> But the UI is not the main part of an Image manipulation program, it's
> >> here to
> >> give access to it's capabilities.
> > Have a look into the code, the UI is the biggest part in GIMP.
> The number of lines of code has nothing to do with what is important.
> Gnome is a UI
> Window managers are UI
> GIMP is an Image Manipulation Program
> The User interface is here to allow access to it's capabilities as an image
> manipulation program.
> Or am I mistaken again ?
Count the numbers of people using gimp as a programmatic backend and
compare it to the number of people using gimp via the GUI. Then you have
a rough estimate if the UI of Gimp is important or not.
(Hint: There is a reason why we recomment imagemagick to people for
> > The UI actually is the main part of an Image manipulation program;
> > at least, it's the main part of GIMP.
> NO again, because you are confusing it's goal, and the number of lines
> of code related to each part.
Why are you trying to argue against our own perception of the Gimp?
Isn't Gimp what the Gimp developers think it is?
> > An other reason for keeping the 'New Image' at top is, that it is the
> > recommended place from the Gnome HIG.
> And ?
> Gimp will become GNOME dependent ?
> > (And the Apple HIG)
> Apple dependent ?
I guess we should follow the NHIG - i.e. The Nathael Human Interface
Guidelines. Because there is nothing that is researched better. </sarcasm>
Gimp-developer mailing list