On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 18:43 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> I don't think it is a good idea to use the cursor as the insertion point
> since this is both very uncommon and not very practical, the mouse
> cursor is too volatile for this. More reasonable is to use the selection
> as the insertion point, and this is currently how it works. Using this
> as a base for an improved workflow seems like a better idea to me.
When there is no selection, and you paste, the paste typically ends
up 3,926,201 screens above where you are working (for me at least).
So the workflow is
2) zoom out until yu find the selection
3) when you can't see it, turn on the marching ants
4) use the move tool and shift-arrow to drag the selection
(or drag with the mouse if it's solid so you can actually
grab it when it's only a few mm long on the screen)
5) zoom in on the place where you want to work, a step
at a time, gradually moving the floating selection
6) when you get to 50% or 100% so you can work, try to remember
why you wanted whatever you pasted.
Why you think that's a smoother workflow than
1) paste so floating selection appears on the screen
2) continue working
is beyond me.
When there *is* a selection, normal procedure is
1) undo the paste
2) select none
3) paste and follow the 6-step path to confusion given above :-)
For me at least.
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
Gimp-developer mailing list