David Gowers wrote:
> I considered that modes might be how you meant to implement it. That is
> definitely a large change in the way the user would use paint tools, we
> should get Peter Sikking's input here for sure.
Most users wouldn't normally have to play with those details.
There could be a standard set of brush presets grouped under various
tags which would contain at least one version of each mode (by default
for example a fuzzy and a standard circle variant, freely scalable).
Here's a quick and dirty mock-up of what I have in mind:
> And we must make it visually clear that these are really properties of
> the brush, to avoid user confusion
> (A disclosure triangle would deal with this neatly)
Yes, you're right. I haven't thought about this yet.
> Another thing is that we have actions named like
> tools-value--(increase|decrease), etc which currently control
> some brush parameters (value-1 is opacity, usually). With your
> proposition, we should consider whether we need more actions so that the
> user can do more quick changes by keyboard (for example, I'd like to be
> able to toggle 'Apply Jitter' using a keyboard shortcut. And if 'Fade'
> (and fade length) were bindable to keyboard actions, they would be far
> more usable IMO.
I think that anything that can be varied with pen tablet dynamics (I
proposed that most numerically variable brush parameters would be) needs
to have optional keyboard actions too.
> oh, that reminds me, I gave the wrong URL, the correct URL is:
Yes, I eventually figured it out and downloaded the Windows build.
> Definitely, it will get developed more, that way :)
Gimp-developer mailing list