Jason Simanek wrote:
> Has there been any discussion about doing away with the 'floating
> selection' quasi-layer that occurs after copy/pasting in Gimp?
hey, what a coincidence. actually last weekend at lgm there
was a meeting (joao, pippin and me) about giving Elle Yan's
'on-canvas tool' SoC project a purpose.
everybody agreed that the concrete goal should be tackling
the 'floating selection', which involves some simple on-canvas
controls and build/exercising the infrastructure for that.
> I don't
> mean to compare the Gimp to Photoshop, but it seems like this is a
> where Photoshop does the right thing: when graphics are copy/pasted a
> new layer is created. In my experience the floating selection
> quasi-layer has little or no usefulness.
> A new layer is non-destructive. Why is there a need for this other
> of layer? The name 'floating selection' isn't even accurate. This is a
> collection of pixels. It is not a selection. A selection is an
> mask not a collection of specific pixels.
yes, 'floating paste' is a much better term.
another coincidence: during my talk at the lgm:
I talked about layer abuse, not by users, but by applications
that make certain things only possible by introducing a new layer.
that has to stop: only users get to decide how many layers they
need for organising their composition.
so pasting is going to be _in_ a layer (or mask or channel)
and the controls for opacity, blend mode and anchoring
will be on-canvas. there will be quite a few things to take
care of, like new-layer-from-clipboard workflow, and they will be.
> While I'm at it I also recommend that layer boundaries should be
> disposed of.
yep, that will happen, one day.
founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
Gimp-developer mailing list