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  
> place
> 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  
> type
> 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  
> ephemeral
> 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

Reply via email to