On 12/29/2017 09:18 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Elle Stone wrote:
Hi All,

After years of using GIMP in Multiple Window Mode, I'm thinking about
switching to Single Window Mode - the "sticking point" is not enough
vertical space in Single Window Mode.

Hi Elle,

I have to admit I understood most of your email as "let's cram it all
until UI elements are indistinguishable from each other" :)

I agree that reducing the space between the sliders too much (if at all) would make it difficult to tell one slider from another.

My goal was to list as many places as I could see where vertical space might be saved, in hopes of starting a discussion of possible ways to save vertical space.

The slider *height* is a different matter. The height varies with the font size, becoming quite tall as the font is increased:


In the above screenshot, for the default version of GIMP I modified "themes/gray/gtkrc" to always use sans 9, instead of using the font specified in $HOME/.gtkrc-2.0. The CCE version shows the result of setting the .gtkrc-2.0-specified font to sans 14. In the CCE version the slider height is considerably more than in the default GIMP version

Having modified the "themes" file to use sans 9, I'll probably keep this modification in my local copy of the default GIMP code. Setting my system font to sans 9 would make it difficult for me to read the text in many applications.

Fortunately I don't need to be able to actually read the text for most of GIMP's user interface, as I already know what it says :)

1. A good quarter-inch of empty space above the tool icons - could this
space be removed?

Or you can add (toolbox-wilber no) to gimprc.

Thanks! I didn't realize this. Works like a charm. What is that "by default" empty space above the tool icons for?

2. I like having the "Foreground & background colors" dialog be in the tool
box, but look at all the wasted horizontal space.

The space looks wasted, because you created such a wide group of
dockable dialogs :)

I don't know what you mean by "such a wide group". I use all the dialogs. In fact several dialogs that I normally have in the toolbox are missing because switching from multiple to single window mode completely messed up the way I had the toolbox set up.

Originally, in Multiple Window Mode, I had the tool icons in a single-icon vertical panel, similar to how Krita arranges the tool icons vertically along the left edge of the window.

But when I switched to Single Window Mode the toolbox got all messed up, so I had to empty everything out and start over. I'm not sure if having the tool icons be vertical is even possible in Single Window Mode.

If this icon could be made the same height as all the tool icons, and also 
simply float in line with
the other tool icons, then vertical space could be saved.

At 16x16, the FG/BG widget will most likely be not very usable. While
tools can be switched via shortcuts, the widget is a mouse pointer /
tablet stylus target.

Well, the Krita FG/BG widget is considerably smaller than the GIMP FG/BG widget, and still is useable. But it's bigger than 16x16.

My main use for GIMP's FG/BG widget is to bring up the full dialog. The "FG/BG Color" dockable dialog splits the sliders to one panel and the "color square" with the third parameter in a vertical box to another panel, and what I really want to see is both in the same panel. This allows (for me, can't speak for other people) maximum ease of color choosing.

3. I think the extra space around the Tool Options sliders is currently
determined by the system font size.

Vertical padding between sliders is tiny! Sliders are just a few
pixels apart. An extra 1px is not the problem here, the height of the
sliders is.

Hmm, I see the problem. I didn't use the right terminology, in fact used completely the wrong words.

I was referring to the padding around the text in the middle of the sliders, which contributes to the total height of the sliders themselves. I wasn't referring to the "padding space" between the individual sliders - my apologies for the confusion!

4. Same as above: The opacity slider has too much vertical padding.

Same as above :)

Same as above. I completely messed up trying to describe what I was talking about. I don't mean the padding around the opacity slider. I mean the height of the opacity slider, which is determined by the font-size.

5. It seems to me that a tiny bit of extra vertical space could be saved by
decreasing the vertical padding surrounding the icons at the bottom of the
various Toolbox panels.

Not much though.

Here I really was talking about padding between elements in the user interface.

6. This is the biggie, literally. It would be nice to have the option to not
have the image window tabs at all. But if having these tabs is a
requirement, at least make the tab height and tab icons as small as
possible. Is there a place in Preferences that controls this icon size? It's
huge! Where in the code is the tab/icon size set?

Um, huge? It's more like regular :) And it depends on the size ratio
of the first image you opened, it could be tiny.

Well, experimenting, you are right, it depends on the ratio of the height and width of the image. But if you open a new image with a portrait orientation, the amoung of space taken up by the tabs increases, no matter the size ratio of the first image.

It seems the height of the tab tries to keep the number of pixels in the icons on the tab constant? With a maximum and minimum height of apparently 0.5 and 0.75 inches? At least for my purposes, it would be a lot better to make the height of the icons constant regardless of the size ratios of the individual images. And ideally the user could set this maximum icon height.

Either way, there recently was a discussion to introduce filenames for
tab captions as an alternative to previews. I hope that's going to
happen. And yes, I agree that smaller previews could be introduced

I saw some of the discussion of file names instead of icons, and wondered how this would work with really long file names - truncated to a maximum number of characters, depending on the available width and the number of open images?

7. Same as 5 - it seems like maybe a little less vertical padding could be
used here, though of course there is the option to not show the task bar at

Frankly, I'm surprised that you keep scrollbars in the image window
around. They account for a lot more screen space than 7. Unless you an
me understand padding differently, of course.

Well, it depends on what I'm doing.

Right now I'm teaching myself how to paint/draw not from a photograph but from an actual item out there in the real world. So for example with the screenshot posted above, I'm drawing and shading a wooden salt shaker (it's not done yet). Originally I had the ruler, grid, and guidelines set to "so many pixels per inch". This was very helpful when making "air measurements" using an actual ruler to determine the heights and widths of the various parts of the salt shaker.

Moreover, you could shave just a little more pixels by switching to
text captions instead of icon captions for dockable dialogs.

Except that with as many dockable dialogs as I keep open, there would be no way to read the text, and also at some point the GIMP interface wisely switches to using the icons even if you ask for the text. Text that's not readable is useless.

For example when painting I want to be able to use Jehan's symmetric painting dialog, the dynamics editor for GIMP brush tools, GIMP's brushes, MyPaint brushes, the pointer and color samples dialogs for monitoring colors, the histogram, etc, etc. I do use every single docked dialog plus a few that aren't shown in the screenshot.

Also I want the tool options dialog to show all of the paint tool options without having to use the scroll bar. Scrolling up and down is just plain time-consuming and requires extra clicks. Keeping the tool options dialog "scroll-bar free" is actually the overriding reason for the way I've arranged the entire toolbox.

I tried putting the toolbox on a second monitor (in Multiple Window Mode), but that created a host of other problems.

In general, I completely agree that things could be tidier, I just
don't think vertical padding between elements is our main enemy here

Neither do I :) - I completely misdecribed what I was trying to say.

gimp-gui-list mailing list

Reply via email to