On 2015-10-15 18:55, Akkana Peck wrote:
On 2015-10-15 01:51, Andrew Pullins wrote:
>To improve user experience I propose toolbox groups. Attached is an
>image showing how this could be done. In Preferences > Toolbox there

Jehan writes:
This is an interesting idea, but I wonder if we can't do better than this. It does not feel that efficient to me to basically have submenus on tools.

I didn't entirely understand how the tools would be grouped and how
the groups would look, but I like the idea of "Toolbox groups" and
made me think of another way we could group tools.

What if you could have more than one Toolbox arrangement? For
instance, sometimes I'm primarily editing photos, and most of what
I'm doing involves Crop, Scale, Brightness/Contrast/Curves, Rotate,
maybe Clone and Smudge and Dodge/Burn, and selection tools. I don't
need any drawing tools. Other times I'm drawing, and I need the
Paintbrush, Text, Move, Smudge, Paths etc.

I actually thought at first this was the proposition from reading the thread title (then I read the email and saw that was a completely different concept).

I also thought this was an interesting idea though I am not sure how it would go when confronted to real life. Wouldn't most users end at first create various toolbox because they think it's a cool idea at first then end up always using the same (the one with all the tools) because they get used to it the most?

This is pretty similar to the idea of profiles from another thread (the profile idea includes the concept of toolbox arrangement) by the way.

What if I could have multiple toolbox arrangements? If I'm drawing,
I see only the tools I need for that; if I'm photo editing, I see
only those tools. And there's a Show All version for when I'm doing
something unusual or learning new skills.

I thought about the exact same examples, and then I realize that sometimes photographers would use the paint tools too (to make small fixes here and there, to change selections in quick mask mode, etc.) and that many painters would still use other tools (selections, warp, transformations, etc.). So would you really want to hide them (hence make it more difficult to get to them) even if to use it once every hour? At first this could look like a good idea but I really wonder if it will hold with the time.

To create a new toolbox, a new window comes up, I can name it and
then drag tools from the "Show All" toolbox into the new window.
(Ideally I can also choose the location of each tool in the new toolbox.)

Switching between toolboxes could be like setting tool option
presets (though I'd hope it would be a bit clearer than that: I've
lost presets more than once because of confusing the "Save new
preset" and "Restore preset" buttons, which are right next to each
other and have almost identical looking menus.)

I like Andrew's idea of spacers too, and of generally being able to
choose where things go in the toolbox. That would help in grouping
tools and telling tools apart. Like fuzzy select and the color
picker: I can never remember which icon is which, but if fuzzy
select was clearly grouped with the selection tools and the color
picker was somewhere else, far away from fuzzy select, it would be a
lot easier to tell them apart. Same with clone and perspective clone,
or Move and Alignment.

You can already organize where things are by ordering tools in preferences > toolbox. Though clearly this is a good example of not very good UI. Basically many of the things we have which requires to go to the preferences are not very good in my opinion because I end up nearly never go there to customize (or forgetting you even could).


gimp-gui-list mailing list

Reply via email to