On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 15:52 +0100, Jehan wrote: > [...] > We ended up in just a few emails showing how diverse the user base > and habits are, and that all 4 fill types are used. [...]
> Because of this problem, we can't just decide to create actions or > buttons for specific combinations because of this point 2/. Because > what is your usual fill type is not your neighbour's. Or we should > create 4 new buttons/actions, and then the UI will end up at some > point cluttered with hundreds of buttons. It would be fabulous to have a scriptable UI, where people could add a button or could even override the defaults on a click or shift click. But GIMP isn't written in that way today. An interface with fewer buttons on the docks, but with the last one being a [+] button, which brought up a list of buttons you could add (ideally letting you choose values too) might work better. > There were propositions of inverting the click and shift-click (click > would create directly a layer of your last type and shift-click open > the dialog), like in the linked dialog. [...] > . Simon Budig explained that it was > actually done this way for a while, since the shift-click is not > easily discoverable: A compromise there is to bring up the dialogue only the first time, and to include text on it (ugh) "use shift-click to bring up this dialogue next time". Having said that, when I do use layers, I tend to use a mix of layer types. > It makes sense that the most discoverable UI should be the one to do > the > more, and later users learn progressively optimized UI logics to > improve > their workflow. For all theses reasons, the *default* UI seems > acceptable. Agreed. Liam -- Liam R. E. Quin <l...@holoweb.net> Words and Pictures From Old Books - http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
