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.



Liam R. E. Quin <l...@holoweb.net>
Words and Pictures From Old Books - http://www.fromoldbooks.org/

Reply via email to