--- On Wed, 12/5/12, Gary Aitken <g...@dreamchaser.org> wrote:


From: Gary Aitken <g...@dreamchaser.org>
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Question about the new sliders
To: "Liam R E Quin" <l...@holoweb.net>
Cc: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2012, 3:46 PM


On 12/05/12 13:12, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 12:38 -0700, Gary Aitken wrote:
> 
>> So two thoughts:
>>
>> 1.  Should the integral behavior I am seeing with the up-arrow on the 
>> threshold
>> for fuzzy select be going by tenths, or by whole integers?
> 
> Neither, it depends on the width of the toolbox.
> 
> It should go up or down by
>     distance you drag as a percentage of the max value, times max value
> E.g. when the up arrow is one third the way along from the left of the
> scrollbar-thingy, clicking (or dragging at that point, it's the same)
> gives you one third of the maximum value.
> 
> So, it's supposed to work as it does, I think.

I don't think so.  In the case of the paintbrush size, what is the max value?
It is certainly not reached at the right boundary of the size slider, where it
is ~1000.  I can drag clear outside the slider to the right edge of the display
and get it up to ~9500.

The OP was requesting a manner in which to get integral values, which I 
think is the main frustration.  When sizing a brush, for example, if I know
the brush was designed as a 100x100 image, I often want to pick sizes in
integral amounts.  It's essentially impossible to do with the slider.  
In addition, once one attempts to do that, the value ends up at some fractional
amount like 437.23 and you have to delete the decimal part to get back to
whole integers.

>> 2.  It looks like the bug may be tool-related.
> 
> What exactly are you saying is a bug? I'm not saying GIMP is
> bug-free :-) just trying to see if in fact it's a problem with how to
> use these controls not being obvious, or whether your gimp is behaving
> different from mine, or whether all the gimps in the world are
> misbehaving (always a possibility, especially near a full moon).

>From what you've described as the formula, I would say it may be mostly
behaving as intended, modulo the max value issue and modulo the where is
it supposed to be clamped on the right boundary issue.  

Outside of that, what I would question is whether that intention / design 
plays well in reality, given the desire for whole-number increments in many 
cases.

BTW you've probably already seen I may have jumped the gun and filed a
minor bug on this.  My apologies.

Could be a full moon thing, as I had a horse magically appear on the wrong
side of a fence today.  But I doubt it ;-)

Gary


_______________________________________________
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
_______________________________________________
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Reply via email to