Rikard Johnels wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:17, Carol Spears wrote:On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:01:30PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote:gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems?this sentence makes no sense, sorry. allow me to fix it:gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is not a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems? sorry. carol _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-userI cant help but add a few of my personal thoughts on this topic.. I use GIMP because it ISNT PS. AND the fact that PS doesn't readily run on my
It is indeed a big plus to have GIMP on all three systems, but the GUI is therefore somewhat restricted. The GTK GUI developed is clearly different from what windows users are used to. Do I hear "I don't care about Photoshop/Windows Users that want to transfer to GIMP?"... then why was GIMP compiled for windows at all, just for a bunch people that were patient enough to learn it? Doesn't a good GUI distinguish itself by a seamless integration into various OS's without having to re-learn how window handling works (for a Photoshop user it is quite a step to a document interface with alt+tabbing to the various menus involved) or relearn all shortcut keys (e.g. it would be a great future improvement if the user can say if it will use a 'Photoshop/Windows' shortcut key profile, or an original GIMP shortcut key profile).favorite OS. Where as GIMP runs on at least 3 different ones... This in it self add conciderable to my choice. I can have three different "studios" running Linux, Windows and OSX and still have a homogenous image manipulating software. (BIG plus in my book)
Sure? Again, doesn't it say something about general usability of GIMP's GUI? A good GUI is characterized that it is 'understandable' by the great majority of users, inexperienced, experienced using other software platforms and experienced using GIMP. I work with GIMP daily and I try to convince other people that GIMP is a good choice. But I see also that all these users have larger difficulties to learn GIMP compared to other graphical software, because they have been already 'poisoned' with general Windows GUIs (eg., GUIs in which menu's are always within the program interface and not separate 'windows', a standard set of shortcut keys, file menu handlers that are different from the GTK ones). If GIMP developers just ignore that, it sounds to me as if they just deliberately confine their software to a particular (and small) group of people. That is a big pity, because I believe that the more people use GIMP, the better the program becomes and the bigger the chances are that such OSS software stays on and remains in development.Second; If changing from PS to GIMP is a bigger hurdle than changing the other way around, its not GIMP's "fault".
In your case changing to gimp was never much of a question. Would the same go for other graphical software users? Or "do they just have to stick with Photoshop"?Its a problem behind the keyboard. I have never liked PS cluttered layout, and have found GIMP's interface alot easier to handle. So in MY case changing TO GIMP never was much of a question.
I totally agree with that, great go GIMP. But it is not the time to be complacent and just think that GIMP is 'perfect and otherwise bug off to other software'. There are more graphical software users on this planet that appreciate the goals of GIMP, but still can't do what they want with it. Should we just ignore the wishes of this future user group and go on with only doing what the current community wants? If so, than don't get mad about more of such forks in the future.There are all kinds of talks about PS being more advanced, have lots more plugins etc. So? If a commercial software thats been around for so many years as PS, DIDN'T have more "bells and whistles" than a "uncommercial" piece that only been around a few years, I'd be more then surpriced. GIMP started very small and has, in a short few years grown conciderable.
Nope, I think he/she wants GIMP to be "more usable" for a wider range of users than it is now. It just happens that a large amount of users that think of switching to GIMP are PS users. Geez, how strange that people then propose improvements of the GIMP GUI that are inspired by PS's GUI? Are those wishes just totally ignored by people that claim to have a 'better' idea how software has to work?So back to the topic... WHY would you want to make GIMP look like PS??
WHY would you change layout to something, in my mind, inferior? If i want to have PS i'd run PS.
I run GIMP because it more then fits my needs.
I run GIMP because i find it easier to use. And i DO run GIMP because it's free for me to use. I dont want to, and dont have the money to spend on new versions and releases.
Bottom line is: listening to ideas that may increase the usability to a large group of users at the expense of a smaller group of users might not be such a bad idea. But to know for sure that that situation applies, we might first ask the users themselves what their opinions are about the GUI. And next to that, listening to comments from within the GIMP community is good, but why not test it with people from outside that community of GIMP fanatics? Wouldn't that be the a major step in order to let GIMP be a really successful piece of software? Or should we define beforehand that using GIMP will be restricted to a small community of PS haters?Now mind you, i do NOT slight those who want to take babysteps. Bus as Carol said. Its not very smart. Getting from A to B is one step. Sure it might be a big one. But why cut it up in small steps? Its like exchanging your softwarebase in steps. First lets take out the database. and Learn a way of making the old and new software work in unison. Then lets exchange the reporttool. And get more problems as the new system doesn't talk to the clients. And as last step (after lots of headaches and patching scripts) lets exchange the clients. Now the only thing we have to do is educate the users a third time to make everyting work again. And thus ending up at B as planned from the beginning. Bottom line, why change a program into sometingelse just cause its looks and handles as the old one? Wouldn't it be better to stay with the old in that case? And the parts of forking. Its sure is easier to steal an idea and fiddle with it so it looks as it mine, than it is coming to an agreement of a certain way of operation. But is it "fair play"? Is it "well done"?
And just stop seeing forks as something offensive.. you're missing the message that there is a group of users that doesn't feel at ease with GIMP as it is at the moment. Isn't the whole idea that when a fork is published this is done because the current GIMP UI is lacking some generality? Should you just ignore such a fork or learn from it?
With a sincere thanks to developers that keep their eyes open what is happening in the rest of the graphical software world and GUI development.
I think not. These are my own personal thoughts on the matter. So don't go flaming the community for what i write here. Any complaints will be duly read, and answered to if i find them relevant. With a sincere thanks to the developers, maintainers and people working and improving GIMP...
begin:vcard fn:Bram Kuijper n:Kuijper;Bram email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;home:050-5891808 tel;cell:06-25254616 version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user