Michael Schumacher wrote:
> Well, it shows that the author doesn't read the OpenUsability forum. Of
> course, this makes it a suitable article for NewsForged, but without
> proof for the authors claims it is worthless.
I don't dispute this, but I think a more fundamental issue has been
raised in the article, which comes up time and time again on Gimp lists
and in other Gimp criticism. That issue is: Gimp does not look or
behave like PhotoShop. As a result, people think it's doomed to fail
simply because it's not PhotoShop.
If folks want to use Pixel, which emulates PhotoShop, by all means let
them. What I didn't like about the article is the author equates
PhotoShop look/feel with "usability". Many Gimp users find Gimp *very*
usable and functional given what it can do. Gimp's functionality is
separate from its UI and I think it's wrong to judge Gimp's
functionality based on its UI (which doesn't necessarily mean the UI is
horrible even though many think it is).
I mentioned before I once got into a Gimp UI debate with someone who
slammed Gimp's UI but also felt PhotoShop's UI was just as bad. I think
those who claim Gimp has a "bad" UI yet suggest adopting a PhotoShop UI
are still missing the target. If the idea is to come up with a "good"
UI for Gimp, that is where the focus should be instead of swapping one
arguably bad UI with another arguably bad UI simply because it's well known.
Thanks to wayne for posting the link. :)
Gimp-user mailing list