> 5. The Gimp's GUI, unfortunately, is in direct opposition to human logic
> and our normal thought patterns. I have no other way to describe it. I
> know of no one under any OS that emulates The Gimp's GUI strategy.
> There's probably good reason for that.
I don't find Gimp to be perfect, but neither terrible, and Photoshop
is no better.
In Gimp, there are these various things that put off new users: if you
just want to change the colors, why do you have to bother with the
"layers" menu if you don't even know (at first) what is a layer? Once
you learn, why are things replicated under Layer and Tools? Why are
some things Tools (e.g., levels) and other Filters?
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
On the other hand, Photoshop is equally criptic and nonsensical, and
awkward. So many of the useful things are hidden in Image->Adjustments
: as so many things are there, and the Image menu is quite empty
otherwise, Adjustments should have been a top-level menu. Also, it's
very hard to understand why things are listed both as
Image->Adjustments and Layer -> New Adjustment Layer, and the worst is
that those two things behave in slightly different ways. And why some
things have an adjustment layer, while others (unsharp mask for
instance) are filters that once applied, cannot be modified?
I guess that it is just difficult to organize all the functions of an
image editing tool in a way that is both logical, and that leads to
productive use. I wonder about Picasa, actually. But at any rate, I
feel your criticism of Gimp is grossly exagerated, in the sense that
it does not seem any worse than Photoshop, Powerpoint, Word, and is
certainly better than Openoffice.
Gimp-user mailing list