Re: [Gimp-gui] gimp-gui-list Digest, Vol 3, Issue 8

[Andrew Pullins]

Why not keep the default as it is today.  When you click the new layer
button it opens the new layer dialog, When you shift-click new layer it
makes a new layer with the previously selected options.  But we make one
little change to the dialog. At the very bottom of the screen make a check
box that gives the user the ability to switch the functionality them
selves.  the label could read something like "check to not see this
dialog.  Shift-Click new layer button to get to this dialog"... I know its
wordy but this would give the user control over their app, and if they
don't like it they can uncheck it the next time they open it.

Also a slight change on Shift-Clicking to add a layer with previous
options/Clicking new layer if the check box is checked.  When you just make
a layer with the previous options the focus should change to editing the
layers name as if the user were to double click on the layer, and when they
click anywere else or hit esc the edit layer name would lose focus.  This
way you don't have to bring up the new layer dialog or double click the new
layer to rename it but you can just start typing to name the layer.

This way users who are new can discover this dialog more easily, users who
are used to it do not have the feature taken away from them, and advanced
users can have it their way as well.  I think that this is more GIMP like.
Giving the user the power over their UI instead of forcing them to use one
workflow.

--
Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Praise be unto God for giving us a way to live
with him.




  

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Liam R. E. Quin  wrote:

> 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Liam
>
>
> --
> Liam R. E. Quin 
> Words and Pictures From Old Books - http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
>
>
> ___
> gimp-gui-list mailing list
> gimp-gui-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-gui-list
>

Re: [Gimp-gui] Food for thought: the clumsiness of the current layer creation proces

[Andrew Pullins]

>
> There are too many things to tell when creating a new layer and and an
> important one is missing
> In my experience with Gimp, I haven't got that many use cases:
> - Fill: layer is either transparent, or filled with the background color
> - Size: layer is image sized, or the same size as the current layer
> - Position (missing in current dialog): layer is at 0,0 (image sized) or
> overlaps current layer
> IMHO: asking for a size in the layer dialog is pointless, because usually
> you cannot tell the size in pixels in advance (and when you can you also
> have a position in mind...). In real life you create an image-sized layer
> and crop it later using its contents as a reference.
> If we can skip the dialog then we have shortcuts for instant layer
> creation, especially for the three most used:
>
>- image-sized filled with background color
>
>
>- image-sized and transparent
>
>
>- copy of the active layer, transparent
>
> You can always fill/crop/name the layer afterwards so no functionality is
> lost.
> A penny for your thoughts


This dialog has always aggravated me.  I have always wanted it to go away.
It is rare that I ever want to make a layer that is not transparent and the
full length of the image.  In my opinion the action should be the
opposite of what it does now. You click the new layer button and it would
just create a layer with the same options as you previously did. When the
layer is created it gives you the option to name it as though you were to
double click the image right away, and if the user does not want to name it
clicking anywhere else would just leave the layer name editor.
Shift-Clicking would bring up the Layer options dialog so that users can
select new layer options.

For people who do use the same layer options over and over regardless of
whether they like transparent, white, four ground, or background, this
dialog popping up every single time I want to make the same layer I just
made is annoying.

It is already possible to create a layer of the last type you did by
> shift-clicking the New Layer button, and there is a layers-new-last-values
> action which does this too (which you can assign a shortcut to).


 Thank you so much for this. I have wanted to Ctrl-click the new layer
button to do what Shift-Click does for years.  I will be using this every
time I make a new layer from now on.




--
Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Praise be unto God for giving us a way to live
with him.




  

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Ofnuts  wrote:

> On 15/12/15 22:39, Jehan wrote:
>
>>
>> The more I think about it, the less I think we should make default action
>> for every particular create-a-layer case. Now custom actions are very easy
>> to create in a plugin. If all you need is an action, why don't you simply
>> make yourself a few-line plugin? This is why the plugin system was created:
>> to handle specific use cases.
>> I myself have made several of these (plugins of a few lines which just
>> add simple actions — which I need — to map to a shortcut) and that fits
>> perfectly my needs.
>>
>> Our plugin API is far from perfect and it cannot do some things (like
>> updating the default UI); but creating actions, this is no problem.
>>
>>
> We can both write plugins, but plenty of users can't, and for them
> locating a plugin (assuming they even think that a plugin for this could
> exist) isn't always easy...
>
>
> ___
> gimp-gui-list mailing list
> gimp-gui-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-gui-list
>

Re: [Gimp-gui] Layer mask button for the layers toolbar, feature additions?

[Andrew Pullins]

Pat David wrote

> I'm a fan of the idea of making the addition of a layer mask easier, and
> not a fan of adding more buttons if it can be avoided...  So Ctrl+Click
> sounds like a great comprom


Liam R. E. Quin wrote

> For my part it makes the dock too wide.


> I think I'd rather have a context-menu-affordance button equivalent to
> right-clicking on the selected layer.


Why not make it so that the dialog icons are configurable? I personally
would like to have a merge down button replace the anker button. I always
want to add a new layer when I past something into gimp and never ever want
to anker it, I think this should GIMP should work, just add a new layer
when I paste something into the image.  If I want to merge it down with the
layer under it I would go to the menu and merge it down.

Any way why not make it so that anything in the dialog's dialog menu can be
put in the icon bar at the bottom?  So in this case the layer dialog > menu
> layers menu. anything in this menu can be added or removed from the icon
bar at the bottom.  This way if you want the layer mas button you can have
it, if you don't want it you don't want it you can leave the dialog alone.
This could also work for other dialogs for example I think there are too
many options in the navigation dialog. I would like it to only show zoom
in, zoom slider, zoom out, and 1 to 1 zoom buttons. Oh and possibly some
rotate canvas options :)

I think this option is the most GIMP way.  Let the user decide how they
want their UI and don't force them into any one option.

--
Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Praise be unto God for giving us a way to live
with him.




  

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Ofnuts  wrote:

> On 15/12/15 05:37, Liam R. E. Quin wrote:
>
>> For my part it makes the dock too wide.
>>
>>
> If you have it wide enough to fit meaningful names it would fit :)
>
>
> ___
> gimp-gui-list mailing list
> gimp-gui-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-gui-list
>

Re: [Gimp-gui] gimp-gui-list Digest, Vol 3, Issue 8

[Liam R. E. Quin]

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.

Agreed.

Liam


-- 
Liam R. E. Quin 
Words and Pictures From Old Books - http://www.fromoldbooks.org/