[Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
Hi! I am I big fan of OSS and I love the GIMP initiativ. I am also a big fan of usability though, and I must wonder why there is a menu item named 'Xtns'? From a usability point of view, it is not very good... I also have some other questions regarding usability, but I will start with this one :) Thanks for any replies! Martin Nordholts, Sweden _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Search http://search.msn.se/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
Hi Martin, Am 21.03.2006 um 19:17 schrieb Martin Nordholts: Hi! I am I big fan of OSS and I love the GIMP initiativ. That is an very honorable attitude :) I am also a big fan of usability though, and I must wonder why there is a menu item named 'Xtns'? From a usability point of view, it is not very good... OK, so if you like Open Source Software you probably know about the permanent lack of time and resources and the invitation to enhance projects? Asking questions about things is a good start. I'd just like to encourage you to go one step ahead and think about answers. Make a suggestion how to solve this so we can discuss it. While thinking about that, take in concern issues as space and the possibility of an already ongoing diskussion about this at the gimp bugtracking system. I also have some other questions regarding usability, but I will start with this one :) Again, having a concept or at leas an idea how to improve the usability is better that just asking a question. Having the resources to implement it after convincing the crowd is even more appreciated. Thanks for any replies! You are welcome! Greetings, lexa Martin Nordholts, Sweden _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Search http://search.msn.se/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer --- Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get... GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen PGP.sig Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
From:Axel Wernicke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:Martin Nordholts [EMAIL PROTECTED]CC:gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDUSubject:Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'Date:Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:34:15 +0100Hi Martin,Am 21.03.2006 um 19:17 schrieb Martin Nordholts:Hi!I am I big fan of OSS and I love the GIMP initiativ.That is an very honorable attitude :)I am also a big fan of usability though, and I must wonder whythere is a menu item named 'Xtns'? From a usability point of view,it is not very good...OK, so if you like Open Source Software you probably know about thepermanent lack of time and resources and the invitation to enhanceprojects? Asking questions about things is a good start. I'd justlike to encourage you to go one step ahead and think about answers.Make a suggestion how to solve this so we can discuss it. Whilethinking about that, take in concern issues as space and thepossibility of an already ongoing diskussion about this at the gimpbugtracking system.I also have some other questions regarding usability, but I willstart with this one :)Again, having a concept or at leas an idea how to improve theusability is better that just asking a question. Having the resourcesto implement it after convincing the crowd is even more appreciated.Thanks for any replies!You are welcome!Greetings, lexaMartin Nordholts, Sweden_Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Search http://search.msn.se/___Gimp-developer mailing listGimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDUhttps://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer---Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get...GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen PGP.sig När du tar kärleken på allvar MSN Dejting ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
I think this implies a design flaw. IMHO, you should neverneed to sacrifice understandability for layout. As I think usability (or rather a lack of it) is the main obstacle for people to migrate to freely availible software, wouldn't implementing the GIMP interface identicly to the market leading Adobe PS be the best thing to do? By having an identical interface, more people could migrate, more people would help on development, and everything would become better. Hmm, maybe I should start a new Photoshop interface or not-thread. I googled for Photoshop in the archives, and I didn't find an thoroughly discussion of this, so let's take it now. From: Axel Wernicke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Martin Nordholts [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:18:03 +0100so "Extensions" takes compared to "Xtns" considerable more space - doesn't it? Might that be a problem? Might there be people, who want the toolbox as tight as possible? Please think again, you can do better that that. Hint: the more simple solutions to this might have been under consideration already. Greetings, lexA Am 21.03.2006 um 20:10 schrieb Martin Nordholts: Well, in this particular case, I would just encourage to rename 'Xtns' to 'Extensions'. I'm sorry for not being especially constructive, this is my first mail to this list and I'm just 'tasting' the GIMP developers :) And also, I realize my mail was i bit confusing; I did not suggest redisigning the menu or something, just that 'Xtns' is a cryptic caption, and that 'Extensions' would be better. I guess the name is defined in a single place in a lanugage file somewhere, so changing it would be quite quick? /Martin From:Axel Wernicke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:Martin Nordholts [EMAIL PROTECTED]CC:gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDUSubject:Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'Date:Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:34:15 +0100Hi Martin,Am 21.03.2006 um 19:17 schrieb Martin Nordholts:Hi!I am I big fan of OSS and I love the GIMP initiativ.That is an very honorable attitude :)I am also a big fan of usability though, and I must wonder whythere is a menu item named 'Xtns'? From a usability point of view,it is not very good...OK, so if you like Open Source Software you probably know about thepermanent lack of time and resources and the invitation to enhanceprojects? Asking questions about things is a good start. I'd justlike to encourage you to go one step ahead and think about answers.Make a suggestion how to solve this so we can discuss it. Whilethinking about that, take in concern issues as space and thepossibility of an already ongoing diskussion about this at the gimpbugtracking system.I also have some other questions regarding usability, but I willstart with this one :)Again, having a concept or at leas an idea how to improve theusability is better that just asking a question. Having the resourcesto implement it after convincing the crowd is even more appreciated.Thanks for any replies!You are welcome!Greetings, lexaMartin Nordholts, Sweden_Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Search http://search.msn.se/___Gimp-developer mailing listGimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDUhttps://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer---Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get...GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen PGP.sig Bygg din egen dynamiska visningsbild - Meego! Klicka här --- Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get... GPG Signatur aufhttp://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen PGP.sig Boka konsertbiljetterna Klicka här ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
Hi, Martin Nordholts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I think usability (or rather a lack of it) is the main obstacle for people to migrate to freely availible software, wouldn't implementing the GIMP interface identicly to the market leading Adobe PS be the best thing to do? The user interface of Photoshop has the same problem that GIMP's user interface has: It has not been designed but it is grown into what it is today. In that aspect the Photoshop user interface is definitely worse than GIMP. We have at least done some restructuring over the last releases (and quite a few more in the current development cycle). By having an identical interface, more people could migrate, more people would help on development, and everything would become better. GIMP does not attempt to be Photoshop nor to be like Photoshop. We do not believe that Photoshop has a user interface that is worth to be copied. That doesn't mean that we think that the current GIMP user interface can't be improved or should not be improved. It just means that we think that any user interface change should be made by looking at use cases and by checking how we can improve our user's workflows, not by copying from some other program. Well, in this particular case, I would just encourage to rename 'Xtns' to 'Extensions'. The problem here is that the toolbox is rather small and if we renamed the menu as you suggested, that would push the Help menu off the window. Of course you aren't the first one who has brought this up. The general consensus here seems to be that we want to get rid of the toolbox menu in the long run. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
The user interface of Photoshop has the same problem that GIMP's user interface has: It has not been designed but it is grown into what it is today. In that aspect the Photoshop user interface is definitely worse than GIMP. I've have experience with both of Photoshop and GIMP, and I don't agree. To me Photoshop's interface is much more thoroughly designed. At first I had a hard time grasping the philosify behind Photoshop's interface, but after taking a class where we learned PS, it all made sense. (This is based on PS7 and GIMP 2.2.9) GIMP does not attempt to be Photoshop nor to be like Photoshop. Well, I think it should! If there is any software today that has potential to be a PS counterpart, it is GIMP. I mean why, would we not want it to be Photoshop? The general consensus here seems to be that we want to get rid of the toolbox menu in the long run. I agree. As it is now, it feels like the toolbox window_ is_ the main window, i.e. it is from the toolbox you create new files and so on. And if you close the toolbox, entire GIMP is closed. It would be more logical to have a separate toolbox, and a separate 'GIMP window'. The GIMP window would be a container for toolbox window, the layer window etc (á la PS). If you minimize the GIMP window, the toolbox windows also gets minimized. And the toolbox window and all other windows would not have its own item on the taskbar, they should be a part of main window. I have a prejudice, which is that most of the GIMP developers has not taken time to understand the concept of the interface PS provides. If you don't take the time to understand that interface, it will feel unlogical (I had the same feeling) and it can easily be dismissed as 'badly designed'. Once you know it though, the workflow is absolutley brilliant. /Martin Nordholts _ Chat: Ha en fest på Habbo Hotel http://habbohotel.msn.se/habbo/sv/channelizer Checka in här! ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
On 3/21/06, Martin Nordholts wrote: At first I had a hard time grasping the philosify behind Photoshop's interface, but after taking a class where we learned PS, it all made sense. You took a class to understand PS interface and now you find it better than GIMPs, for which, by the way, you haven't taken any class? I have a prejudice, which is that most of the GIMP developers has not taken time to understand the concept of the interface PS provides. If you don't take the time to understand that interface, it will feel unlogical (I had the same feeling) and it can easily be dismissed as 'badly designed'. Once you know it though, the workflow is absolutley brilliant. It would be nice if you took the time to understand the GIMPs interface and _then_ make more comments about it. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
On 3/21/06, Martin Nordholts wrote: GIMP does not attempt to be Photoshop nor to be like Photoshop. Well, I think it should! If there is any software today that has potential to be a PS counterpart, it is GIMP. I mean why, would we not want it to be Photoshop? It's so simple that I fail to understand, why so many people can't figure it out: innovation is about making difference, not copying. You are doomed to fail if you try to make a great tool by carbon copying it. Alexandre ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
On 3/21/06, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: are doomed to fail if you try to make a great tool by carbon copying it. By carbon copying other tool, sorry :))) Alexandre ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
First of all, I probably should mention that I'm not a GIMP developer. However, I have worked with user interface design professionally for over a decade and a half, and had been doing plugins for Photoshop since before 3.5... On Mar 21, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote: I've have experience with both of Photoshop and GIMP, and I don't agree. To me Photoshop's interface is much more thoroughly designed. At first I had a hard time grasping the philosify behind Photoshop's interface, but after taking a class where we learned PS, it all made sense. (This is based on PS7 and GIMP 2.2.9) Personal experience is one thing, but wide ranging studies are better. Among other things I had been a Photoshop user since early on, but personally found the GIMP's interface much better. Additionally, there are many issues such as its use of MDI. After extensive study Microsoft officially deprecated the MDI interface with the introduction of Windows 95 back in 1995. However, Adobe kept it mainly from inertia. First thing I'd suggest would be to take as much training in the GIMP as you did in Photoshop. Once you get a comparable amount of qualified training, things will be much easier to compare. And as to it's interface being designed... The GIMP has had one main factor for interface design : What will make this tool work well for its end users? Photoshop, on the other hand, has had many other factors, including large amounts of marketing influence. For example, they have the mandate that all is driven by what sells, not by what works. And also they have the probably of being told to do things in ways that can help sales of other company products, regardless of whether or not they get in the way of better workflow. And then there's the huge factor of inertial. They have kept things around for over a decade just because that's the way we first did it, and they don't want to startle casual purchasing managers. GIMP does not attempt to be Photoshop nor to be like Photoshop. Well, I think it should! If there is any software today that has potential to be a PS counterpart, it is GIMP. I mean why, would we not want it to be Photoshop? Why? Well, personally I don't want it to be Photoshop because I like being able to get work done quicker and with less pain. To me, the main thing is to have a very efficient tool, not to be compatible with one that just happens to be prevalent. Even after working for years in multimedia (or probably because of), I will still go first and install the GIMP on boxes when I have to do graphics work even if I have full Photoshop licenses and installations already. To see the problem inherent in your logic, it's easy to apply it to cars. Your process would tell me to go out and buy a Honda Civic even if I had the needs and ability to purchase a BMW 3-Series (or Honda Accord or Toyota Prius, or Kia Sedona depending on what my specific needs were) The general consensus here seems to be that we want to get rid of the toolbox menu in the long run. I agree. As it is now, it feels like the toolbox window_ is_ the main window, i.e. it is from the toolbox you create new files and so on. And if you close the toolbox, entire GIMP is closed. It would be more logical to have a separate toolbox, and a separate 'GIMP window'. The GIMP window would be a container for toolbox window, the layer window etc (á la PS). If you minimize the GIMP window, the toolbox windows also gets minimized. And the toolbox window and all other windows would not have its own item on the taskbar, they should be a part of main window. Actually... that sounds explicitly like the MDI interface approach, which research in the early nineties showed to be a very sub-optimal one. I have a prejudice, which is that most of the GIMP developers has not taken time to understand the concept of the interface PS provides. If you don't take the time to understand that interface, it will feel unlogical (I had the same feeling) and it can easily be dismissed as 'badly designed'. Once you know it though, the workflow is absolutley brilliant. Actually, I have to strongly disagree with you here. I know that at least since the late nineties many of the GIMP developers have been very aware of the PS interface. Perhaps it is more that you are the one who just didn't quite understand the GIMP interface and workflow (for example, just being able to right-click on the canvas where ever I happen to be and get the full menus is a *huge* productivity boost. Configureable keys and *real* scripting are also huge wins). If you have enough experience working in many different tools, then perhaps that might help with insight on workflow. Remember what Maslow said... If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. ___
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
First, thanks for an insightful reply. I read about MDIs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_document_interface and I was conviced, MDI seems like a thing of the past. However, I think that when you use GIMP, the taskbar quickly gets bloated with lots of images. Would a TDI (Tabbed Document Interface) be very tough to implement in GIMP? TDI's have become very popular, and afaik lots of people agrees that TDIs are very effective for handling multiple documents. Also, I don't agree that having a separate GIMP and separate Toolbox window would be MDI-ish. Having a TDI with dockable windows for layers, tools, colors etc in the I think would be a very good change in the interface. _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Search http://search.msn.se/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
This is one of those debates which dosent thrill me. Gimp != Photoshop. People often misunderstand free software and think. Hey here is a free Photoshop, cool. What?? its not the same... why not??? People open the gimp. poke about. and complain if its not what there used to. *(Grrr) I dont have much time for these people, because they obviously are not using the Gimp long enough to appreciate its advantages over photoshop. The UI is important, but its only 1 aspect of a program. Somthing people dont focus on as much is the application work-flow. which I feel is more important in the long run. (ok the UI has to work of course) Basicly - Once you know where all the buttons are, how efficently can you get the job done? - In my experience, The Gimps workflow is very nice, I have no complaints. so it always baffels me when people complain about the gimp not being like photoshop. I use Blender3d every day and the gimp most days also for work as a 3d modeler. Blender is more extreme in that its UI is not that good, but it has an excellent work flow. In some ways its better to be different. - Because its very unique, we rarely get the Why dont you work like 3dsMax?? posts anymore... viva la difference! - Cam ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
On 3/21/06, Sven Neumann wrote: Well, in this particular case, I would just encourage to rename 'Xtns' to 'Extensions'. The problem here is that the toolbox is rather small and if we renamed the menu as you suggested, that would push the Help menu off the window. Of course you aren't the first one who has brought this up. The general consensus here seems to be that we want to get rid of the toolbox menu in the long run. When you say get rid of you mean distribute its menu items over menus in each document's window? And when it's done will toolbox still be an always floating window or optionally dockable one? Simply distributing menu items sounds like a fairly easy task. P.S. Sorry for sending it twice to you. Alexandre ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Alexandre, Am 21.03.2006 um 23:51 schrieb Alexandre Prokoudine: Simply distributing menu items sounds like a fairly easy task. Doing so would assume that there is always at least one document window. This is not the case in the gui architecture of GIMP right now. greetings, lexA P.S. Sorry for sending it twice to you. Alexandre ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer - --- Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get... GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEIIQxR9mXLVsAbiQRAsiDAJ95GFfCeyxqdDZyiNJ+pa3drdTN+ACcDG9X jpLmchhK/Xs/vvsXM1ItB34= =1k9L -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
On 3/22/06, Axel Wernicke wrote: Simply distributing menu items sounds like a fairly easy task. Doing so would assume that there is always at least one document window. This is not the case in the gui architecture of GIMP right now. Exactly. So, do you have some Inkscape-like GUI on your mind? Alexandre ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 21.03.2006 um 23:58 schrieb Alexandre Prokoudine: On 3/22/06, Axel Wernicke wrote: Simply distributing menu items sounds like a fairly easy task. Doing so would assume that there is always at least one document window. This is not the case in the gui architecture of GIMP right now. Exactly. So, do you have some Inkscape-like GUI on your mind? well I know this is insane, but I have Mac OS X in mind, where the menu is sticked to a menubar that is always located at the top of the screen :) To have a dummy image window open all the time just to have the file/ open commands accessible does not sound very smart to me to be honest :( May be we can shrink the menu in the toolbox down to an GIMP menu that just contains some About GIMP, Open / Acquire / New Image, GIMP Preferences and Quit command contains. Questions left: how about the Xtns and more seriously how about the help? All in all I'm pretty used to the menu bar in the toolbox now and the only reason for shrinking it is for me to be able to have a toolbox that consists of two columns of tools only. (To be honest that works always this wan on OS X, but I had to sacrifice the help menu that is now always hidden to me). But even if I knew what I would like, I'm not a usability specialist, may be there come other smart ideas up when needed. Greetings, lexA Alexandre ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer - --- Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get... GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEII5QR9mXLVsAbiQRApDaAKDDqZZxl9ujunn8xN4Pjhgi/2IhbQCeJDmH zs8S9FjOgAZJoKocBuruD+k= =zZ6O -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
Martin Nordholts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, I think that when you use GIMP, the taskbar quickly gets bloated with lots of images. Would a TDI (Tabbed Document Interface) be very tough to implement in GIMP? TDI's have become very popular, and afaik lots of people agrees that TDIs are very effective for handling multiple documents. Please read http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7379 - there already has been an awful lot of discussion about this and your idea is nothing new (Sorry). Please feel free to comment on this enhancement request if you think you have something new to contribute. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://simon.budig.de/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 14:45, Sven Neumann wrote: By having an identical interface, more people could migrate, more people would help on development, and everything would become better. GIMP does not attempt to be Photoshop nor to be like Photoshop. We do not believe that Photoshop has a user interface that is worth to be I wonder how many times it will take to hear the Perhaps Gimp should think about having a Photoshop-mode before we'll stop defending Gimp's interface... ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions'
Martin Nordholts writes: I've have experience with both of Photoshop and GIMP, and I don't agree. To me Photoshop's interface is much more thoroughly designed. Well, using usability expertise and the experience of real power GIMP users in (re)designing GIMP's UI is something which the GIMP developers are actively doing now. But as Sven said, the point is not to make GIMP look like Photoshop. At first I had a hard time grasping the philosify behind Photoshop's interface, but after taking a class where we learned PS, it all made sense. The same approach would work as well for GIMP, too. Well, I think it should! If there is any software today that has potential to be a PS counterpart, it is GIMP. I mean why, would we not want it to be Photoshop? Why would we want it to be Photoshop? That would be silly. It will take years for GIMP to have the same features as Photoshop has now, and by then, Photoshop will have evolved again ;) This is just a fact that I assume most fellow GIMP developers realize. GIMP developers are not motivated by making PS users switch. Most of the (actually quite few) GIMP developers work on GIMP because they love to program. Not because GIMP wants increased market share. It would be more logical to have a separate toolbox, and a separate 'GIMP window'. The GIMP window would be a container for toolbox window, the layer window etc (á la PS). No, having a big GIMP window with the image and tool dialogs inside it is definitely something that the developers don't want to implement (themselves). However, the way free software works is that if somebody wants a feature hard enough, they write a patch that is clean and implements the feature, and submit that to the maintainers. (Or alternatively, they convince (perhaps through funding) somebody, like their Linux distro company, to write the feature.) The writer of such a patch should also be prepared to maintain her code for at least some years. It's not nice to just dump a bunch of code on people who are kind enough to accept it even if they don't really like the features it provides, and leave. I assume GIMP maintainers would gladly accept such a patch as long as it was well-written and clean. That would at least make a part of the users happier. (Clean meaning here that it doesn't unnecessaily stomp on other parts of the code, uses the same coding style as the rest of the code, and doesn't break anything else.) It would have been much more productive if the author of the GIMP deweirdifyer, for instance, would have cooperated with GIMP developers and searched for ways to have that code in the official GIMP sources instead of as a freestanding separately distributed tool. If you don't take the time to understand that interface, it will feel unlogical (I had the same feeling) and it can easily be dismissed as 'badly designed'. Once you know it though, the workflow is absolutley brilliant. This can be said about GIMP, too. Watching an experienced GIMP user work can be a revelation. The GIMP workflow looks absolutely brilliant then, too. --tml ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
