Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 10:55:04PM +0100, Jarda Benkovsky wrote: Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote: The icons are imho very good, try making better ones and you understand why. Of course they arent PuRdy CuTe, but that is not the point. Most graphics tools dont have too colorful icons, excluding Painter(tm) of course.. :) IMHO the problem is that the new ones (from dodge/burn on) are somewhat inconsistent in drawing style - I would personally like them to have more gray, so they are visible with dark button background too. For example, lasso or text have nice gray shadow, so they are clearly recognizable, but dodge/burn and smudge are black only. You are right :) They could use some shading. But other than that, I think they serve their purpose pretty well. Tuomas -- .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On 5 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote: Thats not the point. The point is effective user feedback. Now, where are the users? :) Here is one. If you are not a user you should not decide whats best for them. Especially not if you limit your horizon to a single person (yourself). I'm running tests with more or less experienced people to get some feedback. One of the common thoughts: The icons are very bad. Tigert? hint, hint -- Servus, Daniel
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On 4 Feb, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: I'm constantly finding myself looking for tools. I know that they are there, but I have to stop and look closer at almost every single tool. There are simply too many tools (some of them could well be combined), and the icons look very much the same (believe it or not). I don't know if colour would solve this (or just add clutter), but we should really get to reduce the number of tools, as a previous poster suggested. Yes, at least the Pencil now is rather useless Now, where are the users? :) They're buried in the pile of messages from gimp-developer (I was told "2 or 3 messages per day" when I joined) ;-) Bad luck... Believe me, it'll go better at least in summer :) -- Servus, Daniel
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:01:04AM +0100, Raphael Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you, Mark. Knowing the difference between tools and plug-ins is rather important, but is not easy for the beginner who has several dialogs open and is not familiar with all of them. If the The fine thing is, that the solution for: - macro recording - repeat last - tracing (for development tools) - pdb debugging Is the same, so fixing one (I suggest the macro recording problem) will make the others very easy. Soo... I am very certain that all this will be fixed quite automatically.. Yup! I definitely prefer redundancy if it improves the usability. In this case, making sure that all tools contain "Tool" in their title (e.g. "Pencil Tool") would avoid some confusion. Even if this sounds a bit ridiculous. The question is rather, who is responsible for patches that are already applied but are in a dubious state? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:59:11PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Repeat Last" will repeat the last plug-in. Since menus do not provide feedback of wether an entry is a plug-in or "built-in" (I think it would even be wrong to do so), you have to know this, which is not easy for beginners. Repeat last should repeat anything that makes sense to be repeated if it doesn't you should create a bugreport and we'll have to fix this. Come on... this isn't news, and totally obvious to everybody... This is wrong. Many people (like me) rely on text to quickly evaluate situation. This is common for unix-type-people. Icons are a much slower feedback then text. Let's replace the icons by text :) Would suit me. Shall I apply a patch? OF coursem that would be just as braindamaged as removing text and using icons *instead*. I do select them by look, I only know very vague where e.g. Blend sits. If it isn't clear to an experienced user what tool lies behind a specific icon then the icons are rubbish. Please change your attitude: not everybody on the world is a copy of you, and many people react differently. If something helps somebody else and does not impair the usability for you than removing that extra redundancy is wrong. Thats not the point. The point is effective user feedback. Now, where are the users? :) Here is one. If you are not a user you should not decide whats best for them. Especially not if you limit your horizon to a single person (yourself). -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
You wrote on Fre, 04 Feb 2000: On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:48:50AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the menus were reorganized I am constantly guessing wether "Repeat Last" will repeat my last action, the one before or not work at all, since you can't tell from the menu anymore. Huh? Sounds strange, could you provide a snapshot in a private EMail? I can't image what this should look like "Repeat Last" will repeat the last plug-in. Since menus do not provide a feedback of wether an entry is a plug-in or "built-in" (I think it would even be wrong to do so), you have to know this, which is not easy for beginners. If there was no former plug-in action the menu stays active and suggest that something will be done. I think the first plug-in action has to change the state from disabled to active -- or there has to be a response "no plug-in to redo / reshow, etc.". Uwe Koloska -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~koloska/ ---- right now the web page is in german only but this will change as time goes by ;-)
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 (late at night), Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:48:50AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the menus were reorganized I am constantly guessing wether "Repeat Last" will repeat my last action, the one before or not work at all, since you can't tell from the menu anymore. Huh? Sounds strange, could you provide a snapshot in a private EMail? I can't image what this should look like "Repeat Last" will repeat the last plug-in. Since menus do not provide a feedback of wether an entry is a plug-in or "built-in" (I think it would even be wrong to do so), you have to know this, which is not easy for beginners. I agree with you, Mark. Knowing the difference between tools and plug-ins is rather important, but is not easy for the beginner who has several dialogs open and is not familiar with all of them. If the user does not know what belongs to a tool and what belongs to a plug-in, then some actions such as "Undo", "Repeat Last" or "Re-Show Last" become unpredictable. There is also an issue with scripts (e.g. Script-Fu) but hopefully this will be resolved soon. Hmmm... this reminds me that I still have to contribute some code there... I am quite sure it improves usabiloty for me a lot. Well, I could provide you a patch which reverts it when you compile it with CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -DIMPROVE_USABILITY_FOR_MARC" :) Please note that I am not alone with that opinion... Yup! I definitely prefer redundancy if it improves the usability. In this case, making sure that all tools contain "Tool" in their title (e.g. "Pencil Tool") would avoid some confusion. Even if this sounds a bit ridiculous. -Raphael
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: I'm constantly finding myself looking for tools. I know that they are there, but I have to stop and look closer at almost every single tool. There are simply too many tools (some of them could well be combined), and the icons look very much the same (believe it or not). I don't know if colour would solve this (or just add clutter), but we should really get to reduce the number of tools, as a previous poster suggested. Now, where are the users? :) Hi. I am a user, I keep my gimp fairly fresh, and I use the gimp fairly often. I agree that there might be more tools on the toolbox than are used in a toolbox-ly manner. I use a handful of operations, and I use them often. Tear-off menus have been a lifesaver for me. I don't know that I agree on the issue of clutter - I like being able to find most things fairly quickly. Some of the buttons are a little ambiguous, but not so much that I would suggest a major UI overhaul. I wonder if you're talking maybe more about learning curve than usability? The gimp, on my desktop, excels at usability - but I have a desktop set to 1600x1200 with all four sides covered in tear-offs. :) -- Blue Lang Unix Systems Admin QSP, Inc., 3200 Atlantic Ave, Ste 100, Raleigh, NC, 27604 Home: 919 835 1540 Work: 919 875 6994 Fax: 919 872 4015
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:02:33AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then rename it to Curves Tool. You only have two choices in GIMP: Either it's a tool or it's an action, Or a plug-in... plug-ins act quite difefrently to tools or actions. Since the menus were reorganized I am constantly guessing wether "Repeat Last" will repeat my last action, the one before or not work at all, since you can't tell from the menu anymore. Redundancy is not bad if it's improving usability. In this case it won't, so why adding it? I am quite sure it improves usabiloty for me a lot. you know it's an optiondialog because it contains nothing else but widgets to change something Huh? Every dialog contains widgets that "change something", wether its an options dialog, preferences or whatnot. mentioning it? Let's concentrate on improving the tool tips to let the user know HOW to use it, instead of telling him that he may use it. Tool tips are a very slow way of interacting with a user. Also, marking dialogs by type has nothing to do with the "how-to-use" aspect. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:48:50AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the menus were reorganized I am constantly guessing wether "Repeat Last" will repeat my last action, the one before or not work at all, since you can't tell from the menu anymore. Huh? Sounds strange, could you provide a snapshot in a private EMail? I can't image what this should look like "Repeat Last" will repeat the last plug-in. Since menus do not provide a feedback of wether an entry is a plug-in or "built-in" (I think it would even be wrong to do so), you have to know this, which is not easy for beginners. I am quite sure it improves usabiloty for me a lot. Well, I could provide you a patch which reverts it when you compile it with CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -DIMPROVE_USABILITY_FOR_MARC" :) Please note that I am not alone with that opinion... Right, and if a window want's your interaction it's called a dialog. Everyone sees that, so why bother with titling it a dialog? Because a dialog already provides enough visual feedback to let you tell. Tools vs. Plug-ins vs. Other dialogs often do not provide this. I mean, with your logic, you could remove all text from the dialogs, since the layout is enough to find out what the dialog does, and the tooltips can help you. You need the right mix between feedback and not, and I think yours is too low. Especially since you are a skilled gimp user, while others are not. Tool tips are a very slow way of interacting with a user. impressive icons are a lot better This is wrong. Many people (like me) rely on text to quickly evaluate a situation. This is common for unix-type-people. Icons are a much slower feedback then text. Take, for example, the gimp toolbox. Manye of the icons look almost the same, so I actually select tools by _position_ in the toolbox, not by a quick look. can't image what a tool is supposed to do, a tooltip can help a lot. Thats not the point. The point is effective user feedback. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On 1 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote: Your: " Category New File " Looks IMHO much worse than the existing: " Category New File Settings " Not really, you have the word "Preferences" just a few mm above it. Also there was some inconsistency: The category "Monitor Information" was a settings dialog anyway but it had no "Settings" in its name 2. Some tools had a "Tool" in the options dialog and some not. Since all toolsare tools and people know what tools are, we don't need to call some Same thing here. Just because all tools are tools there is no reason _NOT_ to display this. Well, we could have add the word "Tool" to all tools the other way round but that's unprofessional; you don't call every Mercedes "Mercedes Car", do you? You know that Mercedes produces cars as you know that a pencil is a tool and in a toolbox every item is a tool. There's no need to tell the user what she/he's seeing if it's obviously. 3. The optiondialog of the tools is obviously a option dialog and Same here... Just because all these dialogs are option dialogs there is not reason not to display this fact. Uhm, I guess like the idea of having window titles that tell you what you should see, so why no "Save File Dialog" or "Preferences Dialog". That no good UI design, in fact if you look at the comercial competitors of GIMP you'll see that they don't do this either and surely this gives a more professional impression... A patch for fixing that is included I detest :) Like you can see, I'm not the only one who was disturbed by this... :)) -- Servus, Daniel
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 1 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote: Your: CategoryNew File Looks IMHO much worse than the existing: CategoryNew File Settings Not really, you have the word "Preferences" just a few mm above it. Also there was some inconsistency: The category "Monitor Information" was a settings dialog anyway but it had no "Settings" in its name Hmm - I dont like the first too, since it is unclear what preferences are adjusted inside "New File". "New File Settings" is not much better... What about "New File Defaults" ? 2. Some tools had a "Tool" in the options dialog and some not. Since all toolsare tools and people know what tools are, we don't need to call some Same thing here. Just because all tools are tools there is no reason _NOT_ to display this. Well, we could have add the word "Tool" to all tools the other way round but that's unprofessional; you don't call every Mercedes "Mercedes Car", do you? You know that Mercedes produces cars as you know that a pencil is a tool and in a toolbox every item is a tool. There's no need to tell the user what she/he's seeing if it's obviously. So, what about the "Colors-Curves" Thing ? It is a tool isnt it? It is not always clear, if something is a tool or not - especially when it does not have a button in the Toolbox. IMHO Redundacy is not that bad. I vote for "Tool" in every Option-Dialog. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:41:57PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really, you have the word "Preferences" just a few mm above it. No, I haven't. Also there was some inconsistency: The category "Monitor Information" was a settings dialog anyway but it had no "Settings" in its name I have no problems with these!! Consistency is great, I am just against removing non-redundant information. "Mercedes Car", do you? You know that Mercedes produces cars as you know that a pencil is a tool and in a toolbox every item is a tool. The problem is that I know that every thing in the toolbox is a tool, but I do not know that a givne dialog belongs to such a tool unless it is marked as such. The reason nobody calls it a Mercedes car is because you can see it. Windows look the same, so you need other things to differentiate between them. There's no need to tell the user what she/he's seeing if it's obviously. I don't see it :( Uhm, I guess like the idea of having window titles that tell you what you should see, so why no "Save File Dialog" or "Preferences Dialog". That no good UI design, in fact if you look at the comercial competitors of GIMP you'll see that they don't do this either and surely this gives a more professional impression... I would rather like _more_ information displayed in the title than is already. For example, if I open a Save As dialog window and answre a phone call, it is not obvious which image you wnated to save (as this isn't displayed anywhere). Like you can see, I'm not the only one who was disturbed by this... :)) Hmm... I wasn't the one who complained that some person with cvs access applied a braindamged patch not so long ago ;- -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On 2 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote: Not really, you have the word "Preferences" just a few mm above it. No, I haven't. Sounds like you should send a bugreport to the authors of your favourite windowmanager I have no problems with these!! Consistency is great, I am just against removing non-redundant information. I do have a problem with them because they look just silly. "Mercedes Car", do you? You know that Mercedes produces cars as you know that a pencil is a tool and in a toolbox every item is a tool. The problem is that I know that every thing in the toolbox is a tool, but I do not know that a givne dialog belongs to such a tool unless it is marked as such. It is marked and will stay that way. You'll always have the name of the tool in the dialog... The reason nobody calls it a Mercedes car is because you can see it. And I guess you can't see that a tool from the toolbox IS a tool? In this case we should care about the sense of the tools instead of specifying them to be tools Windows look the same, so you need other things to differentiate between them. Who cares about Windows? : Serious, no tool looks the same like any other in GIMP and I didn't get you point with the Windows. There's no need to tell the user what she/he's seeing if it's obviously. I don't see it :( Hm, you don't wear glasses, do you? I would rather like _more_ information displayed in the title than is already. For example, if I open a Save As dialog window and answre a phone call, it is not obvious which image you wnated to save (as this isn't displayed anywhere). YES, you finally got it! So let's make it visible what image you are about to save instead of underlining the point that this window is a dialog (which everyone can see) That is sensible UI desgin. Hmm... I wasn't the one who complained that some person with cvs access applied a braindamged patch not so long ago ;- Hey, he didn't apply the whole patch... ; -- Servus, Daniel
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On 2 Feb, Simon Budig wrote: Hmm - I dont like the first too, since it is unclear what preferences are adjusted inside "New File". "New File Settings" is not much better... What about "New File Defaults" ? Sounds good. So, what about the "Colors-Curves" Thing ? It is a tool isnt it? It is not always clear, if something is a tool or not - especially when it does not have a button in the Toolbox. Then rename it to Curves Tool. You only have two choices in GIMP: Either it's a tool or it's an action, this is normally obvious because actions (like Save File) contain a verb, while Tools are objects. Anyway: it doesn't really matter as long as the user knows what she/he'll get from choosing a menuitem. IMHO Redundacy is not that bad. I vote for "Tool" in every Option-Dialog. Redundancy is not bad if it's improving usability. In this case it won't, so why adding it? Example? Well, take the pencil: Open the options dialog und choose the symbol for the pencil. Now you have an optiondialog for the pencil open; you know it's an optiondialog because it contains nothing else but widgets to change something, so the words "option" and "dialog" are superfluous here. Since you know that a pencil is a thing to write with and that you can't for example eat it, it is a tool, so why bother mentioning it? Let's concentrate on improving the tool tips to let the user know HOW to use it, instead of telling him that he may use it. Now I'll turn off my Palm III Palmtop, leave my keyboard inputdevice alone and drive my Ford car a little bit... -- Servus, Daniel
Re: Some UI inconsistencies and a patch....
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:09:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The "Settings" in the preferences Dialog wasn't in everything and is useless nevertheless because a preferences dialog is supposed to contain settings... Your: " CategoryNew File " Looks IMHO much worse than the existing: " CategoryNew File Settings " 2. Some tools had a "Tool" in the options dialog and some not. Since all tools are tools and people know what tools are, we don't need to call some Same thing here. Just because all tools are tools there is no reason _NOT_ to display this. 3. The optiondialog of the tools is obviously a option dialog and Same here... Just because all these dialogs are option dialogs there is not reason not to display this fact. A patch for fixing that is included I detest :) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
