Re: [Gimp-developer] lgm 07, top‑5 GIMP user requ ests...
Sven Neumann wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 19:03 +0200, peter sikking wrote: BTW, the dialogs that you consider to be unnecessary can already be skipped using the Shift key. Then the perfect solution is that we reverse the logic of that shift key. Only with the shift key down the dialog is shown. Our users will be eternally grateful... Oh come on, you are really making things simpler than they are. that is because from the perspective of my profession and after the systematic effort put into evaluating this, it is really clear that doing this benefits GIMP. Either a dialog is really redundant, then it should be removed. Or a dialog is useful and even necessary for certain important tasks. I found 'reversing the shift key' a beautiful solution because the dialog already exists and GIMP is full (rightly so) of these power features. It fits the interaction principle that straight ahead user concepts (new layer) have a straight ahead UI. Then we can not only make it available by pressing some obscure modifier key. It would be more or less undiscoverable and we had effectively removed an important feature. The choice it to make either the dialog or 'no dialog' a tricky power feature. I choose, without a doubt, the former. We will have to stay with the current solution until we have found other ways to provide the functionality. But if like with the layers dialog, I see zero function 99% of the time The dialog saves you the extra step of filling the layer. In my opinion it is very useful and speeds up the workflow. After all the user just needs to press the Enter key to acknowledge the last used settings. When I look fundamentally at what layers are, the optional character of all functionality (name, size, fill) offered by the dialog, combining that to realise the percentage of times that each will be useful and the alternatives to reach the same goal, take into account that this is part of user request #5, then dealing with this dialog dozens of times a day is a burden on GIMP's user experience. All I ask for is to give it a chance. GIMP has what adobe has not, a community. They want to participate by using developer versions in real life situations. I say let them help. Try this in an early development version (like 2.5.2) and wait for the learning effect (you changed it!) to go away. Then after a while evaluate. If it then turns out to be the wrong idea, I'll be the first one to admit it. --ps principal user interaction architect man + machine interface works http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] lgm 07, top‑5 GIMP user requ ests...
I just want to add 2c. I got a strange opinion - the most annoying thing of Gnome is its HUG. The opinion is caused by the majority of complains about it on Russian Linux forum. Not the HUG itself but the idea that if some feature can be considered as not totally obvious for a newbie, this feature should be simply deleted. Does anybody remember File Opening dialog? Why should any powerful functionality be deleted in a sake of somebody who does not want to use it? Why does anybody want to take it from ME and others if HE does not need it? :) IMHO the one and only way to solve this problem, if it is solvable at all, is to add an extra button - something like Yes to all. Clicking this button means a a user says Yes to all further dialogs, maybe except file overwriting. Sven Neumann wrote: By removing the dialog you add an extra step to the workflow. The user will now have to fill the layer or add/remove the alpha channel. That does sounds like an extra burden. We need to look at this in more details. You can't just claim that the dialog would be useless and remove it. But I am sure that there are ways to improve the work-flow. -- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] lgm 07, top‑5 GIMP user requ ests...
Sven Neumann wrote: On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 16:50 +0200, peter sikking wrote: The choice it to make either the dialog or 'no dialog' a tricky power feature. I choose, without a doubt, the former. I explained you why that choice is not acceptable. If you did not understand my last mail, why don't you just ask? I think we are talking now past each other... When I look fundamentally at what layers are, the optional character of all functionality (name, size, fill) offered by the dialog, combining that to realise the percentage of times that each will be useful and the alternatives to reach the same goal, take into account that this is part of user request #5, then dealing with this dialog dozens of times a day is a burden on GIMP's user experience. Please stop reiterating these buzz-words; it starts to become annoying after a while. If user interaction problems need to be solved, then it needs to be discussed in user interaction terms. If I would translate this totally into user-space or developer-space, then it would trivialise the issue. So that's it then, for this issue... --ps principal user interaction architect man + machine interface works http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] lgm 07, top‑5 GIMP user requ ests...
guys + gals, the final part of our lgm presentation is now online. whew, that turned out to be a long post to write, more pictures than ever: http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2007/05/lgm-top-gimp-user- requests_25.html ps: I am enjoying the feedback I am receiving, here and in the blog comments. --ps principal user interaction architect man + machine interface works http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
