Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-20 Thread Kevin Cozens
Sven Neumann wrote:
 Unless we change something, users upgrading from 2.2 will have exactly
 this experience though. Currently we migrate the sessionrc, so the docks
 setup is kept when upgrading to GIMP 2.4. The gimprc is also migrated,
 but since we have changed the default value, the fg/bg color indicator
 is going to disappear when upgrading.
 
 I see several ways to fix this:
 
  (1) we decide that the fg/bg color indicator is kept by default
  (2) we don't migrate the user's sessionrc and force her to start
  with the default dock layout
  (3) we do major hacks during the migration process

I don't see why the default settings for new installs should have any affect 
on the migration of an existing installation. A new install will wind up with 
rc files with all the default settings.

When migrating settings from an older version of GIMP, the state of the old 
settings should be preserved. The user may have customized the layout to their 
liking. GIMP shouldn't arbitrarily change those settings

If you want to turn off some of the indicators below the toolbox during 
migration then the equivalent tabs in the Layers/Channels/Paths dialog should 
be turned on or there will likely be complaints from users when some things 
go missing. However, this would be a bit of a hack. It would be simpler to 
leave the settings alone while migrating them.

-- 
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/ |What are we going to do today, Borg?
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172|Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
   |  Try to assimilate the world!
#include disclaimer/favourite   |  -Pinkutus  the Borg
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-20 Thread Kevin Cozens
Sven Neumann wrote:
 On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 01:54 -0500, Kevin Cozens wrote:
 I will start trying out the new system. The main downside I see at the 
 moment 
 is that of increased mouse mileage from needing to move between the top of 
 the 
 toolbox dialog to the bottom of the Layer/Channels/Paths dialog to alter 
 
 Put the Colors tab closer to the toolbox then?

I may do that evenutally but you suggested trying out the new layout first 
rather than immediately settings things back the way I was used to them in 
previous versions of GIMP.

I'm going to be paying more attention to how I use GIMP in future to see if 
there is a better way to organized the two main dialog boxes (at least for me).
-- 
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/ |What are we going to do today, Borg?
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172|Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
   |  Try to assimilate the world!
#include disclaimer/favourite   |  -Pinkutus  the Borg
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-20 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 15:37 -0500, Kevin Cozens wrote:

 I don't see why the default settings for new installs should have any affect 
 on the migration of an existing installation. A new install will wind up with 
 rc files with all the default settings.

No, it won't, for purely technical reasons. The personal gimprc file
only stores settings that differ from the defaults. So if a user didn't
disable the color area in the toolbox, then there won't be an entry that
explicitely enables it. Now that we changed the default value, the color
area will disappear for this user.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-14 Thread Laxminarayan Kamath
 On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:36:53 -0500, Adrian Likins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  8. Maybe some more examples of pixmap/hose brushes. I kind of hate that
  green pepper and vine brush (and I made them...). Not sure what
  exactly yet, but I have some ideas:

some more :
  1) Mouse cursors (nice for screenshots :-)
  2) Sea shells
  3) Sand
  4) Small stones
  5) Greeting card edge vines (line drawing like)  [My next project :-) ]
  6) Random cubes, 3d letters (anyone good at blender?)
  7) Planets


-- 
Laxminarayan Kamath Ammembal
(+91) 9342287956
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.geocities.com/kamathln
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-14 Thread Kevin Cozens
Akkana Peck wrote:
 I'm not Kevin, but I had the same reaction he did. In my defense
 (and maybe Kevin's), when the toolbox selectors disappeared, the
 new dialogs didn't automatically make themselves visible, so it
 just looked like a bug that they were suddenly gone, and getting
 back my color selector was my first priority.

That is what happened to me. The selectors disappeared from below the display 
of tool icons and there was no colour selector tab in the bottom portion of 
the Layers/Channels/Paths dialog. I turned on the toolbox selectors again so I 
could have the items back again.

I will start trying out the new system. The main downside I see at the moment 
is that of increased mouse mileage from needing to move between the top of the 
toolbox dialog to the bottom of the Layer/Channels/Paths dialog to alter 
colours or do the simple operation of switching foreground and background 
colours. I know there is a keyboard shortcut for the operation but I don't 
remember what it is. As an occasional user of GIMP I don't tend to remember 
the dozens of keyboard shortcuts in the program. I tend to rely on the use of 
icons, buttons, and menus.

-- 
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/ |What are we going to do today, Borg?
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172|Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
   |  Try to assimilate the world!
#include disclaimer/favourite   |  -Pinkutus  the Borg
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-14 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 01:54 -0500, Kevin Cozens wrote:

 I will start trying out the new system. The main downside I see at the moment 
 is that of increased mouse mileage from needing to move between the top of 
 the 
 toolbox dialog to the bottom of the Layer/Channels/Paths dialog to alter 
 colours or do the simple operation of switching foreground and background 
 colours.

Put the Colors tab closer to the toolbox then?


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-13 Thread Akkana Peck
Sven Neumann writes:
 On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 15:18 -0500, Kevin Cozens wrote:
  I prefer to have these showing in the toolbox. When I lost them a some time 
  ago after a cvs up, the first thing I did was find out where they went and 
  how 
  to get them back.
 
 You could at least have tried to live without them for a while before
 judging about this change. That's one of the main problems with the GIMP
 user interface. People are afraid of trying new things and miss what
 they have learnt to use. So, the fact that you immidiately renabled
 these widgets only show us that you are reluctant to changes. It doesn't

I'm not Kevin, but I had the same reaction he did. In my defense
(and maybe Kevin's), when the toolbox selectors disappeared, the
new dialogs didn't automatically make themselves visible, so it
just looked like a bug that they were suddenly gone, and getting
back my color selector was my first priority. A new user wouldn't
have that problem.

But Sven is right (even though he's talking to Kevin) that some of
us didn't give the new layout a fair chance.  So I've been doing
that for the past couple days, and it actually works fine. I like
not needing the popup any more, and for most operations it doesn't
require any more clicks than the old layout.

There are still two things I miss. Neither of these will stop me
from using the new setup, but I wonder if they might cause a problem
to non-geeky users:

1. Being able to drag from the foreground or background swatch
into the image. Sometimes I use the keybindings (ctrl-, and ctrl-.)
but other times it seems more natural to drag the color, and if
the swatches aren't exposed (because they're hidden in a tab),
it would take two extra clicks to drag them (two clicks assuming
that I need the layers dialog visible most of the time, so I need
to switch back).

2. The sliders for RGB. I can do HSV adjustments in the big color
rectangle, but if I want to adjust RGB values (for instance, to
ensure that I'm getting pure red) I have to use the HTML field or
click the R, G and B buttons in sequence. I can't just glance at the
three sliders like with the old dialog.


-- 
...Akkana
Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional: http://gimpbook.com
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-13 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 11:13 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote:

 I'm not Kevin, but I had the same reaction he did. In my defense
 (and maybe Kevin's), when the toolbox selectors disappeared, the
 new dialogs didn't automatically make themselves visible, so it
 just looked like a bug that they were suddenly gone, and getting
 back my color selector was my first priority. A new user wouldn't
 have that problem.

Unless we change something, users upgrading from 2.2 will have exactly
this experience though. Currently we migrate the sessionrc, so the docks
setup is kept when upgrading to GIMP 2.4. The gimprc is also migrated,
but since we have changed the default value, the fg/bg color indicator
is going to disappear when upgrading.

I see several ways to fix this:

 (1) we decide that the fg/bg color indicator is kept by default
 (2) we don't migrate the user's sessionrc and force her to start
 with the default dock layout
 (3) we do major hacks during the migration process

I don't like the third option because such hacks are likely going to
introduce bugs. Especially since the migration code is difficult to
test.

 2. The sliders for RGB. I can do HSV adjustments in the big color
 rectangle, but if I want to adjust RGB values (for instance, to
 ensure that I'm getting pure red) I have to use the HTML field or
 click the R, G and B buttons in sequence. I can't just glance at the
 three sliders like with the old dialog.

But you can do that in the Slider color selector, can't you?


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-12 Thread Kevin Cozens
Raphaël Quinet wrote:
 On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:36:53 -0500, Adrian Likins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 1. In the toolbox, the fg/bg color, and brush/patter/gradient boxes 
 should be on.
 
 Maybe.  But another option (mentioned in your point 2) would be to make
 sure that the color selector tab is always included in the default
 session (even when upgrading from a previous gimp version!) and that it
 is visible by default (first tab). In this case, I am not sure that we
 need the separate indicator.  We can save some precious desktop space
 by not having it on by default.

I prefer to have these showing in the toolbox. When I lost them a some time 
ago after a cvs up, the first thing I did was find out where they went and how 
to get them back.

I run with a screen resolution of 1280x1024. The two main GIMP dialogs fill 
almost the full screen height near the right side of my desktop so I work with 
image windows over on the left side of my screen.

I don't see any real benefits from the amount of desktop space that can be 
saved by turning the display of these features off.

-- 
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/ |What are we going to do today, Borg?
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172|Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
   |  Try to assimilate the world!
#include disclaimer/favourite   |  -Pinkutus  the Borg
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-12 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 15:18 -0500, Kevin Cozens wrote:

 I prefer to have these showing in the toolbox. When I lost them a some time 
 ago after a cvs up, the first thing I did was find out where they went and 
 how 
 to get them back.

You could at least have tried to live without them for a while before
judging about this change. That's one of the main problems with the GIMP
user interface. People are afraid of trying new things and miss what
they have learnt to use. So, the fact that you immidiately renabled
these widgets only show us that you are reluctant to changes. It doesn't
show that these widgets are in any way important and should be part of
the default setup.

 I don't see any real benefits from the amount of desktop space that can be 
 saved by turning the display of these features off.

It's not primarily a question of screen estate. The question is whether
these widgets are useful enough for the average user to have them
enabled by default. We have to try not to add too many things or new
users will be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of user interface
elements.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-12 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

to avoid misunderstandings, I would like to point out that I very much
welcome the discussion about the defaults for 2.4. But I think that we
should better have it on the gimp-users list. I don't think that
developers are good at doing user interface decisions. Most of us (and
that includes me) are way too used to the way that things are and used
to be for years. We are not capable of seeing the problems and possible
solutions unless we listen to our users.

That doesn't mean that we should do whatever the users tell us to do. By
no means. But we should listen to them and give them a chance to
participate in such decisions. I would very much welcome a merge of the
users and developer lists.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-12 Thread Scott
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 10:04:38PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
 
 to avoid misunderstandings, I would like to point out that I very much
 welcome the discussion about the defaults for 2.4. But I think that we
 should better have it on the gimp-users list. I don't think that
 developers are good at doing user interface decisions. 

Well unfortunately we users are ultimately at the mercy of you
developers, so all we can do is *hope* that you are good at the UI
decisions, since we have to live with them

 That doesn't mean that we should do whatever the users tell us to do. By
 no means. But we should listen to them and give them a chance to
 participate in such decisions. I would very much welcome a merge of the
 users and developer lists.

That is an excellent idea! I, as a user, got onto this developer list
some time ago for some forgotten reason. But it has been fascinating
to watch you discuss the evolving 2.4. There seem to be some who are
interested in what we poor schmucks out here in Userland have to say,
while others seem to take the attitude of Let them eat cake.  Free
software is a wondrous thing.

Scott Swanson
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-11 Thread Adrian Likins
Sven Neumann wrote:
 Hi Adrian,
 
 On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 21:24 -0500, Adrian Likins wrote:
 
 Yup, I'll take this and start putting together a set of brushes.
 
 will you also address http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322176 ?
 
Yes.

And on the subject of defaults for 2.4, I wonder if it would be useful 
to include a set of default tool option presets for each tool?

I know for me, one of the first things I do with an app is to browse
though the set of canned presets/templates/etc. Typically a good way to
get the feel of an app. Having some for gimp might be useful.

Adrian
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-11 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 11:31 -0500, Adrian Likins wrote:

 And on the subject of defaults for 2.4, I wonder if it would be useful 
 to include a set of default tool option presets for each tool?

I can't think of any useful presets right now and I think we have loads
of more important things to fix before 2.4. In the long run, yes,
perhaps we should provide such presets.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-10 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi Adrian,

On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 21:24 -0500, Adrian Likins wrote:

 Yup, I'll take this and start putting together a set of brushes.

will you also address http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322176 ?


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-09 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 15:34 -0500, Adrian Likins wrote:

  5. It might be nice to have the stock round/square brushes be dynamic
  brushes by default. (If I understand correctly, theres a small
  concern that this might break some existing scripts?)
  
 
  This has been discussed before.  From my point of view, I am not
  concerned at all about the scripts but I am more concerned about
  usability aspects.  The current bitmap brushes allow you to quickly
  switch between different predefined sizes without having to play with
  the brush size slider.  This is not so easy to do with scalable
  brushes.

Why isn't this as easy with scalable brushes? We should have a decent
set of read-only parametric brushes in different sizes. That way you can
switch as quickly. But you get the advantage that the brush is also
nicely scaled with the new brush size control in the paint tool options.
While this also works with pixmap brushes, parametric brushes scale a
lot nicer. IMO we should only keep pixmap brushes for brushes that can
not be implemented as parametric ones.

 hard and soft circles, hard and soft squares, hard and soft 
 calligraphy brushes, maybe
 a wider set of grunge brushes.  I'll see if I can come up with an 
 actual set.

Having more good brushes in the default setup would indeed be nice. We
should probably also throw out some old ones then or move them to
gimp-data-extras. Adrian, perhaps you want to take this overhaul of the
brushes set into your hands? Would be good to have a single person to
coordinate the effort and to make sure that a nice coherent set of
brushes ends up in CVS at some point.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-08 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 18:36 -0500, Adrian Likins wrote:

 1. In the toolbox, the fg/bg color, and brush/patter/gradient boxes 
 should be on.

The brush/patter/gradient boxes are pointless as these can be accessed
from the respective tool options. I haven't been using those for years.
The fg/bg color selector is different as the Colors tab is not a
completely equivalent replacement. It lacks the color history.

 3. Change the default image size (any particular reason it is 377x233?)
 I'd suggest 1024x768

The default image size is 420 x 300. The weird 377 x 233 size is only in
unstable releases. It is there to make sure that developers work with
odd-sized images when testing new stuff.

 4. Don't show the devices dialog by default. It's a bit redundant with
 #1, and only shows one device for most users.

I don't think the devices dialog has ever been part of the default
setup.

 9. I'd turn on Save Tool options on exit by default. We have a reset
 to default in the dialogs if someone wants to reset the tools.

No, please not. We have had tons of complaints from 2.2 users who didn't
understand why their tools changed behaviour. We changed this early in
the 2.3 series to not to save the tool options by default and this has
so far turned out to be the better choice. Changing the tool defaults
should be left to expert users who know what they are doing.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-07 Thread Alexandre Prokoudine
On 12/7/06, Adrian Likins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 1. In the toolbox, the fg/bg color, and brush/patter/gradient boxes
 should be on.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365226

Sven mentions Colors editor palette there. I would also suggest
revisiting it and giving it some UI love. In particular, color picker
button and HEX entry filed could go into same row, and BG/FG switcher
could have a twice smaller height. That would save some pixels for
those running GIMP on laptops. We care about compact UI, am I right?
:)

Alexandre
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-07 Thread Raphaël Quinet
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:36:53 -0500, Adrian Likins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Sven mention on irc the issue of choosing what the default setup for 2.4 
 should be. So here are some of my thoughts:
 
 
 1. In the toolbox, the fg/bg color, and brush/patter/gradient boxes 
 should be on.

Maybe.  But another option (mentioned in your point 2) would be to make
sure that the color selector tab is always included in the default
session (even when upgrading from a previous gimp version!) and that it
is visible by default (first tab). In this case, I am not sure that we
need the separate indicator.  We can save some precious desktop space
by not having it on by default.

 2. Add color selector and palette dialogs to the default Layers, 
 Channels, Paths, Undo | Brushes, Patterns, Gradient dialog that comes 
 up currently.

Yes, it should be there by default.

The default left-side panel should be: Layers, Channels, Paths, Undo |
Color, Brushes, Patterns, Gradients.  Adding Palettes there by default
could also be useful, especially with the new (and very useful) palette
color picker in the color selector.

 3. Change the default image size (any particular reason it is 377x233?)
 I'd suggest 1024x768

I'd suggest VGA (640x480) or even less, so that it fits on a 1024x768
screen.  Web statistics from July 2006 show that only 19% of the users
have screens larger than 1024x768.  While I expect this percentage to be
higher among GIMP users (maybe close to 40% or 50%?), we should still
make sure that the default settings work fine on a typical laptop
screen (widescreen laptops are not so common yet even if they represent
the majority of the new sales in many countries).

 4. Don't show the devices dialog by default. It's a bit redundant with
 #1, and only shows one device for most users.

Right.

 5. It might be nice to have the stock round/square brushes be dynamic
 brushes by default. (If I understand correctly, theres a small
 concern that this might break some existing scripts?)

This has been discussed before.  From my point of view, I am not
concerned at all about the scripts but I am more concerned about
usability aspects.  The current bitmap brushes allow you to quickly
switch between different predefined sizes without having to play with
the brush size slider.  This is not so easy to do with scalable
brushes.

 6. A wider selection of basic brushes would be good, especially with the 
#5.

Agreed.  Any proposals?

 7. I'd like to see some high resolution brushes included, especially now
 with brush downscaling being easy to get to.

Again agreed.  Any proposals?  ;-)

 8. Maybe some more examples of pixmap/hose brushes. I kind of hate that
 green pepper and vine brush (and I made them...). Not sure what 
 exactly yet, but I have some ideas:
   a. something that makes obvious use of the directional pipes
 would be good.
  b. Maybe a simple tube drawing brush
 (aka, a rendered sphere with the spacing set to a low value)
   c. Maybe a couple more (bigger) sizes of the Pencil Sketch
 brushes
   d. a wilber brush? (totally useless, but hey... it's wilber)
  e. a series of flipped versions of the Caligraphic Brush
 series

Some time ago, I found some nice examples of directional brushes: one
with ants and the other one with feet.  Alas I don't have them anymore
and I am not sure about their licence terms.  But something like that
would be nice to include in the default GIMP package.

I have seen many PSP brushes showing random water drops, snowflakes or
other things similar to the animated Sparks brush.  Adding one or two
of those could also be nice.  These may not be very useful for graphics
professionals, but it would certainly be nice for the amateur web
designers or for those who want to impress their friends by creating
cheezy Christmas cards with GIMP.

 9. I'd turn on Save Tool options on exit by default. We have a reset
 to default in the dialogs if someone wants to reset the tools.

Hmmm...  I'm not sure about that one.  I easily forget that I had
lowered the brush opacity in my previous gimp session and sometimes it
takes me a while to see that something is wrong.  I prefer to start in
a predictable state.  Of course I can turn off the auto-save feature.
But I am not sure about what the default should be...

 10. Man, am I ever tired of those default pattern options. (Mostly
  my fault unfortunately). They didn't age very well. Not sure
  if we can do much about it without breaking scripts.

We could add more without breaking scripts.  On the other hand, I am
not sure if it is worth it.  I do not use them much anyway.

 11. Ditto with the gradients, though we should probably add another
  example or two of using the dynamic color stuff in gradients

Agreed.  The first 4 gradients after the FG to BG ones are not so
interesting (Abstract 1, 2, 3 and Aneurism).

-Raphaël

Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments

2006-12-07 Thread Adrian Likins
Raphaël Quinet wrote:
 On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:36:53 -0500, Adrian Likins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 Sven mention on irc the issue of choosing what the default setup for 2.4 
 should be. So here are some of my thoughts:


 1. In the toolbox, the fg/bg color, and brush/patter/gradient boxes 
 should be on.
 

 Maybe.  But another option (mentioned in your point 2) would be to make
 sure that the color selector tab is always included in the default
 session (even when upgrading from a previous gimp version!) and that it
 is visible by default (first tab). In this case, I am not sure that we
 need the separate indicator.  We can save some precious desktop space
 by not having it on by default
   
Not sure how concerned we are about desktop space. Those seem pretty 
small to
me, and are useful. If we really wanted to save real estate, we could 
show those widget, and
hide the bottom dialog in the main dialog doc entry by default (brush, 
color, patter, gradient would
be redundant, and that would save much more screen space).

 3. Change the default image size (any particular reason it is 377x233?)
 I'd suggest 1024x768
 

 I'd suggest VGA (640x480) or even less, so that it fits on a 1024x768
 screen.  Web statistics from July 2006 show that only 19% of the users
 have screens larger than 1024x768.  While I expect this percentage to be
 higher among GIMP users (maybe close to 40% or 50%?), we should still
 make sure that the default settings work fine on a typical laptop
 screen (widescreen laptops are not so common yet even if they represent
 the majority of the new sales in many countries).

   
1024x768 (or bigger) automatically zooms out for me, so I don't 
think it's a real estate issue. I'd just like to see a slightly more 
useful default size. The current defaults are pretty small in comparison 
to the multi-mega-pixels camera images people tend to edit.  I actually 
default to 1600x1200, even on my laptop of smaller resolution.

 5. It might be nice to have the stock round/square brushes be dynamic
 brushes by default. (If I understand correctly, theres a small
 concern that this might break some existing scripts?)
 

 This has been discussed before.  From my point of view, I am not
 concerned at all about the scripts but I am more concerned about
 usability aspects.  The current bitmap brushes allow you to quickly
 switch between different predefined sizes without having to play with
 the brush size slider.  This is not so easy to do with scalable
 brushes.

   
No reason you couldn't have 10 sizes of the scalable brushes in the 
dialog by
default.  You just want a wide selection of useful brushes that are 
browsable and easy
to access.
 6. A wider selection of basic brushes would be good, especially with the 
#5.
 

 Agreed.  Any proposals?

   
hard and soft circles, hard and soft squares, hard and soft 
calligraphy brushes, maybe
a wider set of grunge brushes.  I'll see if I can come up with an 
actual set.

 7. I'd like to see some high resolution brushes included, especially now
 with brush downscaling being easy to get to.
 

 Again agreed.  Any proposals?  ;-)

   
Maybe some water drop, frame, cracks, etc. I'll see what I can come 
up with. This kind
of stuff seems to map well to one of the ui improvement goals of making 
gimp a better tool for
creating original artwork from found images. It's pretty typical to use 
grunge brushes or frame and border brushes to enhance and personalize 
found images.

 8. Maybe some more examples of pixmap/hose brushes. I kind of hate that
 green pepper and vine brush (and I made them...). Not sure what 
 exactly yet, but I have some ideas:
  a. something that makes obvious use of the directional pipes
 would be good.
  b. Maybe a simple tube drawing brush
 (aka, a rendered sphere with the spacing set to a low value)
  c. Maybe a couple more (bigger) sizes of the Pencil Sketch
 brushes
  d. a wilber brush? (totally useless, but hey... it's wilber)
  e. a series of flipped versions of the Caligraphic Brush
 series
 

 Some time ago, I found some nice examples of directional brushes: one
 with ants and the other one with feet.  Alas I don't have them anymore
 and I am not sure about their licence terms.  But something like that
 would be nice to include in the default GIMP package.

 I have seen many PSP brushes showing random water drops, snowflakes or
 other things similar to the animated Sparks brush.  Adding one or two
 of those could also be nice.  These may not be very useful for graphics
 professionals, but it would certainly be nice for the amateur web
 designers or for those who want to impress their friends by creating
 cheezy Christmas cards with GIMP.

   
I have the ant brush, but don't remember who created it off the top 
of my head (which
brings up an interesting point about brushes not having much in the 

Re: [Gimp-developer] default setup for 2.4 comments (Rapha?l Quinet)

2006-12-07 Thread Martin Nordholts

 3. Change the default image size (any particular reason it is 377x233?)
 I'd suggest 1024x768
 

 I'd suggest VGA (640x480) or even less, so that it fits on a 1024x768
 screen.  Web statistics from July 2006 show that only 19% of the users
 have screens larger than 1024x768.  While I expect this percentage to be
 higher among GIMP users (maybe close to 40% or 50%?), we should still
 make sure that the default settings work fine on a typical laptop
 screen (widescreen laptops are not so common yet even if they represent
 the majority of the new sales in many countries).

   

I agree here, 1024x768 is way too large for default.

 6. A wider selection of basic brushes would be good, especially with the 
#5.
 

 Agreed.  Any proposals?
   

I think there should at least be a set of much larger brushes, both
solid and soft, something like 30, 50, 100, 200, 300

 9. I'd turn on Save Tool options on exit by default. We have a reset
 to default in the dialogs if someone wants to reset the tools.
 

 Hmmm...  I'm not sure about that one.  I easily forget that I had
 lowered the brush opacity in my previous gimp session and sometimes it
 takes me a while to see that something is wrong.  I prefer to start in
 a predictable state.  Of course I can turn off the auto-save feature.
 But I am not sure about what the default should be...
   

I think is should be turned on by default. The reason is that it is much
less work to reset the tool options than to re-configure them as they
were. If a user does a lot of changes to the tool options, it is easier
to fix Ah crap, it saved my tool options, I want them reseted. than
Ah crap, all my precious tool options adjustments didn't get saved!.

- Martin N.

(Is there a way to reply to a daily digest while still keeping the
threading?)
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer