Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I, too, am keeping an eye on the KDE answer to The Gimp, since
> Gimp is about the only GTK+ based app I've got on my desktop
> these days. :^)
You *do* use GTK-QT, I hope. (Gives you KDE widgets, colours and
icons in GTK apps.)
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:50:44AM +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> The new Gimp 2 (currently 2.2.2) interface is *much* better than
> earlier versions, though.
I honestly don't find it much different, in so far as being kind of
a weird interface compared to other apps. It IS quite improved, a
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> The Gimp's GUI is indeed terrible (and not 'standard'!).
>
> I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the GUI is terrible.
> If you enable the menubar though, it's fairly standard.
The new Gimp 2 (currently 2.2.2) interface is
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 17:24, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > The Gimp is more age-appropriate. It has a standard GUI
> > (and an insane one too, but you can ignore that)
>
> The Gimp's GUI is indeed terrible (and not 'standard'!).
I'm glad I'm not the
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:07:50PM +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > Also, while I had to duplicate others' work (those who make
Oops ... s/had/hate/
> > operating systems like Linux and Windows), we might want to
> >
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:24:03PM +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> The Gimp's GUI is indeed terrible (and not 'standard'!).
I'll say this: it's better than Blender. ;)
-bill!
___
Tuxpaint-dev mailing list
Tuxpaint-dev@tux4kids.net
http://tux4kids.ne
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 06:06:34PM -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> In the end, I think there's a place both for "personal stuff" and
> sharing when it comes to Tux Paint. I'd like to see Tux Paint operate
> equally well in both environments. The --nodelete idea is a great way
> to do this, because
Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Because of the cognitive skills and time factors I mentioned
> in my last post, I think this is not always a bad idea. Do we
> have an emerging pattern of various settings that, taken as a
> group, make good defaults for a group
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>> That button makes me nervous.
>>>
>>> a. mistakes
>>> b. destruction of another kid's work
>>> c. destruction of own work
>>>
>>> If anything should be hard to get at, this is it.
>>> Control-click or shift-click would do.
>>
Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Also, while I had to duplicate others' work (those who make
> operating systems like Linux and Windows), we might want to
> support 'user sessions' /within/ Tux Paint.
Sounds complicated.
>> Preferably the images should be move
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 17:46 -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> I can imagine in a lab/classroom setting that gives children
> the freedom to do so, such sharing could be commonplace, or the computer
> might be set up without accounts altogether. This would be a good
> thing, and I think is something th
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 13:24 -0800, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> You'd be surprised how many schools just use the same single account
> for ALL users in a class... or worse yet, in an entire school! :^(
Because of the cognitive skills and time factors I mentioned in my last
post, I think this is not alw
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 22:05 +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> >> Yeah, "where to put delete?" has been my issue all along.
> >
> > That button makes me nervous.
> > b. destruction of another kid's work
> (b) is a more gene
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 16:05, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> >> Yeah, "where to put delete?" has been my issue all along.
> >
> > That button makes me nervous.
> >
> > a. mistakes
> > b. destruction of another kid's work
> > c.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:05:26PM +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> (b) is a more general problem, solved by kids having their own
> account (usually the case for schools, and in Linux?). But we
> could add a 'nodelete' option (if it doesn't exist already -- I
> can't be bothered to check).
Not
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> Yeah, "where to put delete?" has been my issue all along.
>
> That button makes me nervous.
>
> a. mistakes
> b. destruction of another kid's work
> c. destruction of own work
>
> If anything should be hard to get at, this is i
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 13:21, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 07:13:38PM +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> > But in Tux Paint we need the ability delete the images. Therefore
> > double-clicking the images (or clicking 'Open') works better. (And
> > this is the way open dialogues on
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 07:13:38PM +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> But in Tux Paint we need the ability delete the images. Therefore
> double-clicking the images (or clicking 'Open') works better. (And
> this is the way open dialogues on Linux and Windows work.)
Yeah, "where to put delete?" ha
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> I disagree. I think Tux Paint should work like other
>> Linux/Windows programs (only with different-*looking*
>> controls). In those programs, the open dialogue have 'Open'
>> and 'Cancel' buttons. Consistency is a good thing!
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 11:40, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >> The "Load" dialog has lots of dead space.
> >
> >> There are some other
> >> possibilities though: the toolbar could be active, so that
> >> the "Back" button become
Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> I think that "New" should have a dialog. It would be like
>> the "Load" dialog, containing the starters and a blank
>> canvas.
>
> This is not a bad idea.
I agree.
>> The "Load" dialog has lots of dead space.
>
>> There are s
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 09:02:34AM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> I think that "New" should have a dialog. It would be like
> the "Load" dialog, containing the starters and a blank
> canvas.
This is not a bad idea.
> This gets the starters out of the "Load" dialog,
> reducing confusion. It also
I think that "New" should have a dialog. It would be like
the "Load" dialog, containing the starters and a blank
canvas. This gets the starters out of the "Load" dialog,
reducing confusion. It also makes for easy selection of
a background color. (if the starters don't get moved,
then instead the "N
23 matches
Mail list logo
