On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Nathan Vegdahl <ces...@cessen.com> wrote: >> Yet, I'm Told Matt Ebb wanted the check-boxes to be preferred. > > And with good reason, IMO. Check boxes' visual appearance directly > communicates that they are a boolean true/false thing. Toggles do not > do this nearly as effectively, and can be confused with normal > buttons. > > But if I can take a moment to be a bit meta: if anyone is under the > illusion that we can design a problem-free UI, they really ought to > exit this discussion immediately. There is no such thing as an ideal > solution for Blender's UI (or any other complex problem, for that > matter). There will always be _valid_ complaints about any proposal > that anyone makes. > > This is not a matter of eliminating problems. This is a matter of > choosing _which_ set of problems we're going to adopt and accept in > Blender's UI. It's like UV unwrapping: we can minimize distortion to > a certain extent, but ultimately it's a matter of choosing which > distortions we consider least harmful. > > I think framing this discussion in those terms might help things be > more productive. An easy pattern to fall into otherwise is one where > someone makes a proposal, and someone else points out a problem with > it, and instead of that leading to a discussion of, "Well, do we > consider that problem less bad than the problems that other > possibilities have?" it leads to deadlock. (There's also the matter > of subjectivity, different use-cases, etc., of course...) > > There's always room for improvement, of course. But let's please move > forward with the realization that you can't make a distortion-free > unwrap even of a simple sphere. Even with infinite resources. It's > all about trade-offs. > > Personally, I think Matt and William did a good job in striking a > reasonable balance of decent trade-offs. I suggest that we stick to > their choices except in cases where there is a clearly better > trade-off to make. > > --Nathan
I think what you are saying is true and in the end we may need a final deciding person; perhaps Ton? We also have a number of problems that are quite easy to see that the current way is wrong. For example when you switch to a material and the whole panel is blank because it needs to be scrolled down. Or the fact that loading a series of pictures is different in the VSE than in the node editor; they should be the same. I don't care which we pick but they should be the same (I like the VSE way personally). Or in the VSE or the node editor when you add a strip or node it plops down where the mouse is, great if you are short cutting it but who wants a node under the add button? Lets get these big obvious problems fixed and then fight about the finer points! -- Douglas E Knapp Creative Commons Film Group, Helping people make open source movies with open source software! http://douglas.bespin.org/CommonsFilmGroup/phpBB3/index.php Massage in Gelsenkirchen-Buer: http://douglas.bespin.org/tcm/ztab1.htm Please link to me and trade links with me! Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project. http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page http://code.google.com/p/perspectiveproject/ _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers