Jason Simanek (jsima...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun 28 Oct 2012 08:04:08 AM CDT, Bot Obi wrote:
> >For me the super-duper solution was to have two configurable zoom
> >steps in the presets: 1) a "fine zoom" step and 2) a "standard zoom"
> >step.
[...]
> The trick of course to changing something like this – before we've
> even determined the programmatic complexity of making it work – is
> to make sure the new feature doesn't replace a feature that certain
> users have grown to love. I personally can't see how anyone would
> prefer the preset steps to a customizable percentage step, but you
> never know.
Well, the preset steps are there for a reason: I touched that code some
years ago and it was quite a bit of back and forth until we settled on
the current solution.
The steps are based on sqrt(2) factors inbetween, tweaked heavily
towards "nice" ratios (e.g. 141% --> 3:2). It might sound stupid, but
these "nice" ratios are important for users: They have a predictable
and even distribution of the pixels. Hence a global percentage step was
not satisfactory at this time.
I don't see the zoom steps going away. However, adding a new zoom method
that allows for a smoother zoom for e.g. the mouse wheel shouldn't be
too hard.
Bye,
Simon
--
si...@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
