On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:39:33PM +0200, Jon Nordby wrote: > Should we get rid of the group called "default"?
Yes. > And since we now have brushset import, we could consider stripping > down the set of brushes we ship by default, and have the rest > available on the website. I see something like 100, in 3-5 groups as > ideal. Currently we have 299 brushes and 11 groups... Hm. Will be hard to remove brushes (you always hit some that a few people have got attached to). And with the current "each artist's toolchest" brushgroup usage, I don't like to modify the groups too much. But you are probably right. If nothing else, we should hide most brushes/groups a bit. > Also in the defaults land, I propose that we make the gtk color selector > the default one again. Gtk color selector is fine for me by default, now that the numbers are gone. I don't think the colorsampler is really bad, but it does feel rougher and heavier. I like the concept of showing solid simplicity by default, and have something more fancy for those who care. > > * Remove the horrible simple/extended variants of brush editor > > > > I blame myself for that. As it is now, it hurts more than it helps. Minimum > > effort would be to revert it, but there is probably time to do better. > Have you changed your mind about what we discussed in Winterthur? Not really, only about the usefullness of my first step to implement it. It just gets in the way during brush creation right now. I always have to change to advanced mode before doing anything, and more often than not, the window has the wrong height. > It is summarized in comment #1 of https://gna.org/bugs/?15989 I still > think that is a good solution, and I can implement it if you'd like. I still think that would be a good solution. I grew a little bit sceptic only about adding expanders in the big brush settings dialog (point 3). > So I personally consider that one "fixed" as I do not think > automagically defaulting to another format on non-layered images is > better. It feels a bit like forcing ORA down the throat of new users who only do sketching without ever using layers. I'm sure they curse when they see that their scraps were saved as ORA, a format they can't get a preview nor open in photoshop. I prefer ORA myself now even for single-layer sketches, to keep the background separated, and for the strokemap in case I want to continue later. But I'm abusing MyPaint as full-screen ORA image viewer because I can't be bothered to export a PNG/JPEG for every scrap for my real image viewer (feh). > And do we want to show the layer dialog by default? Definitively not. Layers are an advanced feature that requires some image planning. Many users are happy to only do sketching in MyPaint, I guess mainly because of the infinite canvas. When I use MyPaint myself I rarely use layers, and when I do it's in the later stage. The background pattern dialog would be more useful IMO, if we really want to add a third dialog. > I will probably rebase my infobar branch, and see if I can fix its > issues. If I'm happy with it, maybe we can consider including it. That might make a nice addition to 0.9. We should give it some user-testing, though. -- Martin Renold _______________________________________________ Mypaint-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/mypaint-discuss
