Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

we haven't been able to come to a conclusion with regard to the GUI
yet, but that shouldn't keep you from starting to work on layer
locking. It probably makes sense to start implementing this from the
bottom up. Whether you then add a GUI for it into the layer row or
somewhere above the layer list, doesn't really matter much. It will be
easy to change later if there's a need to do that.

So, to get you started, why not add locked flags to the GimpLayer
object and make sure that they are correctly respected by the rest of
GIMP? You will probably also want to add a PDB interface to the new
layer properties. Please ask whenever you need help. It is a lot
easier to ask a few questions than to poke around in the source code
for hours.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

michael chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> So you can't do something like a two boxes with columns, in a box, and
> then have a list of those boxes?  Something like the way Java Swing
> does GUIs?

You can do that in GTK+ but not in a GtkTreeView. At least not without
writing a very complex cell renderer that combines multiple cell
renderers. It would be extremely difficult to get this right and it is
also a user interface that would be unique (and thus hard to use).
I suggest we stick with the classic GtkCellLayout which packs cell
renderers horizontally.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[michael chang]

On 6/27/05, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > A way to overcome this is to have e.g. two lines per layer. A sample
> > mockup is available at
> >   http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/files/layer-dialog-many-properties.png
> 
> This might work from a user's point of view but I am afraid that it
> will be a nightmare to implement. There's absolutely no support from
> GTK+ for this kind of UI. Probably even for good reasons.

So you can't do something like a two boxes with columns, in a box, and
then have a list of those boxes?  Something like the way Java Swing
does GUIs? [I'm sorry, but I have no idea how GTK+ works, so it's just
my two cents.]  I don't suppose this would be something to ask the
GTK-Development team about how to implement, would it?  [Similar to
how we're discussing how to implement this here.]
-- 
~Mike
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> A way to overcome this is to have e.g. two lines per layer. A sample
> mockup is available at
>   http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/files/layer-dialog-many-properties.png

This might work from a user's point of view but I am afraid that it
will be a nightmare to implement. There's absolutely no support from
GTK+ for this kind of UI. Probably even for good reasons.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[jernej]

On Monday, June 27, 2005, 17:27:43, Michael Schumacher wrote:

> gtk-wimp (or is it called ms-theme-engine now?) should take care of this,
> shouldn't it?

It does.

-- 
< Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >

The sooner and in more detail you announce bad news, the better.
   -- White's Chappaquiddick Theorem

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Michael Schumacher]

> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> The text looks like it's the same size as the rest of the text, so I don't
> think it's necessary to increase it any more (I always found GTK+'s
> default text size a bit too big, at least on Windows).

gtk-wimp (or is it called ms-theme-engine now?) should take care of this,
shouldn't it?


Michael

-- 
Weitersagen: GMX DSL-Flatrates mit Tempo-Garantie!
Ab 4,99 Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[jernej]

On Monday, June 27, 2005, 16:32:13, Nathan Summers wrote:

> This would work.  All you would need to do is increase the text 2pt or
> so, and make the icons visually look a little less like text.

The text looks like it's the same size as the rest of the text, so I don't
think it's necessary to increase it any more (I always found GTK+'s default
text size a bit too big, at least on Windows).

-- 
< Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >

Whenever you cut your fingernails, you will find a need for them an hour later.
   -- Witten's Law

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Simon Budig]

Nathan Summers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 6/26/05, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A way to overcome this is to have e.g. two lines per layer. A sample
> > mockup is available at
> >   http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/files/layer-dialog-many-properties.png
> 
> This would work.  All you would need to do is increase the text 2pt or
> so, and make the icons visually look a little less like text.

Well, this is the small theme, a mockup with the regular theme would
probably also be needed to judge on that one.

Bye,
Simon
-- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://simon.budig.de/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Nathan Summers]

On 6/26/05, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A way to overcome this is to have e.g. two lines per layer. A sample
> mockup is available at
>   http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/files/layer-dialog-many-properties.png

This would work.  All you would need to do is increase the text 2pt or
so, and make the icons visually look a little less like text.

Rockwalrus
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Nathan Summers]

On 6/26/05, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 26 June 2005 17:48, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > "Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> If we want to have all the lock types that PS offers, we would
> > >> have to add three new toggles to the layer row. Is that
> > >> feasible?
> > >
> > > kkk...
> > > I thought of three  different  states for the lock Icon (and a
> > > nice tooltip, of course).
> >
> > Three lock types make up for 2^3 states. Not sure if all of them
> > are useful but it could become difficult to display all useful
> > states in a single icon.
> 
> Oh well, as Homer Simpson would say:
> DOH!
> 
> :-)

It's a little less scary if you refer to 2^3 by its other name, 8.  :)

Rockwalrus
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Thorsten Wilms]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 09:21:39PM -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:
> 
> On left-clicking on the layer-tree, where the current "linked" icon 
> for each layer is placed, a drop-down menu would be displayed.
> This menu would contain 4 itens which could each be checked or 
> unchecked:
> 
> Transparency Lock
> Color Lock
> Geometry Lock
> Linked  

Linked is not like the locking options, so it should be kept separated.
A dropdown menu is expected to disappear on clicking an entry, so 
changing several options would make for a click orgy.
Color and Geometry lock are no way as important as linking.
The fact your targets only appear after an initial action slows you 
down. Icons/Checkboxes above the list might be faster to handle, 
because you see them right away.

 
> If either of these get checked, an apropriate icon (which could be 
> always the same) would  displayed in that place.

It's usualy difficult enough to convey a single action or state with 
an icon, but trying to combine 4 aspects with all possible combinations?
The only possibility I see are 4 mini icons in the space of one, most 
likely making for a nice pixel salad.

I'm all for icons above the list.


---
Thorsten Wilms
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Simon Budig]

Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok, replace "proposed solution" with "suggested placement of the button"
> > or whatever. Do you have an example use case where the user would
> > benefit from that placement?
> 
> Alice and Bob are looking for the layer named "Foobar".
> 
> Due to the introduction of three new toggles in each row of the layer
> list and the inclusion of the opacity slider (after all it belongs
> there, doesn't it?), Alice needs to scroll the view horizontally in
> order to see the layer names.  Alternatively she could make the layers
> dialog a lot wider.

Actually I pondered about moving the opacity slider and yes, there are
good reasons to move it more closely to the layer representation in the
layers dockable. The major drawback of course is the necessary screen
estate, and I don't think it'd be worth it. The same holds for the mode
button.

> Bob uses a different layout. Only the visibility and linked toggles
> are in the row. The controls for opacity and state of the different
> locks are placed above the layer list. Bob can easily identify the
> layer he's looking for w/o having to scroll horizontally.

Sure, if you'd naively extend the layers dialog with more columns it
would become wide very quickly.

A way to overcome this is to have e.g. two lines per layer. A sample
mockup is available at
  http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/files/layer-dialog-many-properties.png

When looking at this mockup the icons are awfully small, they probably
need to become bigger, maybe making the layer entry higher. They also
interfere with the readability of the layer names which probably can be
remedied by sprinkling some design on them.

There probably are better ways to layout the additional buttons without
making the layer dockable wider. An advantage of these small
indicators/toggles is, that we could get rid of the weird indicator for
the existance of an alpha channel. Bold vs. Normal Text for the layer
name is not very discoverable, a small icon could help (if we don't
manage to get rid of the need for this indicator anyway).

> > But IMHO it is important to be able to quickly toggle the locking
> > for multiple layers.
> 
> How is it important? Do you have an example use case?

Actually I already described how I frequently use that feature in
Skencil. To protect myself from working accidentially on the wrong layer
I tend to lock a lot of layers there. Since my objects of interest
usually are distributed among multiple layers I need to lock/unlock
multiple layers at once. It were quite painful if I had to move the
mouse between two different locations in the dialog instead of moving it
from row to row in a sequential manner.

There is an important difference between Gimp and Skencil though, which
makes it less of an issue for Gimp. In Skencil you by default can
operate on all objects in an image, regardless of their association to a
layer. So yes, it is more important for Skencil than for Gimp to lock
layers.

Bye,
Simon

-- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://simon.budig.de/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris]

On Sunday 26 June 2005 17:48, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> If we want to have all the lock types that PS offers, we would
> >> have to add three new toggles to the layer row. Is that
> >> feasible?
> >
> > kkk...
> > I thought of three  different  states for the lock Icon (and a
> > nice tooltip, of course).
>
> Three lock types make up for 2^3 states. Not sure if all of them
> are useful but it could become difficult to display all useful
> states in a single icon.

Oh well, as Homer Simpson would say:
DOH!

:-)


What about a drop-down menu there?
The icon would display an open lock - or nothing at all. When clicked, 
a drop down contest menu with check itens for each "locking" option 
would appear. If any of the locking options would be picked, the icon 
would ebcome a locked bolt. Clicking on it, would make the drop-down 
menu to show up revealing the state of the layer.

This UI could even be used to the linked state as well, therefore 
resoving the space problem.

I do not have the time to elaborate a mock up on this, so I will 
explain the idea again, with a different wording:

On left-clicking on the layer-tree, where the current "linked" icon 
for each layer is placed, a drop-down menu would be displayed.
This menu would contain 4 itens which could each be checked or 
unchecked:

Transparency Lock
Color Lock
Geometry Lock
Linked  

-
If either of these get checked, an apropriate icon (which could be 
always the same) would  displayed in that place.
--
IMHO, the idea of other specific contest menus on the layers tree may 
be needed anyway when layer grouping is included - There will simply 
be more options than the current UI can deal with.



>
>
> Sven
> ___
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Pedro Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> As a follow up to my own message, here is another mockup. The lock on
> the far right of the list would disable the lock for the given layer, so
> you don't have to change to that particular layer to change it's status.
> The checkboxs under the opacity slider toggles the different locking
> mechanisms supported, hence the weird question mark, which should reads
> as insert_your_own_locking_here.

I think I don't understand this mockup. So the icon in the layer row
(which should really not be at the end for the reason given already)
doubles the functionality of the toggles above the list?


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> If we want to have all the lock types that PS offers, we would have
>> to add three new toggles to the layer row. Is that feasible?
>>
> kkk...
> I thought of three  different  states for the lock Icon (and a nice 
> tooltip, of course).

Three lock types make up for 2^3 states. Not sure if all of them are
useful but it could become difficult to display all useful states in a
single icon.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris]

On Sunday 26 June 2005 13:48, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,

> Well, it is up to the user to name the layers and I don't think we
> should make it harder to use long names. In general it is better to
> allow list views to scroll horizontally instead of trying to
> shorten the content to make it fit into the dialog.
>
> If we want to have all the lock types that PS offers, we would have
> to add three new toggles to the layer row. Is that feasible?
>
kkk...
I thought of three  different  states for the lock Icon (and a nice 
tooltip, of course).

JS
-><-




>
> Sven
> ___
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Pedro Kiefer]

On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 12:59 -0300, Pedro Kiefer wrote:
> Sven,
> I did look at the PS user interface for layers before doing the mockup.
> In the other message you've said: 
> "I am sorry, but you can't put the lock at the end of the row. It would
> become invisible as soon as one layer has a longer name."
> Couldn't that be solved by ellipsizing the layer name? I really dislike
> extremeally long layer names, they clutter the interface. I think that we
> could have both, a check box together with the opacity slider and as a visual
> aid an small lock that would only disable the lock in the left of the layer 
> list.
> That way is easy to know which layers are locked, and they are easly unlocked.
> 

As a follow up to my own message, here is another mockup. The lock on
the far right of the list would disable the lock for the given layer, so
you don't have to change to that particular layer to change it's status.
The checkboxs under the opacity slider toggles the different locking
mechanisms supported, hence the weird question mark, which should reads
as insert_your_own_locking_here.

-- 
Pedro Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<>
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[jernej]

On Sunday, June 26, 2005, 15:17:52, Sven Neumann wrote:

> for your inspiration, heres a slightly outdated screenshot of the PS
> user interface for layer locking:

Here's how PaintShopPro handles the layers dialog:


The buttons at top are for new raster, vector, art media, mask and layer
group, then Delete layer and Edit selection (lets you manipulate selection
with drawing tools).

The buttons in right dialog pane are: show/hide layer, transparency, blend
mode, link (linked layers will be moved together), lock transparency (row
2), group link toggle (row 3), mask overlay toggle (row 4).

-- 
< Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >

When a problem goes away, the people working to solve it do not.
   -- Law of Bureaucracy

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Ok, replace "proposed solution" with "suggested placement of the button"
> or whatever. Do you have an example use case where the user would
> benefit from that placement?

Alice and Bob are looking for the layer named "Foobar".

Due to the introduction of three new toggles in each row of the layer
list and the inclusion of the opacity slider (after all it belongs
there, doesn't it?), Alice needs to scroll the view horizontally in
order to see the layer names.  Alternatively she could make the layers
dialog a lot wider.

Bob uses a different layout. Only the visibility and linked toggles
are in the row. The controls for opacity and state of the different
locks are placed above the layer list. Bob can easily identify the
layer he's looking for w/o having to scroll horizontally.

> But IMHO it is important to be able to quickly toggle the locking
> for multiple layers.

How is it important? Do you have an example use case?


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Pedro Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I did look at the PS user interface for layers before doing the
> mockup.  In the other message you've said: "I am sorry, but you
> can't put the lock at the end of the row. It would become invisible
> as soon as one layer has a longer name."  Couldn't that be solved by
> ellipsizing the layer name? I really dislike extremeally long layer
> names, they clutter the interface.

Well, it is up to the user to name the layers and I don't think we
should make it harder to use long names. In general it is better to
allow list views to scroll horizontally instead of trying to shorten
the content to make it fit into the dialog.

If we want to have all the lock types that PS offers, we would have to
add three new toggles to the layer row. Is that feasible?


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Pedro Kiefer]

On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 15:55 +0200, Simon Budig wrote:
> > Since we also want to address layer groups at some point. How does
> > that integrate with locking?
> 
> Currently I think that locking the layer group should also lock its
> children, the same way as making a layer group invisible makes its
> children invisible.
> 

That's the way I thought about it too. My first idea was to submit two
proposal, the locking which I did, and a layer grouping proposal. But as
I'm a little bit new to gimp, I've thought of gaining some knowlegde
first by trying to add a simpler feature. A layer grouping proposal will
follow when I get a little bit more comfortable with gimp.

-- 
Pedro Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Pedro Kiefer]

Sven,
I did look at the PS user interface for layers before doing the mockup.
In the other message you've said: 
"I am sorry, but you can't put the lock at the end of the row. It would
become invisible as soon as one layer has a longer name."
Couldn't that be solved by ellipsizing the layer name? I really dislike
extremeally long layer names, they clutter the interface. I think that we
could have both, a check box together with the opacity slider and as a visual
aid an small lock that would only disable the lock in the left of the layer 
list.
That way is easy to know which layers are locked, and they are easly unlocked.

On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 15:17 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> for your inspiration, heres a slightly outdated screenshot of the PS
> user interface for layer locking:
> 
>  http://www.edigitalphoto.com/images/archivesart/0203edp_using_02.jpg
> 
> This PDF has a lot more screenshots and shows a more uptodate view of
> the Layers dialog on page 23:
> 
>  http://www.photoshopsupport.com/ib-pdf-02/vqs-chapter01.pdf
> 
> 
> Sven
> ___
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
> 
-- 
Pedro Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Alan Horkan]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Thorsten Wilms wrote:

> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:17:46 +0200
> From: Thorsten Wilms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 08:19:16PM -0300, Pedro Kiefer wrote:
> >
> > I've just made this mockup (attached) of how the locking mechanism
> > should appear to the user in the layers tab. But that could be wrong, in
> > not really familiar with the GNOME HIG. Clicking in an unlocked lock
> > will lock the layer, clicking in a locked lock will unlock it.
>
> I think the lock should be in front of the layer names, right after
> visibility but before chaining, as it will block the later mechanism.
> There should be a third state for chaining, showing the symbol halfway
> faded out or something like that, to indicate it having no effect when
> the layer is locked.
>

> But I'm in doubt if locking is worth the space and additional visual
> complexity.

I believe locking is a necessary feature and I would not like to
discourage a developer who is willing to make the effort required to add
it.  It is better to include the feature then work out how to improve the
user interface as needed.

If people are concerned about the use of space and visual complexity of
the Layers dialog I'd like to suggest a string change (I may have
suggested it before though).  I'd like to see New Layer shortened to
just "Layer" (once you've created it, aint new no more) and the numbering
format changed to simply use " N" which is more aethetically pleasing to
me than the pound/hash/sharp # symbol which I find a little distracting.

Turning the Layer label into a Text Area instead of one line Text Entry
might also help.  Side scrolling can be annoying and if you have Layer
preview thumbnails enabled (especially larger ones) there is quite a bit
of dead space.


Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Inkscape http://inkscape.org
Abiword http://www.abisource.com
Dia http://gnome.org/projects/dia/
Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org

Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Simon Budig]

Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > With your proposed solution it would be a major PITA to do this.
> 
> I didn't propose a solution, I only said that moving the toggle
> elsewhere should be considerd.  I am not at all convinced it is a
> good idea. But then, IIRC, PS does it this way.

Ok, replace "proposed solution" with "suggested placement of the button"
or whatever. Do you have an example use case where the user would
benefit from that placement?

The Skencil way of doing it definitely has the issue with clutter in the
layer list. I right now have no idea how to avoid this, smaller icons
would only help to a certain extent. But IMHO it is important to be able
to quickly toggle the locking for multiple layers.

> Since we also want to address layer groups at some point. How does
> that integrate with locking?

Currently I think that locking the layer group should also lock its
children, the same way as making a layer group invisible makes its
children invisible.

Bye,
Simon

-- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://simon.budig.de/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

for your inspiration, heres a slightly outdated screenshot of the PS
user interface for layer locking:

 http://www.edigitalphoto.com/images/archivesart/0203edp_using_02.jpg

This PDF has a lot more screenshots and shows a more uptodate view of
the Layers dialog on page 23:

 http://www.photoshopsupport.com/ib-pdf-02/vqs-chapter01.pdf


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> With your proposed solution it would be a major PITA to do this.

I didn't propose a solution, I only said that moving the toggle
elsewhere should be considerd.  I am not at all convinced it is a
good idea. But then, IIRC, PS does it this way.

Since we also want to address layer groups at some point. How does
that integrate with locking?


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Simon Budig]

Simon Budig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Well, we do that already for the alpha channel lock and it doesn't
> > seem to work that badly. Sooner or later we will probably want to add
> > more such toggles.
> 
> actually the alpha channel lock is a major source of confusion,
> sometimes even for me. "Huh, painting doesn't work". Also it has a
> different use pattern: Your descision if you need to toggle it depends
> only on the layer itself. This is - as I explained - very much different
> from locking the layer completely: Your attention shifts to a different
> group of layers and you want to toggle this on multiple layers
> simultaneously. With your proposed solution it would be a major PITA to
> do this.

Maybe a better comparison is the visibility toggle: It would become a
major PITA to use if it were a button on top of the dockable. It has a
similiar meaning: It controls a single property of a single layer, but
is frequently used for multiple different layers at once.

Bye,
Simon
-- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://simon.budig.de/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Simon Budig]

Michael Schumacher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Also we should consider making the layers "not selectable" in the layers
> > dialog if they are locked. This removes a source of confusion ("why
> > doesn't this work") and gives immediate additional feedback about the
> > locking. 
> 
> I was about to suggest this myself, but then dismissed it because of the
>  "why can't I select the layer?" problem.
> 
> > However, it requires the locking button in the layer row itself.
> 
> Hm, if you can't select it (e.g. with the cursor keys), how are you
> going to change the lock state using the keyboard?

Good question. Probably we need to "grey out" the layer somehow instead.
Or decouple focussing from selecting for these layers. Not sure if this
is easily possible.

Bye,
Simon
-- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://simon.budig.de/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Simon Budig]

Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> I also think that it will clutter the rows too much if we move it to
> >> the front. Perhaps consider to add it on the top of the dialog with
> >> the opacity slider and the "Lock Alpha Channel" toggle ?
> >
> > I don't think this is practical. In Skencil I use locking of layers
> > as a method to quickly protect the layers of the objects I am not using.
> > However, that means that I iterate over the column of the layer locking
> > buttons and decide if I want to change that layer or not.
> >
> > Having to individually select the layers and then toggle the button
> > somewhere else makes this feature basically useless.
> 
> Well, we do that already for the alpha channel lock and it doesn't
> seem to work that badly. Sooner or later we will probably want to add
> more such toggles.

actually the alpha channel lock is a major source of confusion,
sometimes even for me. "Huh, painting doesn't work". Also it has a
different use pattern: Your descision if you need to toggle it depends
only on the layer itself. This is - as I explained - very much different
from locking the layer completely: Your attention shifts to a different
group of layers and you want to toggle this on multiple layers
simultaneously. With your proposed solution it would be a major PITA to
do this.

Bye,
Simon
-- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://simon.budig.de/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Michael Schumacher]

Simon Budig wrote:

> Also we should consider making the layers "not selectable" in the layers
> dialog if they are locked. This removes a source of confusion ("why
> doesn't this work") and gives immediate additional feedback about the
> locking. 

I was about to suggest this myself, but then dismissed it because of the
 "why can't I select the layer?" problem.

> However, it requires the locking button in the layer row itself.

Hm, if you can't select it (e.g. with the cursor keys), how are you
going to change the lock state using the keyboard?


Michael

-- 
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org  | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> I also think that it will clutter the rows too much if we move it to
>> the front. Perhaps consider to add it on the top of the dialog with
>> the opacity slider and the "Lock Alpha Channel" toggle ?
>
> I don't think this is practical. In Skencil I use locking of layers
> as a method to quickly protect the layers of the objects I am not using.
> However, that means that I iterate over the column of the layer locking
> buttons and decide if I want to change that layer or not.
>
> Having to individually select the layers and then toggle the button
> somewhere else makes this feature basically useless.

Well, we do that already for the alpha channel lock and it doesn't
seem to work that badly. Sooner or later we will probably want to add
more such toggles.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Simon Budig]

Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I am sorry, but you can't put the lock at the end of the row. It would
> become invisible as soon as one layer has a longer name.
> 
> I also think that it will clutter the rows too much if we move it to
> the front. Perhaps consider to add it on the top of the dialog with
> the opacity slider and the "Lock Alpha Channel" toggle ?

I don't think this is practical. In Skencil I use locking of layers
as a method to quickly protect the layers of the objects I am not using.
However, that means that I iterate over the column of the layer locking
buttons and decide if I want to change that layer or not.

Having to individually select the layers and then toggle the button
somewhere else makes this feature basically useless.

Also we should consider making the layers "not selectable" in the layers
dialog if they are locked. This removes a source of confusion ("why
doesn't this work") and gives immediate additional feedback about the
locking. However, it requires the locking button in the layer row
itself.

Bye,
Simon
-- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://simon.budig.de/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

I am sorry, but you can't put the lock at the end of the row. It would
become invisible as soon as one layer has a longer name.

I also think that it will clutter the rows too much if we move it to
the front. Perhaps consider to add it on the top of the dialog with
the opacity slider and the "Lock Alpha Channel" toggle ?


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Thorsten Wilms]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 08:19:16PM -0300, Pedro Kiefer wrote:
> 
> I've just made this mockup (attached) of how the locking mechanism
> should appear to the user in the layers tab. But that could be wrong, in
> not really familiar with the GNOME HIG. Clicking in an unlocked lock
> will lock the layer, clicking in a locked lock will unlock it.

I think the lock should be in front of the layer names, right after 
visibility but before chaining, as it will block the later mechanism. 
There should be a third state for chaining, showing the symbol halfway 
faded out or something like that, to indicate it having no effect when 
the layer is locked.

But I'm in doubt if locking is worth the space and additional visual 
complexity. I mean, if you don't want to change the contents of a layer, 
just don't select it. If you manage to draw/edit in the wrong layer, 
there's always undo and you should save frequently anyway.


---
Thorsten Wilms
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Nathan Summers]

On 6/25/05, Pedro Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Objective: Lock the layer from user actions.
>
> I've just made this mockup (attached) of how the locking mechanism
> should appear to the user in the layers tab. But that could be wrong, in
> not really familiar with the GNOME HIG. Clicking in an unlocked lock
> will lock the layer, clicking in a locked lock will unlock it.

Looks nice.  The only thing that comes to mind is that keep
transparency and lock are similar, and yet displayed so differently on
the dialog. But that's a minor issue.
 
> How all this should be implemented is something that I don't know in the
> moment. I need to learn a little bit of how actions interacts with the
> layer to try to propose some functions. But what comes to my mind is to
> have a function that returns, based on it's caller, if the given caller
> is able to act upon the given layer. And a simple set / unset pair of
> functions to be called from the UI.

It doesn't sound like it should be that hard to implement.

> [1] It actually photoshop has one more locking option, keep transparency
> which is already implemented in gimp.

Out of curiosity, if you have keep pixels on and keep trans off, can
you munge the alpha channel but not the color channels?

Rockwalrus
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Gimp-developer] Layer locking proposal

[Pedro Kiefer]

Objective: Lock the layer from user actions.

It should lock the selected layer or layer group, by lock I mean:
 - you cannot move the layer and it's contents
 - you cannot change the blend mode, the opacity and the keep
transperancy modifier
 - you can select an area to copy / define as pattern, et al.
 - you can restack the layer among the others layers avaiable or add it
to a layer group
 - the layer should still be visible in the image
 - when the layer is locked, and the user tries to use any of the locked
actions it should warn the user that the given layer is locked

Maybe a more advance locking mechanism would be good, but having this
basic locking is a good begin. I've done a little bit of research, using
this feature in photoshop. Photoshop adds 2 [1] more locking options,
pixel locking and position locking. The first locks the contents of the
layer, but it lets you apply transformations (scale, rotate, skew, etc).
The latter locks the position of the layer, but you can draw to it,
apply effects, etc but no transformations. Both of this locking lets you
change the blend mode and the opacity of the layer. As I said before,
this would be a simple locking mechanism, but if well designed it could
scale in the future to support this, and others desirables locking.

I've just made this mockup (attached) of how the locking mechanism
should appear to the user in the layers tab. But that could be wrong, in
not really familiar with the GNOME HIG. Clicking in an unlocked lock
will lock the layer, clicking in a locked lock will unlock it.

How all this should be implemented is something that I don't know in the
moment. I need to learn a little bit of how actions interacts with the
layer to try to propose some functions. But what comes to my mind is to
have a function that returns, based on it's caller, if the given caller
is able to act upon the given layer. And a simple set / unset pair of
functions to be called from the UI.

-- 
Pedro Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[1] It actually photoshop has one more locking option, keep transparency
which is already implemented in gimp.
<>
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer