Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
Juhana wrote on Mit, 22 Dez 1999: > >What do you guys there don't understand? What evil feature? > >The idea of the active tool is simple, useful and transparent to rest of >you who don't want to hear about it and think it is something evil. > >If an alternative is to go and buy $$$ wacom tablet, I would say that *that* >is an evil feature of GIMP. > >I'm starting to hate this attitude of a few GIMP developers who throw bricks >under the wheels just because they don't care if the GUI is user friendly >or not. But remember: not everyone is working like you, don't be selfwish. > It's a sad thing that this discussion is divided in two sides and it seems to me that both sides are not willing to cross lines ... Hey, we are all grown ups (aren't we?) and there are some rules to discuss new ideas. Don't say: that one isn't heard of before, so it must be evil. Or: That is not the way I do it, so it isn't good. Or at least: I know my idea is superious why don't you see that. I think we all care about gimp (and it's developers) to be friendly to it's users. We are not like Micro$hit, sitting above the clouds and saying: Our software is without errors, the user is the error ... New ideas have to be discussed with an open mind. And the one that has brought the new idea to the discussion has to convince! Please say something like: - This idea has some drawbacks to me. And then _describe_ this drawbacks. - This idea is good because it help me to do ... > >Because I have some older GIMP which did come with stable Debian GNU/Linux, >I would like to know is the situation really as bad in the latest version. >Please do following and check it what happens: > 1. open a new image and paint various colors to it; > 2. open a second image, choose pencil tool; > 3. change color: go to the first image and select a new color with >the color picker; > 4. go back to second image, select pencil and draw; > 5. repeat steps 3 and 4. > >What exactly happens? How many clicks? Does color picker pop-up a dialog? >Do you have to drop the dialog window off the mouse pointer explicitly? > No, the situation is not as bad in 1.1. (BTW: 1.0.2 is really outdated, cause it relies on the old gtk+-1.0. The latest gimp-1.0.4 is transverted to gtk+-1.2, but no new features ...) As stated before you just use the 'ctrl' key to change to colour picker. And that you have to explicitly click to position your mouse pointer isn't gimp's fault. You have configured your window manager to let you manually place all new windows. I don't like this feature and prefer "smart placement" (but if it is your choice, I think you can configure the WM to place the colour picker window without explizitly clicking. fvwm for example can set the placing policy for each window explicitly -- if you wish) Just to discuss the active tool once more: it is a good idea, but needs some refinement, I think. (See my previous posting) If you only want it for pap (picture as palette) you can solve this problem without active tool. But to think about it, to be consistent there has to be more than just an active tool. It has to be acompanied by colour, brush, etc. better known as a context. And then you can't solve your problem with this. 1. make context a collection of some settings (colour, brush, fill as it is now plus tool, toolsettings ...) and (this comes from the discussion about active tool) make it selectable what you want to include into the context. So you can have a large pencil with a specific setting but changing the colour at will. How can it be done? "Make context" can popup (by default or only if you ask) a dialog where you can select all the settings you wanna include, just as you do when changing a fontstyle of a larger textblock (you then don't want to change all attributes but just say the family). Have a global setting where you can say what attributes are enabled for a context by default and have a possibility to change it afterwards. With this you can easyly and cheaply have the ability to completly change your tools and don't have to buy an intuous (though this is a very nice tool ;-)) and with shortcuts all will be happe, I think 2. What about a setting like "use lokal context" / "use global context"? So you can change the context for a special image not affecting all the others and simply swap to using the global one. 3. last idea: something like a context stack. Then you can have a command "switch to last used context" and also tigerts point of switching a tool for just a second is blown away ;-))) >Thanks (for nothing?), Oh, don't be filled with bitterness. Besides the "I am right and you are not" this was a good debate! Don't you have new insights??? And don't even think about going to the photoshop people ;-) The best that can happen to you is: Oh yes, this feature is already there. Don't think they will discuss like we do. There is an error in a pagemaker companion (AdobeTable) that they know of (it is not able t
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 01:35:01PM +0100, Raphael Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any image (or any view?) > > Woaw... tricky question indeed... I think that it would be more interesting to make that a per-view option. This could be useful if you have a very large image and you want to paint a new area with the same colors as in another distant area of the same image: you open two views, one from which you pick the colors and another in which you paint (or draw, or fill, or do anything that the clone tool cannot do). > > that has this option turned on would always use the same tool, even if > > you change the "global" active tool. That would allow you to associate > > the color picker with one image, while you are switching tools freely > > This sounds much nicer than the preferences way. Well, after re-reading the first post, I think that Juhana's initial idea was similar to that but got misunderstood by everybody (including me). Or maybe not. I don't know. Anyway, I just thought about something else... Maybe this sounds like a solution looking for a problem, but anyway... Others have mentioned that in some cases you might want to also associate the current brush, colors, or other tools/settings to some image. I thought about that and here is a possible way to integrate these constraints: add a new sub-menu in the image menu, containing several entries with tick marks (or checked boxes or whatever we use to indicate that some entries are active and some others aren't), one for each tool or setting that can be locked to the current view. That would give something like this: /Locked settings/ X Tool X Tool options . Brush shape . Pattern X Gradient . Foreground color . Background color Instead of "Locked settings", you could call that "Remember for this view" although this is a bit long. These options would act like a mask between a view-specific context and the global context. These would allow you to play more or less the same tricks as those that you can do if you have a graphics tablet, although I disagree with TigerT when he says that this is redundant (note that I do have a Wacom tablet). I concede that these options would not be used very often, but some time ago I had to draw a new pattern in an image using the same colors as another image. I did that by repeatedly using the color picker on the first image, then switching to the rectangle or oval selection tool for the second image, filling the selection, then going back to the first image to pick a slightly different color, and so on. The "ctrl" shortcut would not have helped in this case since I was using the selection tools, so I had to switch tools all the time. Playing with two pens (if you have a tablet that supports that) is not much better either, because you have to juggle with them all the time instead of "click here to select, click there to paint". > PS: it would be interesting to find out what chances features like these > actually have, I mean: who will remember it when 1.2 is finally released? Very good question. I do not intend to implement that anyway, because the itch is not big enough for me to scratch it. ;-) So someone else who is more interested in that feature will have to take that task. We might as well forget about it... Where I work, we use our bug tracking system to report new features as well as bug reports. This ensures that the improvement proposals are not forgotten. But this can only work efficiently if: - every developer uses the bug tracking system frequently; - it is easy to get an overview of what is tagged as a new feature, is still open, is rated at high or medium priority, and is not already assigned to or taken by someone. I think that we should look more frequently at the outstanding Wishlist items on this page: http://bugs.gnome.org/db/pa/lgimp.html even if AFAIK there is currently no way to assign different priorities to "Wishlist" items or to know if somebody is already working on it. -Raphael
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sven Neumann) > >There is no excuse for talking and doing nothing! Right, it already looked like some key persons in GIMP code writing rejected the idea without really good reason. Good we later found that there was already a good solution. But still, I felt really bad that the idea was rejected for so easy reasons. Now to this important thing which come up: I'm GIMP developer even I don't write a single line of code -- it is enough that I use my time to think even a simple improvements or alternatives. I think the term "developer" is quite a much underestimated in these "code writing" project. Juhana
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Juhana Sadeharju wrote: > >the most untuitive way of having separate tools quickly. And we would avoid > >having Yet Another Evil Feature That Nobody Else Understands (tm) :) > > What do you guys there don't understand? What evil feature? > > The idea of the active tool is simple, useful and transparent to rest of ObRandomness This is bad... I had a dream about the active tool idea last night. It had been implemented as another button on the toolbox with some very strange logo. I'm not sure if was useful or not in the dream, nor do I want to jump into the current fray regarding it, but wanted to let you guys know that the GIMP has now invaded my dream space. Damn you! Kudos on 1.1.14 btw, some *very* sweet features in there. arc, hoping to dream of something else tonight... like gnome or E or something. :) -- Arcterex -=|=- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=|=- http://arcterex.ufies.org '... I was worried they were going to say "you don't have enough LSD in your system to do UNIX programming."' -- Paul Tomblin in a.s.r
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 01:35:01PM +0100, Raphael Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any image (or any view?) Woaw... tricky question indeed... > that has this option turned on would always use the same tool, even if > you change the "global" active tool. That would allow you to associate > the color picker with one image, while you are switching tools freely This sounds much nicer than the preferences way. PS: it would be interesting to find out what chances features like these actually have, I mean: who will remember it when 1.2 is finally released? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
Glyph Lefkowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) missed an important feature :-) > The only thing *I* would say is a problem is the fact that the tool > shortcuts are so widely spaced on the default QWERTY keyboard: using GIMP > is a lot like playing Quake for me :) and it would be nicer if I could > have my right hand on the mouse and my left hand on the keyboard and not > move it around so much; but that might make the keys less pneumonic. You know how to remap keyboard shortcuts? Simply open the menu, move the mousepointer over the appropriate item and press the new shortcut. It will be saved in .gimp(-1.1)/menurc Really cute! Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Juhana Sadeharju wrote: > >What if you bought a Wacom Intuos and 3 pens for it? That way you could have > >the most untuitive way of having separate tools quickly. And we would avoid > >having Yet Another Evil Feature That Nobody Else Understands (tm) :) > > What do you guys there don't understand? What evil feature? I think we all understand your proposal pretty well. I don't like it very much, even as an option, since it assumes that you're not using GIMP entirely correctly in the first place. Juhana, I'm just a Silly Luser (tm) but the solution to your problem is simple: use the keyboard. I frequently switch tools between images in GIMP in much the manner you've described and I've never had the problem you're complaining about. The only thing *I* would say is a problem is the fact that the tool shortcuts are so widely spaced on the default QWERTY keyboard: using GIMP is a lot like playing Quake for me :) and it would be nicer if I could have my right hand on the mouse and my left hand on the keyboard and not move it around so much; but that might make the keys less pneumonic. At any rate, GIMP is far from 'user un-friendly'; I still convert Photoshop users at the rate of one or two a month (and that includes installing Linux!). Tangent: How much is that Wacom Intuos again? And where can I get it delivered to me before christmas? The Tao is like a glob pattern: It is masked but always present. used but never used up. I don't know who built to it. It is like the extern void: It came before the first kernel. filled with infinite possibilities. [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
Hi, > > The idea of the active tool is simple, useful and transparent to rest of > you who don't want to hear about it and think it is something evil. > If an alternative is to go and buy $$$ wacom tablet, I would say that *that* > is an evil feature of GIMP. > > I'm starting to hate this attitude of a few GIMP developers who throw bricks > under the wheels just because they don't care if the GUI is user friendly > or not. But remember: not everyone is working like you, don't be selfwish. > Come on, some people did even agree that your idea is worth thinking about (once 1.2 is out), others did come up with some good hints on the usage of what we have now (key shortcuts etc.). You shouldn't get upset when other people disagree with you, that's the whole point of a discussion... > Because I have some older GIMP which did come with stable Debian GNU/Linux, > I would like to know is the situation really as bad in the latest version. > Please do following and check it what happens: > 1. open a new image and paint various colors to it; > 2. open a second image, choose pencil tool; > 3. change color: go to the first image and select a new color with > the color picker; > 4. go back to second image, select pencil and draw; > 5. repeat steps 3 and 4. > > What exactly happens? How many clicks? Does color picker pop-up a dialog? > Do you have to drop the dialog window off the mouse pointer explicitly? Exchange steps 3 and 4 with: 3. change color: go to the first image, use to pick a color 4. go back so second image: draw No dialog pops up! I can understand that you didn't knew about that feature before, it was well hidden. But know that you know, please rethink your idea. Is the tool-per-image-concept really still worth the effort, now that your main problem is gone? > I often hear GIMP is not a painting program. That is a poor excuse for > any good painting properties (as above tool) because implementing any > painting properties poorly is a bad idea. There is no excuses for making > something badly, IMHO. There is no excuse for talking and doing nothing! Salut, Sven
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
Hey, let's have a look at the problem that started this thread: > Juhana wants to get a color from some picture to paint on another. There was an easy solution suggested by Jukka: > In gimp 1.1 you can use 'ctrl' to temporarily change to colorpicker if you > are using one of the painting tools (pencil, paintbrush, airbrush, etc) So as this solves the initial problem a question arises: Does anyone know of a situation other than these, where a changing tool is important? If yes, collect this situations and find existing or pragmatic or new and innovative ideas! And to discuss the 'active tool' pattern: - what is it good for, if the tool changes -- but only the tool? You maybe have to remake all the other settings (brush, colours, etc.) - and if the whole context is fixed for a special image, you can't use the active tool to solve the ppp (picture palette problem). Just my .2 euro Uwe Koloska -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~koloska/ ---- right now the web page is in german only but this will change as time goes by ;-)
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
>what then if you need to use the one other tool nstead of the pencil just >_for one second_ ? Then you need to change the active tool again and >you lose the whole point for this. Choosing between 400 clicks vs. 100 + 1 clicks is clear. The one seconds I would use the palette image as something else than as palette are very rare. We can always imagine pathological cases if we wish and we may forget to examine how often they actually happens! >I am just happy with pressing "P" for >pencil and "K" for inK tool for example. I really think this is gonna be >even more confusing - especially for new users. This is just what the key >shortcuts are for. Does the color picker pop-up a dialog window? Everytime that happens I need to explicitly put it on the screen somewhere and that is bad. (It is also unintuitive but I won't go there for now.) If it doesn't happen, should everything work fine for me. Maybe my GIMP is too old because I get that dialog window. Lets not forget the idea of generalizing the active tool. Setting the environment as imagewise sounds attracting and something which should not be forgotten this fast. I'm already thinking how to generalize that idea even further. It is not far from this that the GUI would be intelligent and modify itself based on how the artists usually works... how much efforts has been put to these modern intelligent GUI ideas anyway? Juhana
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
>What if you bought a Wacom Intuos and 3 pens for it? That way you could have >the most untuitive way of having separate tools quickly. And we would avoid >having Yet Another Evil Feature That Nobody Else Understands (tm) :) What do you guys there don't understand? What evil feature? The idea of the active tool is simple, useful and transparent to rest of you who don't want to hear about it and think it is something evil. If an alternative is to go and buy $$$ wacom tablet, I would say that *that* is an evil feature of GIMP. I'm starting to hate this attitude of a few GIMP developers who throw bricks under the wheels just because they don't care if the GUI is user friendly or not. But remember: not everyone is working like you, don't be selfwish. Because I have some older GIMP which did come with stable Debian GNU/Linux, I would like to know is the situation really as bad in the latest version. Please do following and check it what happens: 1. open a new image and paint various colors to it; 2. open a second image, choose pencil tool; 3. change color: go to the first image and select a new color with the color picker; 4. go back to second image, select pencil and draw; 5. repeat steps 3 and 4. What exactly happens? How many clicks? Does color picker pop-up a dialog? Do you have to drop the dialog window off the mouse pointer explicitly? The active tool would make the above possible just by moving the mouse pointer from image to another. The tool user wants to use in those images is selected automatically without any clicks or dialog placements. Ok. This must be last time I write to you on this because I'm quite disappointed of your design senses. I will talk to Photoshop guys next; you may then later clone the feature from there. ;-) I often hear GIMP is not a painting program. That is a poor excuse for any good painting properties (as above tool) because implementing any painting properties poorly is a bad idea. There is no excuses for making something badly, IMHO. Are there free (with source code) alternatives for GIMP on painting and drawing? With some image processing capabilities? Thanks (for nothing?), Juhana
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 04:47:13PM +0200, Juhana Sadeharju wrote: > >I dislike it because it does not say how this is accomplished. Do I have a > >toggle for each tool, for each image, or? > > Please read my other mail too. It works like this: > > You have the current tool, as you have now in your GIMP. Set it to "pencil". > Select an image. Open the image menu. Select "set active tool" entry. Now > the current tool "pencil" is set as the active tool for this image, and only > for this image. Next time you select this particular image, the tool is > changed to "pencil" automatically. > > To remove the active tool setting, select the image and select "remove > active tool" menuentry. The active tool of that particular image is > removed, and the current tool is used for that image at next time. what then if you need to use the one other tool nstead of the pencil just _for one second_ ? Then you need to change the active tool again and you lose the whole point for this. I am just happy with pressing "P" for pencil and "K" for inK tool for example. I really think this is gonna be even more confusing - especially for new users. This is just what the key shortcuts are for. Greetoz Tig -- .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 01:25:13PM +0100, Tilman Bohn wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:06:05AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 10:56:28AM +0100, "Paul E.C. Melis" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Default for images could then be that there's no specific active > > > tool, while you could still select one (and make it active) later, > > > if you want. > > > > > I don't see how you could dislike this. > > > > I dislike it because it does not say how this is accomplished. Do I > > have a toggle for each tool, for each image, or? > > For each tool I would think. > > > > be changed, and if you would like an active tool at some point, > > > just make one active. > > > > Yes, but how is this done? > > If I may butt in here for a moment? > > How about context menus for tools in the toolbox? (Are there already > context menus for them in 1.1?) Pop it up, and select from `Stick Tool > to Active Image,' `Activate Tool for all Images,' amongst other "Stick tool to active image" will happen always since the active image IS the one you are drawing to. I seriously suggest you forget this thing and use the keyboard shortcuts to toggle between tools OR use an intuos pen to switch the tools. You can even use one pen - the pen and the eraser tip are different devices - you can assign 2 different tools to them - not just a tool and an eraser. > Oh, and make another entry `Force Tool for all Images,' which is > only active if the user has `stuck' a tool to at least one image. The > difference to `Activate for all' would be that the latter doesn't > override individual tools stuck to single images, while the former > does. Kinda like any -f switch you've ever seen. ;-) Well you'd need to "activate" the "Sticky" tool somehow anyway. Why not just press a key to switch the tool for real? I think this is like shooting a mosquito with a nuclear blast.. > I actually think this would be pretty intuitive, but then I'm used > to the -f-switch-idiom. Um.. Tig -- .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 04:21:05PM +0200, Juhana Sadeharju wrote: > >> Nothing is forced -- just don't use it. > > > >Yes, you are forced to switch tools in your scheme when you were not in > >the other, and vice versa. > > Not every image would have an active tool set. Normally you have the > current tool on every image, as it works now. Only if an image has > an active tool set on, would the current tool be changed at focus-in. > When you move off the "active tool on" image, everything would work > normally among the rest of the images. What if you bought a Wacom Intuos and 3 pens for it? That way you could have the most untuitive way of having separate tools quickly. And we would avoid having Yet Another Evil Feature That Nobody Else Understands (tm) :) Besides, you can do wonderful things with the Wacom anyway, I can recommend it with all my heart. It is very useful. Lepo / relax! Tuomas -- .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Juhana Sadeharju wrote: > Basically this would need a model that we have an active image and when > we change pencil size, we choose if we want update the active tool of that For what my lurker opinion is worth, I think that changing options for a took should default to the 'last active' tool - perhaps choosable via a checkbox on the tool control panel? I say 'last active' because, IIRC, playing with tool options will cause your image to lose focus, thus losing your currently active tool.. > Now it would be nice that only the tool type is stored to the active tool > structure. I think a big win that could come out of this would be the ability to draw in whatever sized tool you want on a per-image basis without flopping back and forth - although this would probably only be useful to the artists out there.. It sort of feels like a really cool option to have. ;) -- Blue Lang, Unix Systems Administrator, QSP Inc. - Raleigh, NC Phone: 919.875.6994
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
>I dislike it because it does not say how this is accomplished. Do I have a
>toggle for each tool, for each image, or?
Please read my other mail too. It works like this:
You have the current tool, as you have now in your GIMP. Set it to "pencil".
Select an image. Open the image menu. Select "set active tool" entry. Now
the current tool "pencil" is set as the active tool for this image, and only
for this image. Next time you select this particular image, the tool is
changed to "pencil" automatically.
To remove the active tool setting, select the image and select "remove
active tool" menuentry. The active tool of that particular image is
removed, and the current tool is used for that image at next time.
An image could have an environment data structure:
struct {
gpointer active_tool;
} image_environment;
If active tool is NULL, the current tool is used. And everything works
normally.
Of course, we need to store the pencil settings to the active tool
structure. Discussion on this matter is welcome -- I'm not familiar with
the tool system structures.
When "set active tool" menuentry is selected, active tool structure is
filled with the current tool's settings. And at focus-in, the data is
copied other way.
Discussion is needed: color cannot be stored to active tool setting
because we change that at palette image or elsewhere. The size can be
put to the structure but what if we really want change the pencil size?
Basically this would need a model that we have an active image and when
we change pencil size, we choose if we want update the active tool of that
active image. There was a lot of discussion about the active image earlier
and it would be nice to hear how it ended. Naturally, if a pencil settings
(including color) could be changes from the image menu, there would not
be problems. I'm not sure if GIMP still have the image pop-up menu, but
after I have compiled the latest development version of GIMP, I may
check if I come up with a reasonable "image environment" system.
Now it would be nice that only the tool type is stored to the active tool
structure.
Yours,
Juhana
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
>> Nothing is forced -- just don't use it. > >Yes, you are forced to switch tools in your scheme when you were not in >the other, and vice versa. Not every image would have an active tool set. Normally you have the current tool on every image, as it works now. Only if an image has an active tool set on, would the current tool be changed at focus-in. When you move off the "active tool on" image, everything would work normally among the rest of the images. >idea. I also think that making this a preferences option is a very bad It cannot be put into preferences! It is not something which is set permanently. You are thinking clearly something else than me. It is also imagewise operation, not a global. I see that the system I suggest only improves the situation. Please describe a case where it fails? I have already shown a case where it improves the situation a lot. >> aside. For most people "active tool" system would do nothing, and rest >> gains very much about it. > >I disagree. Well, it is the fact that most of the people don't even realize about existence of such system if they wish, and that it helps people who works like me. It is not a matter of opinion. If it is, you have most probably understood wrong. >I think I can understand the idea ;) It's just that I almost always have >many images open, and want to use the same tool for all of them. That happen in my system if you don't set an active tool for any image; it is on your hands. The default case is that no active tools are set. The image menu could have an entries "set active tool"/"remove active tool". If you don't touch to them, the system works as it works now. Simple as that. This is not for preferences because the active tool is only a temporary setting, even for me. I see nothing in this system which could disturb you. Please rethink it. I would like to implement it myself and then you would see it yourself, but I cannot lift out from my own free software project for next couple of months. What others think about the suggested system? Naturally, this could be extended later as suggested elsewhere (user could set an environment for an individual image). Yours, Juhana
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't see how you could dislike this. > >I dislike it because it does not say how this is accomplished. Do I have a >toggle for each tool, for each image, or? Right, I forgot that it would actually have to be implemented, instead of just staying some abstract concept. Story of my life :-). I think Raphael put it best: >there would be a new button or checkbox >associated with the image, with a description (tooltip) saying >something like "lock active tool for this image" or "remember tool". Paul
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 07:35:33AM -0500, Robert L Krawitz wrote: >Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:54:11 +0100 >From: Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] >I think I can understand the idea ;) It's just that I almost >always have many images open, and want to use the same tool for >all of them. > > Based on this, why is making it a preference option a bad idea? Because for something like this, *if* you want the feature at all I posit you'll want very fine-grained control over it; so a simple global setting just won't do. And if it won't do, it'll just further clutter the preferences without much use, and therefore is to be regarded as evil, IMO. (Putting preferences in that aren't very useful makes the very useful ones less so because they become harder to find.) Cheers, Tilman -- `Boy, life takes a long time to live...' -- Steven Wright
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 10:56:28AM +0100, "Paul E.C. Melis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > Default for images could then be that there's no specific active tool, > > while you could still select one (and make it active) later, if you want. > > > I don't see how you could dislike this. > > I dislike it because it does not say how this is accomplished. Do I have a > toggle for each tool, for each image, or? > > > be changed, and if you would like an active tool at some point, just make > > one active. > > Yes, but how is this done? Here is a suggestion: the default would be to use the same tool for all images, as we do now. But there would be a new button or checkbox associated with the image, with a description (tooltip) saying something like "lock active tool for this image" or "remember tool". Any image (or any view?) that has this option turned on would always use the same tool, even if you change the "global" active tool. That would allow you to associate the color picker with one image, while you are switching tools freely for the other images. -Raphael
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:54:11 +0100 From: Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neither way is perfect, so just changing this is a very very bad idea. I also think that making this a preferences option is a very bad idea. Designing a sensible UI for seperated/combined is, IMHO, ery important. I think I can understand the idea ;) It's just that I almost always have many images open, and want to use the same tool for all of them. Based on this, why is making it a preference option a bad idea? -- Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/ Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:06:05AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 10:56:28AM +0100, "Paul E.C. Melis" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Default for images could then be that there's no specific active > > tool, while you could still select one (and make it active) later, > > if you want. > > > I don't see how you could dislike this. > > I dislike it because it does not say how this is accomplished. Do I > have a toggle for each tool, for each image, or? For each tool I would think. > > be changed, and if you would like an active tool at some point, > > just make one active. > > Yes, but how is this done? If I may butt in here for a moment? How about context menus for tools in the toolbox? (Are there already context menus for them in 1.1?) Pop it up, and select from `Stick Tool to Active Image,' `Activate Tool for all Images,' amongst other possible entries. Or call the sticky entry `Activate for Active Image Only,' for more direct contrast to the alternative choice, but this sounds more cumbersome. Maybe someone can come up with better entry titles. (How to get to the context menu is another UI issue, but nothing that can't be settled methinks. Right-click, anyone? Or is that one already taken? I didn't follow the recent lengthy modifier debates very closely...) Just a thought. Oh, and make another entry `Force Tool for all Images,' which is only active if the user has `stuck' a tool to at least one image. The difference to `Activate for all' would be that the latter doesn't override individual tools stuck to single images, while the former does. Kinda like any -f switch you've ever seen. ;-) I actually think this would be pretty intuitive, but then I'm used to the -f-switch-idiom. Ok, two thoughts. And: I might be hallucinating, I just got home from 24 hours of work... (That's three thoughts now) Cheers, Tilman -- `Boy, life takes a long time to live...' -- Steven Wright
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 10:56:28AM +0100, "Paul E.C. Melis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Default for images could then be that there's no specific active tool, > while you could still select one (and make it active) later, if you want. > I don't see how you could dislike this. I dislike it because it does not say how this is accomplished. Do I have a toggle for each tool, for each image, or? > be changed, and if you would like an active tool at some point, just make > one active. Yes, but how is this done? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 02:14:56AM +0200, Juhana Sadeharju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Maybe you just misunderstood the idea? Let me hear from you please; >> I don't want that good ideas are thrown away due misunderstandings. > >I think I can understand the idea ;) It's just that I almost always have >many images open, and want to use the same tool for all of them. Default for images could then be that there's no specific active tool, while you could still select one (and make it active) later, if you want. I don't see how you could dislike this. The default behaviour wouldn't be changed, and if you would like an active tool at some point, just make one active. Paul
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 02:14:56AM +0200, Juhana Sadeharju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder if you're against of the "active tool" suggestion or not? I am not against it, just against forcing people to always have to switch tools (rather than being "able" to). > I'm *now* "forced to switch to paintbrush for every image I have loaded > in turn to draw to them" and if you dislike it too, then I don't > understand why the new "active tool" feature would be a hindrance. I would dislike if I had a different tool for every image. I *never* needed that (but I often needed it the other way round). I guess (but of course can't answre that) that this is the rule and not the exception. > Nothing is forced -- just don't use it. Yes, you are forced to switch tools in your scheme when you were not in the other, and vice versa. Neither way is perfect, so just changing this is a very very bad idea. I also think that making this a preferences option is a very bad idea. Designing a sensible UI for seperated/combined is, IMHO, ery important. > aside. For most people "active tool" system would do nothing, and rest > gains very much about it. I disagree. > Maybe you just misunderstood the idea? Let me hear from you please; > I don't want that good ideas are thrown away due misunderstandings. I think I can understand the idea ;) It's just that I almost always have many images open, and want to use the same tool for all of them. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
>From: Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > I suggest the following generalisation: >> > a thingy (for lack of a good name) which: >> > Every image can then have a set of thingies associated > >While this _is_ interesting for some uses, for most people this would be a >large hindrance (I would dislike being forced to switch to paintbrush for >_every_ image I have loaded in turn to draw to them). I wonder if you're against of the "active tool" suggestion or not? I'm *now* "forced to switch to paintbrush for every image I have loaded in turn to draw to them" and if you dislike it too, then I don't understand why the new "active tool" feature would be a hindrance. Nothing is forced -- just don't use it. Now I'm *forced* to click 4 times instead of a pleasant 1 time, and can stop using it only by throwing GIMP aside. For most people "active tool" system would do nothing, and rest gains very much about it. Maybe you just misunderstood the idea? Let me hear from you please; I don't want that good ideas are thrown away due misunderstandings. Yours, Juhana
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 03:10:30PM +0100, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Melis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I suggest the following generalisation: > > a thingy (for lack of a good name) which: > > Every image can then have a set of thingies associated While this _is_ interesting for some uses, for most people this would be a large hindrance (I would dislike being forced to switch to paintbrush for _every_ image I have loaded in turn to draw to them). Making that a preferences item won't help, either. > This has been adressed in the context-system. Michael Natterer > did work on this. I dont know the current state, but it probably > wont come into 1.2. The context stuff will be in 1.2, although in somewhat crippled form. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
Hi, > > I suggest the following generalisation: > > a thingy (for lack of a good name) which: > > - activates a certain tool on the toolbox > > and has its own settings for that tool > > - picks a certain color/pattern/gradient > > - picks a certain brush > > - etc... > > Every image can then have a set of thingies associated > > with it (just like a set of paths). A user can select > > a thingy from this list, which is an easy way of selecting > > a tool from the toolbox, picking the right color and > > picking the right brush and ... Your thingie is exactly what we call a context... > > This has been adressed in the context-system. Michael Natterer > did work on this. I dont know the current state, but it probably > wont come into 1.2. > So far the Context System is only implemented for different input devices. In other words, if you use a tablet (or two mice or whatever) each device has its own context. This context so far includes tool, fg color, brush, pattern and gradient. The device dialog allows you to easily modify the context using the usual dialogs or drag'n'drop. After 1.2 this concept will be enhanced further and should then allow context-per-image. Also it will allow scripts and plug-ins to have their own context, so that they can run without having to modify the users settings. Salut, Sven
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Feature wanted
Paul Melis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I suggest the following generalisation: > a thingy (for lack of a good name) which: > - activates a certain tool on the toolbox > and has its own settings for that tool > - picks a certain color/pattern/gradient > - picks a certain brush > - etc... > Every image can then have a set of thingies associated > with it (just like a set of paths). A user can select > a thingy from this list, which is an easy way of selecting > a tool from the toolbox, picking the right color and > picking the right brush and ... This has been adressed in the context-system. Michael Natterer did work on this. I dont know the current state, but it probably wont come into 1.2. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
