RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled

Layer locking proposal

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

38 of 38 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

Layer locking proposal Pedro Kiefer 26 Jun 01:19
  Layer locking proposal Nathan Summers 26 Jun 01:59
  Layer locking proposal Thorsten Wilms 26 Jun 10:17
   Layer locking proposal Alan Horkan 26 Jun 16:55
  Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 26 Jun 12:49
   Layer locking proposal Simon Budig 26 Jun 13:25
    Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 26 Jun 13:49
     Layer locking proposal Simon Budig 26 Jun 14:01
      Layer locking proposal Simon Budig 26 Jun 14:08
      Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 26 Jun 15:05
       Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 26 Jun 15:17
        Layer locking proposal GSR - FR 26 Jun 17:23
        Layer locking proposal Pedro Kiefer 26 Jun 17:59
         Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 26 Jun 18:48
          Layer locking proposal Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris 26 Jun 22:13
           Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 26 Jun 22:48
            Layer locking proposal Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris 27 Jun 02:21
             Layer locking proposal Thorsten Wilms 27 Jun 11:17
              Layer locking proposal GSR - FR 27 Jun 17:13
             Layer locking proposal Nathan Summers 27 Jun 16:26
         Layer locking proposal Pedro Kiefer 26 Jun 20:26
          Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 27 Jun 00:08
        Layer locking proposal jernej@ena.si 26 Jun 19:17
       Layer locking proposal Simon Budig 26 Jun 15:55
        Layer locking proposal Pedro Kiefer 26 Jun 18:21
        Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 26 Jun 18:54
         Layer locking proposal Simon Budig 27 Jun 03:08
          Layer locking proposal Nathan Summers 27 Jun 16:32
           Layer locking proposal Simon Budig 27 Jun 16:39
           Layer locking proposal jernej@ena.si 27 Jun 17:10
          Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 28 Jun 02:12
           Layer locking proposal michael chang 28 Jun 03:40
            Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 29 Jun 18:37
    Layer locking proposal Michael Schumacher 26 Jun 13:57
     Layer locking proposal Simon Budig 26 Jun 14:05
  Layer locking proposal Sven Neumann 29 Jun 18:51
Layer locking proposal Michael Schumacher 27 Jun 17:27
  Layer locking proposal jernej@ena.si 27 Jun 17:43
Pedro Kiefer
2005-06-26 01:19:16 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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.

Nathan Summers
2005-06-26 01:59:44 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

On 6/25/05, Pedro Kiefer 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

Thorsten Wilms
2005-06-26 10:17:46 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

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 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

Sven Neumann
2005-06-26 12:49:43 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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

Simon Budig
2005-06-26 13:25:24 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Sven Neumann (sven@gimp.org) 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

Sven Neumann
2005-06-26 13:49:23 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,

Simon Budig 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

Michael Schumacher
2005-06-26 13:57:47 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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

Simon Budig
2005-06-26 14:01:13 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Sven Neumann (sven@gimp.org) wrote:

Simon Budig 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

Simon Budig
2005-06-26 14:05:50 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Michael Schumacher (schumaml@gmx.de) 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

Simon Budig
2005-06-26 14:08:57 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Simon Budig (simon@budig.de) wrote:

Sven Neumann (sven@gimp.org) 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

Sven Neumann
2005-06-26 15:05:04 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,

Simon Budig 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

Sven Neumann
2005-06-26 15:17:52 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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

Simon Budig
2005-06-26 15:55:51 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Sven Neumann (sven@gimp.org) wrote:

Simon Budig 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

Alan Horkan
2005-06-26 16:55:56 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Thorsten Wilms wrote:

Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:17:46 +0200 From: Thorsten Wilms
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/

GSR - FR
2005-06-26 17:23:51 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,
sven@gimp.org (2005-06-26 at 1517.52 +0200):

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

Interesting, it shows things on both sides, and one of the front is multipurpose (chain or paintbrush icon). So I wonder how that works, cos the view one can be toggle there, even doing a drag can toggle multiple layers (gimp can not do it, only click click a lot)... but the multipurpose... and what happens in case of multiple modes?

So if this is for inspiration, is there someone with access to the program that could do a description of how it looks _and_ how it behaves (showing states, avaliable actions over the controls, etc)? To get the full idea.

GSR

Pedro Kiefer
2005-06-26 17:59:04 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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
2005-06-26 18:21:38 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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.

Sven Neumann
2005-06-26 18:48:01 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,

Pedro Kiefer 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

Sven Neumann
2005-06-26 18:54:15 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,

Simon Budig 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

jernej@ena.si
2005-06-26 19:17:06 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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).

Pedro Kiefer
2005-06-26 20:26:26 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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.

Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris
2005-06-26 22:13:36 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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?

EEEEkkk...
I thought of three different states for the lock Icon (and a nice tooltip, of course).

JS
->

Sven

Sven Neumann
2005-06-26 22:48:51 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" 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?

EEEEkkk...
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

Sven Neumann
2005-06-27 00:08:40 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,

Pedro Kiefer 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

Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris
2005-06-27 02:21:39 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

On Sunday 26 June 2005 17:48, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" 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?

EEEEkkk...
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

Simon Budig
2005-06-27 03:08:04 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Sven Neumann (sven@gimp.org) wrote:

Simon Budig 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

Thorsten Wilms
2005-06-27 11:17:03 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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

Nathan Summers
2005-06-27 16:26:42 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

On 6/26/05, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:

On Sunday 26 June 2005 17:48, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" 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?

EEEEkkk...
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

Nathan Summers
2005-06-27 16:32:13 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

On 6/26/05, Simon Budig 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

Simon Budig
2005-06-27 16:39:32 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Nathan Summers (rockwalrus@gmail.com) wrote:

On 6/26/05, Simon Budig 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

jernej@ena.si
2005-06-27 17:10:20 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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).

GSR - FR
2005-06-27 17:13:35 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,
t_w_@freenet.de (2005-06-27 at 1117.03 +0200):

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.

See below.

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.

That is only fast for single layer, as soon as it has to be performed in multiple layers, it is slow also (select layer, move cursor, click icons, move to select next layer...). Current method is not the fastest, but this would surely make it slower.

I think Simon mockup is fine, if the icons take the non used space, so they scale up based in the previews (bigger previews, bigger icons too, or at least bigger action area, the ones in preview are like checkboxes). It could also solve the issue of layer masks, by putting a link (apply mask) and eye (show mask instead) icons, one above the other, between the previews.

GSR

Michael Schumacher
2005-06-27 17:27:43 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Von: jernej@ena.si

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

jernej@ena.si
2005-06-27 17:43:54 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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.

Sven Neumann
2005-06-28 02:12:45 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,

Simon Budig 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

michael chang
2005-06-28 03:40:08 UTC (almost 19 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

On 6/27/05, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Simon Budig 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.]

Sven Neumann
2005-06-29 18:37:25 UTC (over 18 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

Hi,

michael chang 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

Sven Neumann
2005-06-29 18:51:00 UTC (over 18 years ago)

Layer locking proposal

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