"Jozsef Mak" wrote in part:

To begin with, I would do away with all transformation dialog boxes

(scale,

shear, rotation and so on). This is because most of the time, the data displayed in these dialog boxes I have little use. Most of the time I transform objects interactively. This is how things operate in actual work environment as well. (You have almost done the project when the dumb

client

comes in the office and says, hey, I want that tree on the left smaller. Then you select the tree and hit the scale icon and start scaling; then

the

client behind your back says, more., even more., still too large. and you keep scaling till the client says ok. There are no width and height sizes

or

aspect ratio involved in this process; you just scale interactively by feeling out the proper size. This is the same with other transformation tools as well.) Therefore, what I would like to do is just click inside

the

transformation box border or hit the enter key to confirm the changes. I would make one transformation box, though, where all numeric data could be inputted in the rare occasion I need them.

I *completely* disagree with Jozsef regarding elimination of the transformation dialogues that allow numeric input. While these dialog boxes may not be very useful in Jozsef's workflow, they are *extremely* useful in mine, where graphics objects and images must be sized to exact numeric specifications, not according to how they "look". In fact the gimp would be almost completely useless for my purposes without these dialogs. Whether Jozsef's suggestion of a single transformation box could be practical for all of these, I can't say.

s/KAM

Jozsef Mak wrote:

Now that Gimp 2.2 is out, we can start fantasizing about the changes we would like to see in the next release.

These are my fantasies.

To begin with, I would do away with all transformation dialog boxes (scale, shear, rotation and so on).

Already planned, iirc.

Next, I would simplify the gradient editor. The following idea is taken from Macromedia. Wouldn?t be nice if I could drag and drop color swatches over the small triangles under the gradient ramp and the editor colors would update instantly?

Already in bugzilla as an enhancement request, afaik... yep: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119470

The tool bar, on the left side, has also been bothering me for some time. How about rearranging it in a narrow, horizontal style and clipping it to the top of the screen. This layout would produce more efficiently utilized screen space and a more contemporary look.

You can already have this, just stretch the toolbox horizontally.

I have already found as being a good idea placing the zoom-setting box at the bottom of the document window; but how about further expanding on this notion either by making use of the entire available space on the bottom panel or creating a second row of panels underneath the document windows menu bar (file, edit, select?) and placing option boxes there? selection settings, brush settings, airbrush settings and so on.

Would clutter each image window, so it's not desirable at the moment. If there is a "dock everything to anything" in the future, each user could configure it.

These are logical places to implement option settings; Photoshop, Corel and Inkscape are already making use of these panels.

Well, IMO Inkscape's SDI approch sucks - I tried several times, and still find this very hard to use (maybe it sucks more on Windows than on other platforms?). The toolbar is only partially shown most of the time, undocking it doesn't turn it into a freely resizable window, new windows alwas open at 0,0 ... Not something GIMP should try to imitate...

Kevin Myers wrote:

I *completely* disagree with Jozsef regarding elimination of the transformation dialogues that allow numeric input. While these dialog boxes may not be very useful in Jozsef's workflow, they are *extremely* useful in mine, where graphics objects and images must be sized to exact numeric specifications, not according to how they "look". In fact the gimp would be almost completely useless for my purposes without these dialogs. Whether Jozsef's suggestion of a single transformation box could be practical for all of these, I can't say.

IIRC the idea was to make the display of these dialogs a tool option.

HTH, Michael

Hi Kevin,

Selon Kevin Myers :

I *completely* disagree with Jozsef regarding elimination of the transformation dialogues that allow numeric input. While these dialog boxes may not be very useful in Jozsef's workflow, they are *extremely* useful in mine, where graphics objects and images must be sized to exact numeric specifications, not according to how they "look". In fact the gimp would be almost completely useless for my purposes without these dialogs. Whether Jozsef's suggestion of a single transformation box could be practical for all of these, I can't say.

At best, these inputs belong in the tool options. At worst, they're internal details exposed in the interface, and should more or less be invisible. Eliminating these dialogs, and the crop tool's pop-up, are high priorities for 2.4 as far as I am concerned. Kevin, you might like them, but as someone who regularly gives tutorials in the GIMP to people, and one of the most common tasks is reframing or rotating a bad photo, these dialogs are completely confusing, and most people don't want them.

Cheers, Dave.

--
Dave Neary
Lyon, France

Hi Dave,

I might not have a serious problem with moving these inputs to the tools options, though I don't know how much more cumbersome that would make use of these tools for folks like me, especially considering that these really are inputs, not options. In my usage these inputs are used almost every single time that I use these tools. Perhaps a tool option could be provided that would simply enable/disable the display of these values?

I strongly disagree with you with regard to considering these inputs as simply "internal details exposed in the interface". If you eliminate the ability to provide these inputs, you make will make the GIMP almost totally useless for folks like me who use the GIMP for technical illustration and image manipulation purposes, rather than as a "paint" program or for photo touchup work.

I don't doubt that your experiences are true, however they are limited to the realm of your own experience and expertise, and may not apply to many folks who are using the GIMP for other purposes. I implore you to please consider the rest of us, and not to limit the GIMP according to your seemingly paint/photo centric view.

s/KAM

----- Original Message ---

Hi,

"Jozsef Mak" writes:

One of the things I was talking about in my previous email will be clearer if you look at this screenshot I made of Gimp.

http://jozmak.heydo.com/wallpapers/screensavers.htm

Look at all the wasted space underneath the tool icons.

I suggest you get rid of it then. You can disable the color area and brushes/gradient/pattern indicator in the toolbox. Try using a Colors dock as a replacement for the color area.

Sven

Jozsef Mak wrote:

My idea was not to get rid of that space but to populate it with useful information, which are presently scattered in the various transformation windows (degree of rotation, width, height and so on). If that information would be in plain view at all times, transforming objects interactively would be much less complex.

You could start by implementing dockables (the things like e.g. the layers dialog etc... that are grouped in the docks) for the transform tool dialogs.

Of course, you would need some infrastructure, like docking horizontally, too. Not neccessarily a small task, but it will surely provide you with some knowledge about GIMP's user interface.

HTH, Michael