On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Esrix wrote:

Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:35:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Esrix
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: [Gimp-user] Making GIMP a little more tablet friendly, maybe?

I can only speculate at how many times this has probably been brought up in the past... but I'll talk about it anyway.

I have a tablet that I like to use when I create digital images. And, these days, I am starting to work almost exclusively in GIMP. I think that it would be very handy if there was a key you could hold down that would allow the user to scroll the picture in any direction while moving the mouse. I realize that this is totally capable with the middle mouse button, but not every tablet allows you to configure settings like that. Currently, if I'm using my tablet in GIMP and I want to scroll to another area of the picture, I have to put down the tablet and use the mouse button, or use the scrollbars, which isn't very efficient. In Photoshop (I know I probably shouldn't compare the two) this is accomplished by holding down the spacebar. I'm not saying GIMP should ditch the current use of the spacebar, but I, personally, would like to put forward my interest in having a key on the keyboard that does the exact same function.

This change was suggested a while back, on the developer list I think. If I recall correctly it was implemented and is included in the latest CVS version of the GNU Image Manipulation program but now that I look at the mailing list archives I may be mistaken: http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg08055.html http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg08081.html

It was good of you to make the effort to explain the problem you were really trying to solve and then suggesting a possible solution (it doesn't hurt that Photoshop does it that way either).

- Alan H.

Hi,

Alan Horkan writes:

This change was suggested a while back, on the developer list I think. If I recall correctly it was implemented and is included in the latest CVS version of the GNU Image Manipulation program but now that I look at the mailing list archives I may be mistaken:

http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg08055.html http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg08081.html

This change was discussed but never got implemented. The divergence of feedback actually demotivated me enough to decide to work on other things instead. Quite a few people seem to like (and actually use) the current behaviour. I am reluctant to add more preferences but perhaps we really need one here?

Perhaps we can trade it in for another preference option? So let's see... Instead of voting for "Space key pushes move tool" against "Space key allows panning", let's ask "What preference would you miss least?".

Sven

On Tuesday 21 June 2005 19:26, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Alan Horkan writes:

This change was suggested a while back, on the developer list I think. If I recall correctly it was implemented and is included in the latest CVS version of the GNU Image Manipulation program but now that I look at the mailing list archives I may be mistaken:

http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg0 8055.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg0 8081.html

This change was discussed but never got implemented. The divergence of feedback actually demotivated me enough to decide to work on other things instead. Quite a few people seem to like (and actually use) the current behaviour. I am reluctant to add more preferences but perhaps we really need one here?

Perhaps we can trade it in for another preference option? So let's see... Instead of voting for "Space key pushes move tool" against "Space key allows panning", let's ask "What preference would you miss least?".

I feel very reliefed that there will be an option fot this...I actually use the move tool so much with space that I was really worried about it going away.

So, I fired up the preferences dialog, and the first place I would search fo this is in the tab "input devices". And lo - there is some space to spare there. There could be a couple radiobuttons to configure this behavior just above the "extended input devices", what do you think?

JS
->

Sven

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" writes:

So, I fired up the preferences dialog, and the first place I would search fo this is in the tab "input devices". And lo - there is some space to spare there. There could be a couple radiobuttons to configure this behavior just above the "extended input devices", what do you think?

I asked you to propose a preference to remove in exchange for the new one. You don't like that deal or is there another reason you are ignoring this request?

Sven

On Wednesday 22 June 2005 05:22, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" writes:

So, I fired up the preferences dialog, and the first place I would search fo this is in the tab "input devices". And lo - there is some space to spare there. There could be a couple radiobuttons to configure this behavior just above the "extended input devices", what do you think?

I asked you to propose a preference to remove in exchange for the new one. You don't like that deal or is there another reason you are ignoring this request?

Yes. There is a reason for me to ignore this request: One of the few things in the world that requires a single button to operate is a toaster. An Image manipulation Program is no toaster, and it does need preferences settings to work in an optimal way.

No one needs to find, learn and set to an optimal state the program's preferences in the first use, or even in the first month of use. I don't see any need to artifically keep the preferences down - a user who doesn't have a clue about why computer programs differ from a toaster will have a feeling of "looking at things under the hood" when using the preferences dialog in the first place - it won't hurt if all the preferences needed are there.

Besides, as I wrote clearly before - the first place I would search for such an option would be in "Input Devices" - even it is not the "right" place to put it in. There is space in the input devices section for this option to be added without removing anything else - so I thought that removing anything else just to keep the preferences coutn down would not be needed.

But since you really want it, the "Save Keyboard Shortcuts on Exit" is something I never turned off - so as far as I am concerned it could be gone and remain always on.

Joao

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" writes:

Yes. There is a reason for me to ignore this request: One of the few things in the world that requires a single button to operate is a toaster. An Image manipulation Program is no toaster, and it does need preferences settings to work in an optimal way.

No one needs to find, learn and set to an optimal state the program's preferences in the first use, or even in the first month of use. I don't see any need to artifically keep the preferences down - a user who doesn't have a clue about why computer programs differ from a toaster will have a feeling of "looking at things under the hood" when using the preferences dialog in the first place - it won't hurt if all the preferences needed are there.

There are two aspects here. One is the user point of view: a cluttered preferences dialog makes it very hard to locate the option you are looking for. We have frequent complaints from users who claim that a preferences option doesn't exist. Even it is definitely there, it is simply not found. That alone is a good reason to keep the number of preference options to a minimum. But of course they can't be avoided entirely. I never asked for that. I would simply like to keep them to the current number.

The second reason is maintainability. Any option you add is doubles the amount of possible configurations which all need to be tested regularily.

But since you really want it, the "Save Keyboard Shortcuts on Exit" is something I never turned off - so as far as I am concerned it could be gone and remain always on.

I admit that this option can be confusing but I find it very useful. It allows you to assign dynamic keyboard shortcuts for this particular session only. I wouldn't want to miss that.

Sven

Sven> One is the user point of view: a cluttered preferences Sven> dialog makes it very hard to locate the option you are Sven> looking for.

Is a compromise possible? Looking at how firefox handles this, there are menu based preferences, and then there are "customizations" via about:config. about:config is even somewhat searchable/filter-able. If something like this was implemented then gimp could "vouch"/test the menu options, but if you invoke a "customization" then Your Kilometage May Vary.

Then we could argue whether an option should be a "preference" or a "customization".
-----
Timothy Jedlicka, bonzo@lucent.com, 1-630-713-4436, AOL-IM=tjbonzo Network Entomologist, Lucent Technologies, LWS NOVE Lab Operations

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:57:45 -0500 "Tim E. Jedlicka - wrk" wrote:

Sven> One is the user point of view: a cluttered preferences Sven> dialog makes it very hard to locate the option you are Sven> looking for.

Is a compromise possible? Looking at how firefox handles this, there are menu based preferences, and then there are "customizations" via about:config. about:config is even somewhat searchable/filter-able. If something like this was implemented then gimp could "vouch"/test the menu options, but if you invoke a "customization" then Your Kilometage May Vary.

I wanted to suggest something similar. To not make gimp more configurable just because there's no space in the user interface seems silly to me. Make the feature configurable so the user can use gimp the way he/she wants to. If it clutters up the user interface then stick it in a config file where it won't bother anyone who doesn't want to change it.

In case others do not read Svens journal this might be of interest http://svenfoo.geekheim.de/index.php/2005-06-17/maemo-applications/#comments

Sven was lucky enough to win a Nokia handheld device and has expressed interest in creating a custom version of the GIMP to work on the smaller display. I imagine any such version of the GIMP would by necessity be much slimmer (hopefully some of which could be incorporated in the standard version) and would also be designed to work well with Pen input devices. Essentially it would very likely be the the Tablet friendly version of the GIMP you are interested in seeing. If you want to see this happen perhaps you could asks Sven for ways to him help out?

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/

[1] GIMP on Steroids? Suggests power but not slimness. Bruce Lee is compact and powerful but his was a different kind of Arts.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tim E. Jedlicka - wrk wrote:

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:57:45 -0500 From: Tim E. Jedlicka - wrk
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Making GIMP a little more tablet friendly, maybe?

Sven> One is the user point of view: a cluttered preferences Sven> dialog makes it very hard to locate the option you are Sven> looking for.

Is a compromise possible? Looking at how firefox handles this, there are menu based preferences, and then there are "customizations" via about:config. about:config is even somewhat searchable/filter-able. If something like this was implemented then gimp could "vouch"/test the menu options, but if you invoke a "customization" then Your Kilometage May Vary.

Then we could argue whether an option should be a "preference" or a "customization".
-----
Timothy Jedlicka, bonzo@lucent.com, 1-630-713-4436, AOL-IM=tjbonzo Network Entomologist, Lucent Technologies, LWS NOVE Lab Operations

Hi,

Francois du Toit writes:

I wanted to suggest something similar. To not make gimp more configurable just because there's no space in the user interface seems silly to me. Make the feature configurable so the user can use gimp the way he/she wants to. If it clutters up the user interface then stick it in a config file where it won't bother anyone who doesn't want to change it.

That's what we do anyway. Not all options in gimprc are actually accessible from the preferences dialog. That doesn't change the fact that user configuration makes life harder for the developers and for the people documenting the software. But really, there's no problem with adding yet another configuration option, I would just like to avoid it if possible.

Sven

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:51:49PM +0200, Francois du Toit wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:57:45 -0500 "Tim E. Jedlicka - wrk" wrote:

Sven> One is the user point of view: a cluttered preferences Sven> dialog makes it very hard to locate the option you are Sven> looking for.

Is a compromise possible? Looking at how firefox handles this, there are menu based preferences, and then there are "customizations" via about:config. about:config is even somewhat searchable/filter-able. If something like this was implemented then gimp could "vouch"/test the menu options, but if you invoke a "customization" then Your Kilometage May Vary.

I wanted to suggest something similar. To not make gimp more configurable just because there's no space in the user interface seems silly to me. Make the feature configurable so the user can use gimp the way he/she wants to. If it clutters up the user interface then stick it in a config file where it won't bother anyone who doesn't want to change it.

It's ironic that Firefox's about:config is brought up as an example, since there are several config parameters that simply don't work, because the developers didn't notice it broke due to other changes being made.

So there is a maintenance cost associated adding configuration options which needs to be evaluated. I'm not passing judgement here on the specific option in question, I'm just saying that just making it config file option "won't bother anyone" is an oversimplification of the issue.

-Yosh