GIMP Interface Proposals? 218
Anonymous Coward asks: "It would seem that naught but its developers themselves like the GIMP's UI. How would you like the GIMP to look? Reply with links to GIMPed (or Photoshopped, if you swing that way) screenshots. Individual features, the menu structure, or (preferably) default workspaces after you open up a blank new canvas." With the release of version 2.2 in the bag, 2.3 development should now be in full swing. What aspects of the interface do you think the GIMP team should make for the next release and for future relases down the line?
Proper MDI. (Score:4, Insightful)
survival of the gimpiest (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since day one, GIMP users have been complaining en masse about free-floating tool windows. And since day one, we have all been told "it's a feature not a bug". So why bother with even more feedback? It will only get ignored again.
innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro have very different UIs because they are conceptually different (that's not to say that PSP is any good. I'm not a fan). The GIMP and Photoshop were both conceptually similar -- in other words, by copying features from PS, the GIMP team has forced themselves to make their UI very similar to Photoshop. In other words, copying the PS GUI exactly will create the most efficent UI for the gimp. In my mind, this is a bad thing.
But not all is lost. Here are my suggestions
1) Implement a darn menu bar and clean up the menus. The right-click system sucks.
2) Please handle pallettes like every other program does and NOT create an additional taskbar icon for every document, toolbar, and pallette.
3) Implement a Slices tool like ImageReady has
4) Rename the program. GIMP does not convey an image of a good, reliable program
Re:innovation (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't see any advantages in renaming the program.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean it will make no difference to you personally?
Naught but developers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Never, _ever_ judge something like this simply based on volume of posts - and the same goes for letter feedback to media and politicians, as well, of course.
I like the Gimp UI. And you can snap toghether or pull apart the windows in whatever combinations you want, so I don't see why people are still complaining about "free-floating" windows.
Simplify, and change the name. (Score:3, Insightful)
Figure out a clean way to handle "floating layers" I never understood that. Photoshop makes the most sense.
And PLEASE change the name. GIMP is an unprofessional name.
Re:Have you actually used GIMP 2.2? (Score:1, Insightful)
You can tack together the free-floating tool windows and make them one if you like.
Yes I have, and that has been possible since 2.0, hasn't it? It doesn't solve the problem, because that window is still free-floating. Put the damn toolbox inside the application window already goddamnit.
It's also relatively trivial in most WMs to make those floating windows always-on-toppish like the PS ones (only more flexible).
I do that too. It's still a pain, because the image window knows nothing about this, and so it can't compensate for the toolbox obscuring stuff.
It could also be stated with much fairness that PhotoShop users form a disproportionate population of those complaining about same.
Perhaps. I haven't used Photoshop extensively, and I don't see why "has used Photoshop" should disqualify somebody from having a valid opinion about the GIMP's UI.
BTW, my sister-in-law uses The GIMP heavily, and swears by the floating windows and the tearoff menus.
Some people do. I wouldn't recommend taking the option for doing so away, but it shouldn't be the default and it definitely shouldn't be the only option.
Just as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought GIMP was weird at first (I was a Photoshop 2.x user) but I rapidly came to appreciate its advantages. Basically, I love it because it's efficient and lightweight. If I want to do something to an image, I right-click the image. Simple, right? In Photoshop I have to hunt under some menu and I have to care about which image is in the foreground. And of course, in both, I can just use key accelerators -- in GIMP, even assign my own -- to speed things up.
You can't master GIMP in a day, and you sure as hell can't master Photoshop in a day either. Most of the complaining I hear is Photoshop users pissy about having to think a little differently to use GIMP. Maybe you should write a "tricks of the UI" tutorial for the unadventurous...?
Now if I were directing the GIMP project, I'd say:
Never adopt MDI. Well, okay, you can, just make it optional. There are a lot of Windows users who would love it, but a lot of current users who would dump GIMP in a second if it were mandatory.
Please rip off Photoshop's styles palette. It's one of the main reasons I use Photoshop primarily these days.
Please add serious ICC profile support wherever you can in the image workflow. Even if you don't support CMYK, good color support would rock, and it would make professionals take GIMP more seriously. Bonus points: add a calibrator like Adobe Gamma/Colorsync/Supercal.
Yeah... I think that's about all for now. Watch everyone disagree
focus (Score:2, Insightful)
of course i don't know how easy this is, and it hasn't stopped me from using the gimp as my primary raster program.. so all in all keep up the good work.
Re:innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you should first use the GIMP before offering suggestions. All image windows have their own menu bar since v2.x. Right-clicking to access the menu is entirely optional.
Re:Proper MDI. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, it's true that there should be some kind of "grouping", something to connect panels to their app. A good example of this is on Mac, where the secondary panels are only visible if one of the primary windows of the app is focused.
But that's a matter for the window manager - would be nice if that gets implemented in metacity or kwin or sawfish, or whatever floats your boat. But just because some functionality is missing in the WM, doesn't mean you should implement it in the wrong place - the applications.
(As a side note, I'd like to see the same for tabbed windows a la firefox - it would be nice if an app could signal the WM to make tabs for itself, or even if one could attach different applications to each other)
allow it to be skinned, to allow a FULL pshop L/F (Score:3, Insightful)
detach legal responsibility this way (like an
if we could make gimp look and feel very close to what pshop is like, we could get more of the artists who use and know pshop by heart - to give our side a try. and maybe even have an interest in porting the filters over, since that's where the real power lies.
User interface design (Score:2, Insightful)
<URL:http://www.archiphysics.com/>
Re:survival of the gimpiest (Score:5, Insightful)
If only that were true!
other designers could easily make their own front end
The trouble is that there are no designers. At best, there are programmers that know a little bit about how to make a UI not suck. This will only get you so far. The UI is typically an afterthought, and the most common suggestions for improving it is "themes" or "skins" or "window decorations" or "make it an option", none of which actually address the problem.
Re:Have you actually used GIMP 2.2? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it be that Photoshop users (current, potential, or former) are probably the biggest single group that might be drawn to GIMP? I think that if you're building a tool with an implicit goal of having all of the same capabilities of Photoshop, it might be nice if said tool would act something like it.
Re:Have you actually used GIMP 2.2? (Score:5, Insightful)
So essentially, while everyone that swears by the GIMP says I can use it instead of Photoshop, the instant Photoshop users say 'well but this is a pain in the ass' you say 'too bad, fix it yourself'.
Fantastic attitude there. Open-source won't win the hearts or minds of professionals if the professionals don't like the tools and aren't provided a fix for it. If given a choice between fixing all that I've found wrong with the GIMP or sticking with Photoshop, my historical choice remails: the GIMP can take a flying leap.
You can't tell professionals to use your software and then tell them you won't fix what they don't like about it. Graphic artists (myself included) will pay $800 for a Photoshop license because Photoshop already works the way they need it to work. Why should we switch if the bugs aren't going to be fixed?
Re:Have you actually used GIMP 2.2? (Score:3, Insightful)
Always on top is not equivalent or remotely more flexible then traditional tool windows. The non-file windows should ONLY be active if a file window is, and then they should automatically activated. Always on top means just that-- The windows are ALWAYS on top. Since modern operating systems allow more then one application to be open at a time, there may be times when I don't want them on top. And, yes, I can move my GIMP windows to a seperate desktop, but that's not an acceptable answer. Any application that requires me to change my work style to overcome it's shortcomings is badly designed. This should be an easy thing to fix, and I have yet to hear even a single benefit to the current design. If there is one, I would be happy to hear it.
[frown] (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I have never tried it on Windows, but on Linux Metacity for all its faults (and they are legion) does a reasonable job of keeping the components where I can find them.
Seems to me that the main complaint is that the GIMP doesn't follow the conventions set by MS Paint or Photoshop, and as far as I'm concerned, that is unfair. It doesn't follow that just because people are too lazy to learn how to use a tool effectively, there must be something wrong with the tool.