Subject: Re: [Gimp-gui] gimp-gui-list Digest, Vol 3, Issue 8

From: Joseph Bupe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:51:20 +0200

> There are too many things to tell when creating a new layer and and an
> important one is missing....
>
> In my experience with Gimp, I haven't got that many use cases:
>
> - Fill: layer is either transparent, or filled with the background color
> - Size: layer is image sized, or the same size as the current layer
> - Position (missing in current dialog): layer is at 0,0 (image sized) or
> overlaps current layer
>
> IMHO: asking for a size in the layer dialog is pointless, because
> usually you cannot tell the size in pixels in advance (and when you can
> you also have a position in mind...). In real life you create an
> image-sized layer and crop it later using its contents as a reference.
>
> If we can skip the dialog then we have shortcuts for instant layer
> creation, especially for the three most used:
>
>   * image-sized filled with background color
>   * image-sized and transparent
>   * copy of the active layer, transparent
>
> You can always fill/crop/name the layer afterwards so no functionality
> is lost.
>
> A penny for your thoughts
>
>
Possibly related to the topic on the following link:

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-March/msg00075.html

---

From: Jehan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:52:33 +0100

Hi,

On 2015-12-15 13:51, Joseph Bupe wrote:
> [1]

That's definitely the same topic. Actually I agree with most of what 
people says, even when they say the opposite of each others! :-)

The facts are this:

1/ I agree that at some point, someone has a workflow where you end up 
always making only 1 or at most 2 kinds of new layers.

2/ The first problem is that they are often not the same, as we can read 
in this thread of the one linked above. I, for one, nearly only use 
transparent layers. I read several people in the above thread, one who 
said mostly using white layers only, another mostly using either white 
layers or the foreground color, and the first email of this new thread 
says mostly using background or transparent.
We ended up in just a few emails showing how diverse the user base and 
habits are, and that all 4 fill types are used. Simply everyone just 
ends up always using the same fill type (cf 1/).

Because of this problem, we can't just decide to create actions or 
buttons for specific combinations because of this point 2/. Because what 
is your usual fill type is not your neighbour's. Or we should create 4 
new buttons/actions, and then the UI will end up at some point cluttered 
with hundreds of buttons.

There were propositions of inverting the click and shift-click (click 
would create directly a layer of your last type and shift-click open the 
dialog), like in the linked dialog. As an advanced user (well, more than 
many, but much less than many others too), I would not mind and actually 
would find it better for my workflow. Simon Budig explained that it was 
actually done this way for a while, since the shift-click is not easily 
discoverable: 
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-March/msg00100.html

As a consequence, we could say that for many users, the capacity to 
create new layers of different fills became more complicated. Of course, 
you can always add/remove an alpha channel afterwards and fill the whole 
layer with some color, but this is a little usability loss to being able 
to do it at layer creation.

It makes sense that the most discoverable UI should be the one to do the 
more, and later users learn progressively optimized UI logics to improve 
their workflow. For all theses reasons, the *default* UI seems 
acceptable.

For me, that's actually a good example of a need to be able to tweak the 
UI with plugins, which is not possible right now. That's something I'd 
like to implement (or see implemented) at some point. Our plugin API 
should allow people to have optimized UI, like for instance remapping 
the new layer button to create in one click a layer of your preferred 
fill type.
But the default UI should be a discoverable one.

Jehan

---

From: Joseph Bupe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:02:25 +0200

On 15 December 2015 at 16:52, Jehan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> dialog),

This would be more logical.

---

From: Jehan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:17:49 +0100

Hi,

On 2015-12-15 16:02, Joseph Bupe wrote:
>> There were propositions of inverting the click and shift-click
>> (click would create directly a layer of your last type and
>> shift-click open the dialog),
> 

Have you read my email? This is not "logical", this is only simpler for 
*you*. If we want to go this way, the most "logical" way is likely for a 
button to not choose anything by default, *NOT* to choose particular 
settings on the user behalf. Thus basically the logical thing is what 
GIMP does.

I don't say this is the best UI at all. But I say that your proposition 
(having the settings choice done on the user behalf by default) is not 
the right change, in my opinion. The fact that we had as many different 
preferences (written down in the linked thread) as available option 
shows that the choice proposed by this dialog is not meaningless.
If someone has a better default UI to propose, we are happy to read 
propositions, but I don't think that just inverting the button behavior 
is the right thing to do here.

Jehan

---

From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:39:55 -0500

On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 15:52 +0100, Jehan wrote:
> [...]

> We ended up in just a few emails showing how diverse the user base
> and habits are, and that all 4 fill types are used. [...]

> buttons for specific combinations because of this point 2/. Because
> what is your usual fill type is not your neighbour's. Or we should
> create 4 new buttons/actions, and then the UI will end up at some
> point cluttered with hundreds of buttons.

It would be fabulous to have a scriptable UI, where people could add a
button or could even override the defaults on a click or shift click.
But GIMP isn't written in that way today.

An interface with fewer buttons on the docks, but with the last one
being a [+] button, which brought up a list of buttons you could add
(ideally letting you choose values too) might work better.

> would create directly a layer of your last type and shift-click open
> the dialog), like in the linked dialog.
[...]
> . Simon Budig explained that it was 
> actually done this way for a while, since the shift-click is not
> easily discoverable: 

A compromise there is to bring up the dialogue only the first time, and
to include text on it (ugh) "use shift-click to bring up this dialogue
next time". Having said that, when I do use layers, I tend to use a mix
of layer types.

> their workflow. For all theses reasons, the *default* UI seems 

Agreed.

Liam

-- 
Liam R. E. Quin <[email-masked]>
Words and Pictures From Old Books - http://www.fromoldbooks.org/

---

From: Andrew Pullins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:21:11 -0500

Why not keep the default as it is today.  When you click the new layer
button it opens the new layer dialog, When you shift-click new layer it
makes a new layer with the previously selected options.  But we make one
little change to the dialog. At the very bottom of the screen make a check
box that gives the user the ability to switch the functionality them
selves.  the label could read something like "check to not see this
dialog.  Shift-Click new layer button to get to this dialog"... I know its
wordy but this would give the user control over their app, and if they
don't like it they can uncheck it the next time they open it.

Also a slight change on Shift-Clicking to add a layer with previous
options/Clicking new layer if the check box is checked.  When you just make
a layer with the previous options the focus should change to editing the
layers name as if the user were to double click on the layer, and when they
click anywere else or hit esc the edit layer name would lose focus.  This
way you don't have to bring up the new layer dialog or double click the new
layer to rename it but you can just start typing to name the layer.

This way users who are new can discover this dialog more easily, users who
are used to it do not have the feature taken away from them, and advanced
users can have it their way as well.  I think that this is more GIMP like.
Giving the user the power over their UI instead of forcing them to use one
workflow.

--
Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Praise be unto God for giving us a way to live
with him.

<https://www.facebook.com/android272>
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/113439282950133616549/posts>
<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-pullins/6a/2b3/366>
<https://twitter.com/android272>  <http://android272.deviantart.com/>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> gimp-gui-list mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-gui-list
>

---

From: Jehan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:15:37 +0100

Hi,

On 2015-12-16 22:21, Andrew Pullins wrote:
> button it opens the new layer dialog, When you shift-click new layer
> it makes a new layer with the previously selected options.  But we
> make one little change to the dialog. At the very bottom of the screen
> make a check box that gives the user the ability to switch the
> functionality them selves.  the label could read something like "check
> to not see this dialog.  Shift-Click new layer button to get to this
> dialog"... I know its wordy but this would give the user control over
> their app, and if they don't like it they can uncheck it the next time
> they open it.
> 
> options/Clicking new layer if the check box is checked.  When you just
> make a layer with the previous options the focus should change to
> editing the layers name as if the user were to double click on the
> layer, and when they click anywere else or hit esc the edit layer name
> would lose focus.  This way you don't have to bring up the new layer
> dialog or double click the new layer to rename it but you can just
> start typing to name the layer.
> 
> This way users who are new can discover this dialog more easily, users
> who are used to it do not have the feature taken away from them, and
> advanced users can have it their way as well.  I think that this is
> more GIMP like. Giving the user the power over their UI instead of
> forcing them to use one workflow.

Not my ideal UI, but it could make for an acceptable in-between as long 
as there is no customizable UI, I guess.

Jehan