Re: [Gimp-developer] Fedback and personal comments about Gimp 2.8

Hi Richard.

--- Sam 4.8.12, Richard Gitschlag <strata_ranger hotmail com> a écrit :

> > I.2. Two-faced sliders, usability
> > 
> > I have nothing against coarse and fine grain tuning for brush sizes but
> > the sizes I generally work with (i.e. 1-100px) (and I'm sure I'm not the
> > only one) confine the usable range to 1-10% of the whole slider area!
> I agree that the current slider behavior is rather strange [...]
> Also, "fine grain" should be defined as a percentage of the current brush 
> size.  Currently it is not, which makes it impossible to make very fine 
> adjustments to very small brush sizes. [...]

I'd come to a similar approach, adding that fine tuning only makes sense with small sizes. In fact the size increment must indeed depend on size itself. Now whether the increment should be a simple ratio or a logarithmic function... (Logarithm is found to be more natural in many aspects.)

My favourite approach on such a feature would be to use a traditional scrollbar for coarse tuning and Gimp 2.6 spin buttons but in a different way:

|  Slider      | < | > |

This is in fact a regular scrollbar à la KDE. Only the behaviour of buttons is to be adapted for precision. Buttons placed horizontally (rather than vertically) make it easier to aim. Why not reuse Gimp 2.6 increment mechanism? I.e. increment slowly at first and faster with a long press. Combine this with the increment being a function of the size and you're done.

Vince C.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]