Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP UI quality opinion

[Aleksandar Kovač <alex open design gmail com>]

On 12-02-17 0:57 , Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Robert Krawitz<rlk alum mit edu>  wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:51 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> > > > To Martin: even Save and Save as on toolbar saves one click. Not
> > > > saying about such repitive operations as Rotate, Resize, Auto levels
> > > > etc. Now trivial photo treatment is done with the whole lot of clicks!
> > > > I'm pretty sure their count can be reduced thrice with toolbars.
> > Generally, you're not doing those things more than once per image (well,
> > when downscaling a large image by a lot -- say, reducing a 100 megapixel
> > panorama to a web-size thumbnail -- I do it in multiple passes of no
> > more than 50% each, which seems to reduce jaggies and moire patterns).
> Yes once per image, you right. But this doesn't change the point. The
> click count from menu is at least twice, if from submenu then 3x. Also
> such functions as 'Autolevel' is 3-4 clicks. When I have 10 photos I
> need to process in some manner if I spend on one image 20 clicks, it
> will be 200 clicks. From toolbar it would be, say, 70-90 clicks. And
> please don't suggest me to write batch script (I know you have that in
> Gimp).



Hi People,

Just to add another Slav by the name of Alex in the mix. I smell a 
conspiracy! :)

On a topic of counting mouse-clicks and slightly off topic considering 
GIMP UI, since it mentions 'kitchens'.

If anyone, anytime soon, happens to travel back in time. Please, find 
the guy or girl who started the mouse-click counting as a measure for 
'quality' of user interfaces. Once you find him/her, please have them 
institutionalized. As a precedent. When you get back, I will give you a 
subscription to any dirty, non-dirty or cooking mag of your choice. For 
life.

Mouse-click counting is a nice heuristic tool ('heuristic' being just a 
fancy word for something that amounts to 'not even a guideline') with a 
history brimming with stupendous displays of misuse. It causes obsessive 
counting disorder, too. This obsession seems to be contagious, spreading 
out from the world of 'measure/manage/makebelieve' infecting hard 
working, nice, decent people everywhere.

For Alexei, and for myself, the other day I was counting the hits needed 
to hammer down a nail. About 6 hits per-nail on average! And not much of 
a nail it was. Inefficient hammer, inefficient nail, inefficient me? And 
the very keyboard I am typing on right now demands a stroke for each 
letter. Shouldn't it recognize my words almost automatically by now, 
somehow? Saddened by the inefficiency of the real world, I sat down to 
write; using good old ink pen and paper. Sure enough, I started counting 
the strokes! Too many strokes. Try playing a piano - minimum 3 keys 
pressed for a lousy chord. Take a walk... The steps! Running? Talking? 
Yikes!

Repetitive little actions here are a way to get the things done. Not the 
only way, mind you. Just a way. A means to an end. There are many ways 
to get those things done. Use glue instead of nails, dictate a letter, 
use a sampler instead of a piano, ride a bike...

There are many existing ways we can control a machine. There are also 
many open pathways we can explore to further the ways we control the 
machines (open source is a right setting for that, I think). Counting 
mouse-clicks and asserting that reducing mouse-clicking must be 'good', 
and that 'good' equals 'toolbars' is a mighy feat of jumping to a narrow 
conclusion. The mouse itself is an atavistic piece of 1-pixel pushing 
device. Ingenious device, but only a way to control a machine. At least 
those lucky enough to have both arms should be wondering every day: 'Why 
am I forced to push this 1 stinky pixel around when I have 2 arms and 
~10 articulated fingers, a brain and motoric ability to support it? Can 
I have at least 2 mice, pretty please?' No, really, we should, and some do.

'Toolbars' are just a way of controlling the software, coming from a 
dogma that (almost) anything that can be performed by an application 
should be quickly accessible all the time. Generally, very questionable 
claim today, but admittedly useful sometimes to some people.

When it comes to designing software and it's interfaces, frustration and 
inspiration flows in our effort to design a 'perfect tool'. But thinking 
it 'a tool' is a mistake from the onset, I believe. Software, especially 
open source software, is often not a mere 'tool' but a a workshop, a 
worktable, a kitchen... Designing a 'perfect kitchen' or a piece of 
software is a bit more complex. It is a subject to customizations, 
arrangements and workflows. In fact, if I am not wrong, it is meant to 
be re-arranged and customized 'a posteriori'.

With this 'kitchen' metaphor in mind, I feel that 'demanding' 
mouse-click reduction via toolbars is like entering not ideally, but 
nicely equipped and stocked chef's kitchen, shouting at the fridge and 
the utensils, demanding for a '****** Big Mac already!'

Cheers,

alex