It seems to me that "it" depends entirely on what a person actually uses
GIMP for. Speaking for myself, I don't even have Inkscape, Scribus, or
SwatchBooker installed on my computer. Instead I use GIMP for painting
and photography, in conjunction with RawTherapee, darktable, PhotoFlow,
Krita, Hugin, Exiftool, digiKam, etc, etc.
How would your proposed changes to GIMP cohere with workflows that don't
involve DTP and instead center around other tasks and goals for which
people use GIMP, such as photography/painting/HDR processing/fits/fine
art print production/video display output/image retouching, and etc?
I agree and understand well. Changing something for particular kind of users
(DTP users) leaving others (Digital artists& Photographers) that what I don't mean.
Even I don't saying to change everything to give consistence. I understand how much
difficult to do that. Even changing something can create problems to exiting users
how they use these programs in which way.
> 3. Different Task Flow
> 4. Different Tools Manipulators Flow(can create understanding problem)
Could you elaborate more on what you mean by "task flow" and "tools
manipulators flow"?
It's not clear to me that a program like GIMP - which is used for such a
hugely diverse array of editing tasks and output goals - should be or
even could be optimized/shoe-horned into a set task flow.
These points tends to hard to explain without going on deep research on each
programs but I will try to explain in much simple way. What a user want from these
programs is their goal(final image vector, raster, pdf, etc). Now Goals are divided into
activities which in turn divided into tasks which again divided into actions.
Now lets take an example for aligning objects, In GIMP, align options you will find in tool box.
In Inkscape, align options it is dialog access from object menu. In Scribus, it is in dialog access
from window menu. Now the task is same but actions are different for each application. Which
will create confusing for first time users where to find align options. Now I am not saying about
complete UI, I am approaching to little details that can solve for consistency. But I can't say which
approach is better.
For that purpose only, I have share idea for having a website (common communication channel )
for creative applications so users can share ideas where he can get feedback and vote for their
features and share how to solving existed approach (like blender community right click select).
> 5. One have that feature another not and etc.
> 6. (Everything that create inconsistency in these applications)
Why do you want all these programs to have the same features?
Do you want to throw away the "not in common" features? Or do you want
to add all the features from all the programs to all the programs?
No No, I am not saying to bundle all the features to all the application so it hard to distinguish
what is for what purpose. It is set of some common features that some or these graphics
programs can share. Let's say I really like to have GIMP perspective tool in Inkscape. Maybe,
In future someone added perspective tool in Inkscape but it did't behave like GIMP perspective
tool. It some 3d circular manipulator(like 3d software have for scaling rotating).
From all these years, each team has approach to their own way of doing things. Maybe in future
these teams approach same way of doing things by having and finding ideas from one website
that is center communication for all these graphics applications.
I don't know about Scribus or Inkscape. But GIMP interface is already
highly configurable, and "DTP-oriented" configurations could be
distributed as config files and themes/icons.
If the already available array of configuration options for GIMP isn't
sufficient to set GIMP up for use in an envisioned seamless DTP
workflow, then a specific list of what's missing would be a good place
to start.
Which brings the discussion around to Jehan's awesome idea of being able
to easily exchange files between programs. The ability to easily
exchange files between programs is something that would make imaging
workflows in general (not just DTP workflows) considerably easier. It
would be awesome to have the option to easily switch back and forth
between different applications, for example sending a flattened version
of the current image from GIMP to Krita to RawTherapee and back to GIMP,
etc, or from Scribus to GIMP and back, or etc.
Yes, Even Jehan's Idea is a part to give consistency. Like same way their is lot's of
way to follow but for all these atleast we need common hub communication for
discussions between these teams and users. What is the need of saying these all to
one team if another teams and users have just unaware of it.
Ok, Developers want to solve specific bug report and feature request maybe that
feature is common feature and it can benefit all these graphics applications but never
discussed before that how it works and just added in one program. Maybe other have
implemented the same feature with changes how it works. These things can be discussed
other teams.
Thanks
Vikash
