Re: [Gimp-gui] [GIMP Gui] User Interface Consistency

[Elle Stone <ellestone ninedegreesbelow com>]

Hi Vikash,

On 04/27/2019 06:26 AM, VIKASH SINGH wrote:

> 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.

By default, the Align tool is in the Toolbox as well as on the menu 
tree. But the user has the option to remove this tool from the Toolbox 
if that's more convenient or less confusing. Also a keyboard shortcut 
can be assigned to this tool.

Speaking more generally, what's in the Toolbox - and also how many other 
dockers are in the same panel as the Toolbox - is completely 
customizable in GIMP. The user even has the option to remove *all* the 
tools from the toolbox. The user can close the toolbox docker in 
Multi-Window Mode, and in Single Window Mode the user can "squish to 
none" the space that would otherwise be occupied by the empty Toolbox.

Have you experimented with setting GIMP interface and shortcuts up to be 
arranged as closely as possible to Inkscape and to Scribus? Would this 
help first-time users trying to use GIMP with Inkscape and Scribus? 
Would it help first-time users if you provided them with a complete list 
of "in common" features, with links to the documentation for these "in 
common" features, for all three programs?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is this: Have you thoroughly explored and 
experimented with what's already available to help make it easier for 
first-time users who want to use the three programs together in a DTP 
workflow?


> 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).

> > 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.

"Someone" would need to propose and then implement and maintain (set up 
the server, arrange meetings, monitor the forum or mailing list, etc) 
the proposed channels of communication, and also convince the devs and 
users of the various DTP software that participating in the new 
communication channels is a good use of their time and energy.

Even though there is the huge issue of making sure changes that help a 
DTP workflow don't also harm non-DTP workflows, I'm guessing it might be 
more productive to focus the proposed communication on the specific goal 
of improving interoperability and ease of learning wrt a DTP workflow.


> 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.

Different programs often do nominally "the same thing" in different ways 
because these different ways are useful. As an example, MyPaint, GIMP, 
and Krita are all used for painting. The "same task" of using a digital 
brush to make marks on a digital canvas is implemented very differently 
in these three programs - indeed the very concept of "canvas" is 
implemented differently in the three programs. This is not a problem. 
This is an advantage. Some people exclusively use one of these programs 
because that program works best for their particular style of 
painting/way of working. Other people routinely use two or all three 
programs for painting, precisely to take advantage of the differences.

Similar comments apply to our free/libre raw processors, even though 
they all share in common the "same core task" of interpolating raw files 
and surely also apply to differences in implementations and UI for 
functionalities that are in common for GIMP, Scribus, and Inkscape.

Which I think brings the discussion back around to:

* My question of whether you have already thoroughly explored existing 
options for making a DTP workflow easier for new users, if that's your 
main goal.

* Alexandre's statement that to generate productive discussion and 
possible implementation, any proposed changes need to be specific, 
"actionable".

* Alexandre's further statement that the unavoidable reality is that 
free/libre software development is done by real people with real lives, 
and many/most free softwares don't have enough developers even to keep 
up with basic tasks like fixing bugs and updating the code to keep up 
with changing libraries.

All of which leads back to Jehan's statement that:

> > We are not like a company doing several software or anything. We are
> > many people doing stuff we want to do.
> > I mean, even within a single software, it is still several people doing
> > various stuff. And these people come and go. It doesn't mean it's
> > impossible, it means that if you want to help, feel free to contribute,
> > but **you** would be expected to stay and push your ideas (for years if
> > you want to *maintain* consistency over the years).


Best,
Elle
--
https://ninedegreesbelow.com
Color management and free/libre photography