gimp would benefit itself immensely simply by implementing all of photo shop's default keyboard shortcuts
GIMP – 2016 in review
81–90 of 188 posts
Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its certainly OK for a product to innovate, as GIMP has. But sometimes the differences are gratuitous. That doesn't help with GIMP adoption, because admit it, most folks have some exposure to Photoshop already. Further, GIMP suffers (as many mature products do) from a certain baroque-ness of feature. Its menus and features have grown from someplace less mature, to where they are. And it shows in the clumsy menus that…
> Its certainly OK for a product to innovate, as GIMP has. I'm not sure the GIMP's UI choices can generally be described as "innovating". I think they're generally just the obvious GTK+ default options, implemented without much testing or tweaking.
Some aspects of Photoshop's user interface are patented, but it's much safer and wiser to LOOK at them and be aware of them and read the patents, so you're consciously aware of what not to do accidentally, and able to work around them.
Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW I find Photoshop more intimidating and confusing than GIMP, because I never learned to use Photoshop. If you're looking at GIMP as something to attract Photoshop users, sure, the UI is bad because it's not the same as Photoshop. Sure, there are places you can look at Photoshop and say "wow, that's so much better for productive use" (ignoring feature differences where we know Photoshop is ahead of course). But th…
> But this thing about GIMP having a UI that's _objectively_ bad is just unsupportable IMO. I don't mind GIMP's UI being different from Photoshop. I last used Photoshop over a decade ago and that would be plenty of time to adjust to any good UI. The things that annoy me about GIMP's UI are things like the focus always being in the wrong place so I have to use the mouse, or windows being placed over things I need to s…
Does anyone know of any FOSS project that has a documented UI and UX contribution process?
Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#84Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#85For those who are more interested in digital painting rather than image editing, I found Krita impressive in its capabilities and progress: https://krita.org I'm just an hobbyist, but I like having FOSS alternatives to Photoshop.
That said, from reading the forums, the dev team seems chronically understaffed to the point that some of them are less than polite to users. This worries me a bit. If anyone has been looking of an open-source project in this space to get involved in, here's a very successful one that could use a hand!
Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#86Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#87Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#88Great stuff. I'm looking forward to 2.10. GIMP is my tool when I want to edit photos or create Christmas cards. Even though I hear this quote ringing in my ear, and I can't seem to shake it, mainly because of who said it: "Yet I think that a few programs, such as Adobe Photoshop, will always be superior to competitors like the Gimp—for some reason, I really don’t know why! I’m quite willing to pay good money for real…
> Even though I hear this quote ringing in my ear, and I can't seem to shake it, mainly because of who said it 1) Photoshop had a 10+ year head start and tons of patents. 2) Adobe can pay programmers to work on it as their main and sole focus. GIMP is stuffed by volunteers. 3) Adobe can pay programmers to work on boring parts. OSS programmers tend to navigate to the "glorious" and "fun" parts. 4) Adobe has extensive…
>Out of curiosity, I tried installing Gimp to see how much has changed (for the better?) since I last checked it out. The tool interface doesn't quite fit into its window by default so you have a tiny little scrollbar at the bottom that you have to scroll to see the full text. I resized it. After popping out a submenu, it once again didn't fit.
This is plain unacceptable. Yes, this is 99% there, it's a minor thing, it's probably thousands of man-hours to avoid a gazillion other bugs and issues and even get to this point. But it's not enough. A UI for such a tool, where you actually fiddle with it a lot, has to be perfect. Perfect on a technical level, perfect in a Apple-y "let's ensure that the empirically determined most-used features are shown first and less-used stuff doesn't clutter precious screen-space" sense that takes long and frustrating trial-and-error involving real-world feedback. You can't have a button that's 15 pixel larger than it has to be. You can't have a layout arrangement that wastes half a window because it's poorly aligned. You can't have spacing that's inconsistent enough to make you hesitate clicking an icon because you're not sure if it's connected to some other element of the interface.
Open source/free software needs a user interface push, but apparently that's not a sexy field to work on.
Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its certainly OK for a product to innovate, as GIMP has. But sometimes the differences are gratuitous. That doesn't help with GIMP adoption, because admit it, most folks have some exposure to Photoshop already. Further, GIMP suffers (as many mature products do) from a certain baroque-ness of feature. Its menus and features have grown from someplace less mature, to where they are. And it shows in the clumsy menus that…
> Its certainly OK for a product to innovate, as GIMP has. I'm not sure the GIMP's UI choices can generally be described as "innovating". I think they're generally just the obvious GTK+ default options, implemented without much testing or tweaking.
Note that the above is historical. GNOME selected GTK long ago and has somewhat strong armed GTK development away from GNOME. I don't follow either project closely enough to suggest how much.
Re: GIMP – 2016 in review
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW I find Photoshop more intimidating and confusing than GIMP, because I never learned to use Photoshop. If you're looking at GIMP as something to attract Photoshop users, sure, the UI is bad because it's not the same as Photoshop. Sure, there are places you can look at Photoshop and say "wow, that's so much better for productive use" (ignoring feature differences where we know Photoshop is ahead of course). But th…
> But this thing about GIMP having a UI that's _objectively_ bad is just unsupportable IMO. I don't mind GIMP's UI being different from Photoshop. I last used Photoshop over a decade ago and that would be plenty of time to adjust to any good UI. The things that annoy me about GIMP's UI are things like the focus always being in the wrong place so I have to use the mouse, or windows being placed over things I need to s…
But both of these are things that are fixed with Single Window Mode (which it's clear you know about). Complaining about a UI issue that has already been fixed does seem a bit ungrateful.
> or having to reselect my font styling every time I retype something
Ok, fair enough. That one is less obvious as there are two places to change the font. If you're in Single Window Mode, you'll see that when you select the Text tool, you'll get the Tool Options underneath. Change the font there and that becomes the new default. You can still choose different fonts in the floating selector for specific Text fields.