291–300 of 306 posts
Just in case author happens to read comments: There's this sudden brick wall of understandability in the "Interaction Hints" section. It's not clear what the visual hints are in the screenshot because there's a number of UI elements present. And "obviously" is carrying too much load, you'd have to be be familiar with Blender to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linked article talks about a fork created to redesign Gimp's UI, so there were no gatekeepers.
I didn't see the GIMP project speaking up when Glimpse was accused of being "woke". And also, there's zero chance that the GIMP project would ever switch to the Glimpse codebase. Forking things usually results in the original thing persisting forever out of spite for those who dared to fork it.
Oh I dunno. Personally, I was vocally against the bullying of the Glimpse team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's value is stating the truth, even if it hurts someone's feelings. It's not intended as an insult, but if people feel that way, maybe that's their problem, not mine.
The one worst thing in the universe that you can do to piss off the GIMP developers is to tell them it should be more like Photoshop. It's like telling RMS that he should develop Open Software for Linux, instead of Free Software for GNU/Linux.
"Make it work like in Photoshop because Photoshop" is not appreciated.
It's really _that_ simple.
Does this man ever worked with photoshop? What is he talking about? Of course there is a menu, just like in PS. Of course it is overwhelming at first. The biggest reasont most of the UI/UX sucks, because those who create the program never actually use it day by day. So easy. Use your own program and whenever you get frustrated it shows you that you have done something wrong or awkward and it needs adjustment. Another…
I'm the OP and for the life of me I can't figure out what you are talking about. Seems like you are conflating GIMP and Photoshop and reading the post as if it suggested that either GIMP or Photoshop don't have a menu, which is absurd — there was no such claim.
> Another important thing is to drop the "this must look and feel different than photoshop" stance
There has never been such a stance in the first place. As far as I can recall (which is about 20 years back), the stance has always been "please explain why your proposed change is good, don't hide behind "because this is how Photoshop does it", it's lazy".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try editing 10 images in a row with Krita and you'll see the issues right away. Layer handling, selection handling and tool placement is cumbersome, to put it mildly. Maybe invite someone who has extensive experience working with photoshop and watch how often he starts to curse or ask for help and whether he uses the gun to shoot himself in the head. Then change things accordingly, if the creators don't use their own…
> Maybe invite someone who has extensive experience working with photoshop and watch how often he starts to curse or ask for help and whether he uses the gun to shoot himself in the head. The extensive experience working with photoshop is a problem in itself, not a symptom. It sets expectations, and when they are not met, frustration ensues. But the photoshop UI is not the most intuitive one, just most familiar to th…
As a survivor of "let's have three different ways to apply a TRC curve at the start of the processing pipeline" — hard disagree.
>>> the team tried to solve that with a search Before that you should fix the names. Searching for Gaussian would't give me Gaussian blur because the script for that is in a different name. And if you kill the menu, you are killing the whole project.
On the contrary, it's the first item in search results. The very first one.
The search tool for GIMP is Google. How do I draw a rectangle? Google brings you to https://docs.gimp.org/2.10/en/gimp-using-rectangular.html which starts with "GIMP is not designed to be used for drawing." and then goes on which "However, you may create shapes by either painting them using the technique described in Section 14.1, “Drawing a Straight Line” or by using the selection tools" At that point you realize th…
> GIMP is not designed to be used for drawing And yet they include a brush tool and a pencil tool - as far as I can recall, the brush tool responds to tablet pressure levels. But _not even their own devs_ can't explain logically why a rectangle or a circle drawing tool is a no-no. And go forbid if you criticize that fact in front of them.
...while making shape-drawing tools an item in the roadmap? :)
> And go forbid if you criticize that fact in front of them.
Nothing will happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you actually been using it?
I use it regularly, but my use case doesn't really extend beyond compositing images. Works great for me though, my only complaint is the startup time.
The problems with Gimp have nothing to do with not having a sufficient UI paradigm to contain Gimp's oh-so-precious functionality; it's that the project leadership refuses to consider that tue esoteric universally-loathed UI paradigms they came up with might be worse than the prevailing conventions .
Do they though? I've been in and around that project for many years and one common scenario that I've seen replaying over and over (and over) again is when people request something and then understand "please elaborate why this UI solution is better" or "can't right now, too many things to work on" response as a flat-out refusal.
Somewhat tangential but is there any compelling reason to use Gimp over Photopea in 2023?