151–160 of 167 posts
I installed Inkscape the other day to try to rescale and save an simple SVG for the web. When I took a look at the text saved in the file, I was pretty shocked to discover it saved the entire path of the file in the file . In other words, it saves a directory structure that could contain your username, the name of the project you're working on, what company you're working for, etc. Felt like a pretty shocking invasio…
A few years ago, there was somebody scraping the web for headshots, and an amazing number of them where photoshop crops that still had the full original image embedded in them, and a number of them were nudes. He posted the more 'interesting' ones. It was part of an article about the dangers of file metadata.
I wish I had the link right now, but it was years ago.
So many tools save metadata in the files. This is really common. Is it what you want? Maybe not, but it happens a lot. A few years ago, there was somebody scraping the web for headshots, and an amazing number of them where photoshop crops that still had the full original image embedded in them, and a number of them were nudes. He posted the more 'interesting' ones. It was part of an article about the dangers of file…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's a bit underrated, but I disagree about the complaints. People don't complain about it not being a Photoshop clone. People complain about the UX/ergonomics of gimp being decades behind compared to Adobe's tools. It doesn't need the same workflows as Photoshop, but it definitely needs to improve them I will add that copying Photoshop would be an easy all-around win because Photoshop has engineered the…
> it definitely needs to improve Gimp is FreeSoftware (FLOSS), this puts the word "need" in a context where it does not really work like that. > because Photoshop [in contrast to Gimp] has engineered their UX This is straight up condescending to the Gimp devs. Sure PS has put more money in UX design, but your saying Gimp dev did not (or cannot) do any of that. Please be kind when you get something for free.
No, it isn't. There is literally years worth of user feedback and it still hasn't been addressed. It's a common complaint and to say they haven't "engineered" their UX is putting it lightly.
> Please be kind when you get something for free.
Something being free doesn't mean it can't be criticized. Nothing said was unkind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good to know, this probably explained why the notionally transparent artwork was imported with a white background. But the fact that it’s not a true .ai import I don't think this is ever going to be a concern to me because I never use SVG to typeset flowing blocks of text. The main things I'm concerned about are: 1) Path and style integrity 2) Artboard dimensional integrity 3) Export file quality In my testing, I was…
affinity artboard support is newish, and not great. you may want to deep dive into it to be sure their implementation is good for you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the criticism as fair and constructive, not condescending at all.
Every UX is engineered. Maybe not by someone with a lot of experience in it. Maybe not by a team. Maybe not up to your standards. But it _is_ engineered. Basically, saying Gimp did not is not very nice then, especially know the engineer produce it for you for free.
I... Partially agree with you that every UX is "engineered" but that depends on how far we're willing to stretch that definition in the design domain.
I'd hardly call any workflow I design an engineered one (even if I like this field), when compared to something produced by an UX designer (or a team of them) who specialises in the field. Maybe someone put a lot of thought into the gimp UX, but it seems like a wasted effort (or maybe it was just inexperience). I don't know how to phrase this without it sounding insensitive, though. I'm not criticising the people, just this instance of their work, so I hope it inspires them to improve. I'd like to see Gimp become as successful as krita or inkscape (which had UX issues for years, too)
I realise gimp is free, but there also seems to be a general attitude amongst gimp contributors that they think the UX is fine, while most people (in my circles, at least) disagree with that view
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's a bit underrated, but I disagree about the complaints. People don't complain about it not being a Photoshop clone. People complain about the UX/ergonomics of gimp being decades behind compared to Adobe's tools. It doesn't need the same workflows as Photoshop, but it definitely needs to improve them I will add that copying Photoshop would be an easy all-around win because Photoshop has engineered the…
> People don't complain about it not being a Photoshop clone. Actually, no. As the person doing tech support for GIMP, I can tell you with 100% assurance that people do complain about GIMP not cloning Photoshop's UI. Quite a lot, in fact. > It doesn't need the same workflows as Photoshop, but it definitely needs to improve them Agreed. > I will add that copying Photoshop would be an easy all-around win It wouldn't be…
My general workflow is to use Krita and Inkscape (I used Gravit for a while because Inkscape was having some bugs I couldn't cope with), and maybe do some minor final colour correction/grading in Gimp on the final output. I could do all of this without leaving Photoshop. I'm not complaining though, since I much prefer Krita's brush engine than Photoshop, and I've gotten used to Inkscape's quirks. And they're both free!
It's not a matter of self esteem or confidence. If someone does it better, do it even better, or settled for living in their shadow.
The way to doing better is learning from the ones that are good at it already, right?
So why not learn from Adobe, which probably has the largest team of the smartest UX engineers working for them. They're not dominating such a complex market with smoke and mirrors.
And maybe Gimp can learne from Photoshop's mistakes too.
Blender is an excellent example of the process I described above. Their UI/UX was a joke for years, but they tried switching things upe and learned from the competitors. I'd say right now they're better than some (if not all) with of most features in terms of UX, especially for newcomers to the industry. Blender went form the steepest learning curve to one that's easy to get into, and from one of the worst UX/UI designs to one of the most polished in the industry.
It's not about low self esteem at all, it's about bettering yourself (or your project). If anything, that's how you build confidence, in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every UX is engineered. Maybe not by someone with a lot of experience in it. Maybe not by a team. Maybe not up to your standards. But it _is_ engineered. Basically, saying Gimp did not is not very nice then, especially know the engineer produce it for you for free.
I didn't mean to sound condescending, and if I hurt any gimp devs, I'd like to apologise. I... Partially agree with you that every UX is "engineered" but that depends on how far we're willing to stretch that definition in the design domain. I'd hardly call any workflow I design an engineered one (even if I like this field), when compared to something produced by an UX designer (or a team of them) who specialises in t…
Gratitude and praise it all I have for them. I only criticize in actual places where change is made (issues discussions, etc), and even then I try to be VERY polite.
This is a blunt question, I know, but is Inkscape actually good yet? I just don't hear anybody talking about it, and I hear more about people moving from Illustrator to Affinity Designer. It doesn't seem like it's become the Blender of vector graphics.
Have you donated? Made a merge request? Bluntly, there’s your answer. ;-)
This bug needs to be fixed, otherwise it may not be usable on some PCs. Otherwise, Inkscape is really great.