Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The State of GIMP & Its Future

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by rabcor View Post
    What's so great about gegl tho?

    I mean I'm an artist, I paint on linux. I'm excited to see GIMP improve, right now I'm using Krita (which started out as a GIMP fork
    Is it really that hard to google, "Krita History"? The first link of a google search, would show you that it started as a fork of KImage, by Michael Koch. Renamed to KImageShop, It that was mostly rewritten later on.
    Last edited by slacka; 30 July 2016, 11:14 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by finalzone View Post
      Gimp team is the original creator of GTK.
      The absurdity in this thread is astounding.

      This is correct GTK used to literally mean Gimp tool kit.

      Also, GIMP is funded on a monthly basis by flattr as well as other services - they had a widget on their front page a couple months ago and if memory serves correctly they pulled between 3,000 and 10,000 at least a month. I'm sure someone can find the exact details with google.

      Gimp not being GTK3 is the biggest drawback, I use the gimp-gtk3-git AUR Package and it makes the user interface much more tolerable on GTK3 Dark Theme Gnome. If anyone cares to join me the squeaky wheel gets the oil, so if enough users use that branch and bitch about it to developers we'll get fixes and development pushed.

      However, they do need help with their GTK3 branch which is done by one guy, it's currently on hold which I agree is a mistake considering the biggest draw is the UI and Toolset / Workflow.

      I have personally contributed to bug tracking, and IRC and GIMP could use help if any GTK3 guy is out there reading this.

      They should do a kickstarter like Krita too and raise 100k+

      It's true Krita can nearly do all the things GIMP can do short of good Text Transformation and some other stuff. the i3 hud menu makes navigating the monolithic GIMP menus much easier.

      Much appreciation to GIMP devs, you've come a long way, you gotta push a little bit more to GTK3 to get to get the project to snowball again.
      Last edited by ElectricPrism; 30 July 2016, 04:03 PM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Kemosabe View Post

        There is only 1 modern, stable, and state-of-the art desktop environment available for linux: GNOME. So there is no reason to drop GTK despite the fact Qt's API and tools are a masterpiece of software development.
        There is only 1 modern, stable, and state-of-the art desktop environment available for linux: GNOME.
        I and a lot of other people would like to dispute those adjectives. From our perspective "productivity-killingly post-modern and experimental, anti-socially API-unstable, and violating decades of HCI research and best practices" would be more accurate.

        That's why we're migrating our creations and work environments from GTK+ 2.x to Qt. Too many GNOME3-isms are leaking out as the GTK+ apps we use migrate from GTK+ 2.x to 3.x.

        As for my last point, I'll elaborate on two examples so you'll know I'm not full of crap:

        1. There are good reasons for organizing dialog boxes as you would a paper form: Read left-to-right and top-to-bottom. Putting the action buttons in the titlebar runs counter to the conclusions from various HCI studies on how to design an intuitive, efficient interface.... but, hey, it saves a few pixels and looks impressive.

        2. Various studies have shown that choosing an appropriate icon has thee parts: affordance, distinctiveness, and consistency

        2a. The term "affordances" refers to making your GUI elements familiar, so their purpose is intuitive. (eg. Apple inventing the "trash can" so users will guess correctly about how to delete a file once they understand dragging and dropping)

        Studies have shown that affordances are purely for learning an icon and, once people are familiar with a glyph, the abstractness of the glyph has no effect on their ability to use the system. (ie. An abstract symbol works as well as a trash can once the user has built a habit of using it..)

        2b. Distinctiveness refers to being able to quickly acquire the desired icon from among all others on screen. This is accomplished through a mixture of colour and shape and, as an example, the Tango icon theme's style guide explicitly says that new icons should have a recognizable and distinctive silhouette. (eg. No "in a round bubble" or "on a square card" icons)

        2c. Consistency refers to the icon remaining the same, so users can build recognition of their commonly-used icons deep into their habitual thought processes.

        So, given those, let's see how the GNOME-preferred "Save" icon fares:

        Affordances: Well, very few people know what a naked internal platter hard drive looks like, so it might as well be an abstract glyph. By contrast, even people too young to have seen a 3.5" floppy diskette before have internalized it as "that symbol which means 'save' in Windows applications".

        Distinctiveness: At small sizes, the hard drive is a grey trapezoid while a 3.5" floppy, remains recognizable by its distinctive sliding shutter... often helped by a consistent use of blue for the plastic and a red-and-white label across many different icon themes. GNOME's choice is made worse because of its overloading of the "download" arrow in some contexts, muddling the cognitive and visual distinctiveness of the two verbs.

        It also blurs the line between "noun" icons (eg. a hard disk) and "verb" icons (eg. save), which is something which should be done carefully since it can easily have unexpected implications for how a user's intuition will react.

        Consistency: Automatic fail. Everyone else, including old GNOME versions, uses the floppy. Just by this alone, GNOME icon themes start at a disadvantage for the exact same reason that few people use Dvorak and Colemak keyboards.

        Extensibility to related icons: As demonstrated by many apps, the floppy metaphor can easily be extended to "Save All" by using a cascaded stack of two or three floppies. It's unclear how this would be accomplished in 16x16 (or equivalent physical size at higher DPI) with a hard drive.

        I've always felt that GNOME's main problem has been cargo-cult copying MacOS without a proper grasp of WHY Apple made the decisions that they did (and, thus, coming up with things that match the surface pattern, but violate the deeper rationale).

        However, they did get it right when they copied the MacOS ordering for OK/Cancel buttons in dialog boxes. (By the way, the principles in the article I linked for the button ordering are also part of the reason why you don't put them in the titlebar.)
        Last edited by ssokolow; 30 July 2016, 05:10 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post

          You're an idiot. You actually think the point of open sourcing software is to require non-programmers to fix flaws in programming?
          This is inaccurate since you're talking about the interface.
          You could draw one and show it to the devs to let them implement it

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by rabcor View Post
            What's so great about gegl tho?

            I mean I'm an artist, I paint on linux. I'm excited to see GIMP improve, right now I'm using Krita (which started out as a GIMP fork I think but has evolved pretty far from that).

            I mean I think if 2.10 is supposed to be so amazing they really neet to redesign the interface from ground up to be more intuitive and all round usable. The lacking UI of GIMP is it's biggest flaw and repellant of potential new users.

            That's largely the reason I never stuck with it for very long. The interface was so messy (not to mention hideously ugly) the by far weakest link of GIMP is it's horrid UI design and it's weird keybinding scheme (the latter admittedly carried over to krita too)

            I mean who was the genius who thought "ctrl+shift+a" was a better way to deselect than "ctrl+d"? And the UI of gimp, it's an old design, a relic. If you want to revive gimp's popularity (which krita has now fully taken over almost) you're gonna have to start there. It may seem superficial, but the superficial, the first impression, it's the first thing you need to get right, not the last. A mistake us programmers often make. Get a capable UI designer to do this properly. I mean I would offer to do it but I'm not a capable UI designer even if I'd like to learn to be one.
            Your post is all over the place. Did you even read the linked to post? The author explains a few things that gegl enables (as in, it currently enables, and is used by programs other than gimp, to do these things).
            First, you ask "What's so great about gegl?" I started to write a response until I read that you were an artist, so I let it go.
            Then you complain about the interface (although complaining about keybindings is a bit weird since that should be something which the user can change) which makes it appear as though didn't read the linked article.
            At last you say you are programmer. NOW we are back to the question of "WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT GEGL," and at this point I'm lost.
            Also, if you think gimp and krita are competing, you know even less about these projects than it appears.
            Unless something has changed fairly recently, the devs have different goals in mind: krita is an oss Painter, gimp is oss photoshop (which is why is needs to be able to do a bit of everything, but its primary functionality is geared towards manipulation not creation).

            The projects describe themselves this way:
            Krita: "Krita is a sketching and painting program designed for digital artists."
            GIMP: "What we aim to do is to create a high-end image manipulation application that is free to use and modify by everyone, ever."

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
              I've always felt that GNOME's main problem has been cargo-cult copying MacOS without a proper grasp of WHY Apple made the decisions that they did (and, thus, coming up with things that match the surface pattern, but violate the deeper rationale).
              I don't agree with some of your points, but this one is, I think, correct.
              I was speaking with a ux friend and they said that it appeared that (it appears as if) "gnome is trying to look like apple without understanding why those exact choices were made." Importantly, apple designs makes decisions holistically, and, as a result, you can't just copy "random" elements without thoroughly understanding their context. That's a very hard job even for professional ux folks, let alone gnome "designers". It certainly doesn't help that gnome doesn't take (constructive) criticism well.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by geearf View Post
                This is inaccurate since you're talking about the interface.
                You could draw one and show it to the devs to let them implement it
                Unfortunately, they're not receptive to it. It took something on the order of a decade of people proposing Photoshop-like UIs (and even hacking together things like GIMPshop) before they gave us the single-window mode we have now.
                Last edited by ssokolow; 30 July 2016, 07:56 PM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Still no proper CMYK the seperate+ plugin still cant load CMYK TIFFs into individual layers having to save as both XCF format/CMYK TIFF, so the layers are preserved for future editing.
                  No Embeded ICC profiles in the generated TIFF. no pro wants to touch it
                  Still waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for non destructive editing which kind of makes it useless for graphic design
                  If PSDs use any features GIMP don't they break.
                  Does it support RAW yet without the need of converting to something else first.
                  From my understanding the don't want Gimp as a drop in replacement for PS anyway.Great for armature's but i cant ever see it becoming the industry standard for at least another 10 years to which they will be another 20 behind PS.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
                    They should do a kickstarter like Krita too and raise 100k+
                    Last time I saw someone ask that to a GIMP dev he got "none in our team has the time for making a funding campaign" or something equally bullshit.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      An "Overwrite All" would be very, very nice.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X