On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 09:13:48 -0700, John Ames wrote:
GIMP is deeply frustrating because it's a lot of very solid technical
functionality married to a cargo-cult version of the Photoshop UI ...
That’s strange, isn’t it, since most of the Adobe-lovers who don’t like GIMP primarily say it’s because its UI is too different from Photoshop.
You think it would be better if it were *more* different?
(As if large parts of what is nowadays associated with the Photoshop UI is
in fact original with Photoshop ...)
On 2025-06-03, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 09:13:48 -0700, John Ames wrote:
GIMP is deeply frustrating because it's a lot of very solid technical
functionality married to a cargo-cult version of the Photoshop UI ...
That’s strange, isn’t it, since most of the Adobe-lovers who don’t like
GIMP primarily say it’s because its UI is too different from Photoshop.
You think it would be better if it were *more* different?
I'd say wanting to jump to a different program without having to learn
or read documentation is having unrealistic assumptions. Sure, you *can*
have programs designed to be "compatible" UI-wise, but unless that's a
main design goal, there are going to be differences.
(As if large parts of what is nowadays associated with the Photoshop UI is >> in fact original with Photoshop ...)
What is even the GIMP UI nowadays? I haven't used it in some time, but
I've already gotten confused by changes, it seemed someone wanted to
make it more like a "main menu" and "main window"-driven program, so at
least at some point it did change.
Is it stable now, or has it embraced the Firefox approach to UI design?
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 10:36:57 +0100
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
That’s strange, isn’t it, since most of the Adobe-lovers who don’t >>> like GIMP primarily say it’s because its UI is too different from
Photoshop.
You think it would be better if it were *more* different?
I'd say wanting to jump to a different program without having to learn
or read documentation is having unrealistic assumptions. Sure, you
*can* have programs designed to be "compatible" UI-wise, but unless
that's a main design goal, there are going to be differences.
It's not about "different programs do things differently" - yes, that
does happen, but GIMP's UI design is just kinda shoddy even on its own merits.
To cite one convenient example, the designers clearly have no idea what
the point is of keyboard accelerators in menus & dialogs; they'll often assign the same accelerator key to multiple controls on the same window
so that, instead of quick-navigating through things with a sequence of keystrokes you can commit to muscle memory, you're obliged to look at
the screen to *see* which control you've selected - at which point you
might as well have just used the mouse.
Like, even if they'd picked a different *set* of accelerators than
Photoshop for $REASONS, doing it the right way would let you achieve a comparable efficiency of workflow; but they don't really understand or
care about good UI design, so they didn't. Adobe are bastards through
and through, but they know the reason they can get away with it is that
they have the best workflow in the business and working professionals
care more about Getting Shit Done than not supporting bastardry, so
they *do* make the effort.
(I'd also cite, as another example, that they have no idea what the
point of context menus is, either - right-clicking in the document
window brings up a *whole entire copy* of the main-window menu tree
hanging off the mouse pointer, which is utterly bonkers from a
usability standpoint - but I'd have to go back to check and make sure
that they didn't finally do something at least marginally saner since I
last looked.)
I'm only one the earlier version and that is pretty incomprehensible to
me. I still can't do layers properly.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:42:03 -0700, John Ames wrote:
To cite one convenient example, the designers clearly have no idea what
the point is of keyboard accelerators in menus & dialogs; they'll often
assign the same accelerator key to multiple controls on the same
window ...
I fired up GIMP 3 and had a quick look round at several dialogs. I simply could not find any examples of what you’re talking about.
(I'd also cite, as another example, that they have no idea what the
point of context menus is, either - right-clicking in the document
window brings up a *whole entire copy* of the main-window menu tree
hanging off the mouse pointer, which is utterly bonkers from a usability
standpoint ...
It does still take advantage of Fitts’ Law though, doesn’t it. Is there some other point to context menus?
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:32:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I'm only one the earlier version and that is pretty incomprehensible to
me. I still can't do layers properly.
My last go-around with GIMP was an attempt to edit some SVG icons, simple stuff like changing the foreground color or make the background
transparent. iirc I wound up with a lot of little windows.
This box has 2.10.38 and it looks different to what I remember but I don't have a use for it. Way back when icons appeared and you were supposed to create them I figured it was going to suck. I never could create one that looked like much of anything let alone a file folder.
I use GIMP a lot. If I need to do something new to me, I just goo-goo
for the answer.
Tools with a lot of functionality take some time to learn.
Gimp and Blender are fantastic tools in the hands of people who know
them., I don't think I have sufficient years left to learn either
though.
(I'd also cite, as another example, that they have no idea what the
point of context menus is, either - right-clicking in the document
window brings up a *whole entire copy* of the main-window menu tree
hanging off the mouse pointer, which is utterly bonkers from a
usability standpoint - but I'd have to go back to check and make sure
that they didn't finally do something at least marginally saner since I
last looked.)
Either way you slice it, it's weird and superfluous ...
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 23:14:33 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
*Yawn* Or more likely, you took one look at an early version of GIMP
27 years ago, dismissed it, and have been complaining about it
without actually trying it again ever since.
That would be a convenient narrative for you, but no - I first picked it
up with v.2 when I was looking for a *nix-native Photoshop alternative,
and it was certainly the case then. I've been using it ever since (as
the version of Photoshop I had was clunky under WINE,) but I gave up on getting any kind of comparable workflow going for digital art.
That became irrelevant as I moved to more traditional media, which
worked out for me, but it's illustrative of the GIMP team's overall
approach to UI matters: blindly copy what better designers do in a
surface approximation, without bothering to understand *why* or study
the details to get things really *right.*
which is why working professionals just trying to Get Shit Done are
still willing to put up with Adobe's draconian bullshit.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote:
There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in
SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a
real need ...
So do it in multi-window mode.
Remember that Microsoft’s whole MDI/SDI rigmarole is a consequence of the brain-dead architecture of the Windows GUI in the first place. There is no reason for an application that runs on *nix systems to be restricted to
the same limitations.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:02:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Gimp and Blender are fantastic tools in the hands of people who know
them., I don't think I have sufficient years left to learn either
though.
I finally decided to sit down and start learning Blender back in about
2010. I found some nice tutorials on YouTube and elsewhere, and I remember
I went through a basic exercise, starting with the default cube, to create
a simple drinking glass. Loop cut here, loop cut there, add a subsurf modifier, apply the old Phong shading trick (“shade smooth”), make the material transparent (no concept of refractive index in the old BI
renderer), hit the render button ... voilà. This only took maybe a day or two.
I was hooked from that point on. Basically, every new thing I learned from that point let me create something even more wonderful than I had before.
The point being, it shouldn’t take you years to get to the point of doing something that can impress your friends.
The thing with 3D is, it requires a combination of geekiness to understand the technical details, and artistry to make something look good. I can’t claim I’ve got the artistry, but the technical details are fun.
I have posted some random doodles here
<https://www.deviantart.com/default-cube>.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote:
There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in
SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a
real need ...
So do it in multi-window mode.
Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP.
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote:
There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in
SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a
real need ...
So do it in multi-window mode.
Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP.
As far as I know, multi-window mode has been present in GIMP since GIMP began. The "everything packed into a single window" mode is a newer
add-on (and one that I have never enabled myself).
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote:
There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in
SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a
real need ...
So do it in multi-window mode.
Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP.
As far as I know, multi-window mode has been present in GIMP since GIMP began. The "everything packed into a single window" mode is a newer
add-on (and one that I have never enabled myself).
Since years, using GIMP, I was always presented with a single window.
Rich wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote:
There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in
SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a
real need ...
So do it in multi-window mode.
Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP.
As far as I know, multi-window mode has been present in GIMP since GIMP
began. The "everything packed into a single window" mode is a newer
add-on (and one that I have never enabled myself).
Since years, using GIMP, I was always presented with a single window.
Oh well.
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 08:25:46 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Since years, using GIMP, I was always presented with a single window.
It didn't calve off floating windows when you used it?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:34:29 -0700, John Ames wrote:
MDI is one of several solutions to an inherently clunky and
complicated UX problem: how do you manage a single application with
arbitrarily many documents, in a desktop environment with a bunch
of other stuff open as well?
We already have plenty of solutions to that. Look at the dual
concepts of “virtual desktops” and “activities” in KDE Plasma 6.x, >>for example. That allows you to switch between entire suites of >>document/application windows in a single operation.
That is something I have never understood, and have failed to find
example use cases: All documentation I found handles this feature in
half a paragraph, leaving it to the user to grasp the possible power
of the two-dimensional concept.
MDI is inherently clunky because Microsoft chose to impose the stupid UI >>convention that there must be a top-level “application window” to contain >>all the application-specific “document windows”. No other GUI is built >>that way.
They did that 30 years ago and did pioneering work in this regard,
just to reduce the blame we put on them today.
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:34:29 -0700, John Ames wrote:
MDI is one of several solutions to an inherently clunky and
complicated UX problem: how do you manage a single application with
arbitrarily many documents, in a desktop environment with a bunch
of other stuff open as well?
We already have plenty of solutions to that. Look at the dual
concepts of “virtual desktops” and “activities” in KDE Plasma 6.x, >>> for example. That allows you to switch between entire suites of
document/application windows in a single operation.
A feature (virtual desktops) which MS failed to provide natively until
W10's release in July 2015 (easily about 20+ years after multiple X
window managers provided the feature), and even then, in typical
Microsoft fashion, they completely failed to understand the usefulness
and built a half-assed amateur implementation.
That is something I have never understood, and have failed to find
example use cases: All documentation I found handles this feature in
half a paragraph, leaving it to the user to grasp the possible power
of the two-dimensional concept.
Unfortunately, yes, the docs. are not so great regarding usecases.
From the fvwm2 man page it is described as:
Fvwm provides both a large virtual desktop and multiple disjoint
desktops which can be used separately or together. The virtual
desktop allows you to pretend that your video screen is really quite
large, and you can scroll around within the desktop. The multiple
disjoint desktops allow you to pretend that you really have several
screens to work at, but each screen is completely unrelated to the
others.
And a bit further on:
THE VIRTUAL DESKTOP
Fvwm provides multiple virtual desktops for users who wish to use them.
The screen is a viewport onto a desktop which may be larger than the
screen. Several distinct desktops can be accessed (concept: one
desktop for each project, or one desktop for each application, when
view applications are distinct). Since each desktop can be larger than
the physical screen, divided into m by n pages which are each the size
of the physical screen, windows which are larger than the screen or
large groups of related windows can easily be viewed.
The (m by n) size (i.e. number of pages) of the virtual desktops can be
changed any time, by using the DesktopSize command. All virtual
desktops must be (are) the same size. The total number of distinct
desktops does not need to be specified, but is limited to approximately
4 billion total. All windows on a range of desktops can be viewed in
the FvwmPager, a miniature view of the desktops. The pager is an
accessory program, called a module, which is not essential for the
window manager to operate. Windows may also be listed using the
WindowList command or the FvwmIconMan module.
Fvwm keeps the windows on the desktop in a layered stacking order; a
window in a lower layer never obscures a window in a higher layer. The
layer of a window can be changed by using the Layer command. The
concept of layers is a generalization of the StaysOnTop flag of older
fvwm versions. The StaysOnTop and StaysPut Style options are now
implemented by putting the windows in suitable layers and the
previously missing StaysOnBottom Style option has been added.
Sticky windows are windows which transcend the virtual desktop by
"Sticking to the screen's glass". They always stay put on the screen.
This is convenient for things like clocks and xbiffs, so you only need
to run one such gadget and it always stays with you. Icons can also be
made to stick to the glass, if desired.
The 30 second elevator pitch is it provides some portion of the
advantage of multiple monitors, whether or not one has multiple
monitors connected.
In Fvwm2's version, it also adds the ability to pretend to have a much
larger monitor surface than one really has (was more useful back in the
day when photo viewers did not include "resize to screen" as an
automatic default).
The use I put them to (I have my Fvwm2 config providing six copies of
my two monitors, arranged in the pager as a 2 wide by three tall
rectange. And the individual copies of the pair of monitors loosely
have different "work" occurring in each. I do a fair amount of video editing, so one virtual desktop has all the windows/apps used for that task on
it. A second contains most of my Firefox windows (although Firefox
windows get opened in other desktops as needed). A third desktop has
my Firefox windows and other terminals/apps for eBay and Craigslist
sales.
So if I'm just 'web browsing' I'm usually on the virtual desk with most
of the Firefox windows (with none of the video editing or
eBay/Craigslist windows in the way). But if I'm video editing, I
switch to the video editing desktop, and all the 'general web browsing' windows disappear and all the video editing tools windows appear (each
left where I placed it).
I.e., it reduces the total "clutter" by giving you seperate "monitor
copies" upon which to park groups of related windows for a given task,
and then quickly switch back and forth.
A virtual version of the hobbiest who does both woodworking and
electronics, and has one workbench setup only for woodworking, and a
second workbench setup only for electronics. Except in that world that requires two physical workbenches and the space to set them up. The equivalent in the virtual world would be like the hobbiest having a
pair of buttons on the front of a single workbench, push one button and
the workbench would transform into "wood working workbench" (somehow), push the other button and the workbench would transform into "electronics workbench". But none of the woodworking tools are in the way while
using the electronics bench, and none of the electronics tools are in
the way when using the woodworking workbench.
MDI is inherently clunky because Microsoft chose to impose the stupid UI >>> convention that there must be a top-level “application window” to contain
all the application-specific “document windows”. No other GUI is built >>> that way.
They did that 30 years ago and did pioneering work in this regard,
just to reduce the blame we put on them today.
I chalked it up to them being 30 years too late in finally copying yet another good idea from Xwindows window managers into their crappy OS
product. Much of what is there since Win95 has been nothing more than
them ripping off ideas from Xwindows window managers, and then half
assing their version by failing to understand the full usefulness in
most instances.
You guys forget Xerox PARC, which Apple acknowledged and the Amiga
which was way ahead of the rest but got left behind ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 170:39:32 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,559 |