__/ [ Kelsey Bjarnason ] on Monday 26 March 2007 19:25 \__
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> "Always on top" is a single click away in KDE.
>
> Good. Now, let's be clear: this "always on top" means exactly that:
> *always* on top. So if I move my mail client to the foreground, the
> barking toolbar is still sitting on top of it.
No, it's always in a separate virtual desktop. You can even tweak advanced
KDE settings to force this.
> Sorry, *why* do I need an image editing toolbar on top of my mail client?
> Oh, right, I don't. If I click "always on top", though, that's what I
> get. So we go from GIMP's terminally brain-damaged UI to an option that
> screws up the interaction with *every* app? This is not good.
Your application workspace (like the main window wrapper in Paintshop /is/
the virtual desktop.
>> native DE is Windows XP. Features like "middle click to toggle" or "move
>> all windows to desktop X"
>
> Oh? Hmm. Let's try that.
>
> Odd... doesn't seem to exist. My taskbar has several entries... one for
> GIMP, one for each image, one for my news client. Right-clicking allows
> me to send _a_ window to another desktop, but nope, not _all_ windows.
> Nor would I want to; I'd like to send all _GIMP_ windows to another
> desktop, but since GIMP is too retarded to grasp that it actually owns the
> windows - except when it decides to lie to you then savage you - you can't
> actually do this.
Go to taskbar, which should preferably have things grouped, cotext menu
opened, then move all windows to desktop X...
> So where is this magic "move all windows to desktop X" which doesn't
> exist? Oh, it would if I opened a mess more windows and forced the
> taskbar to group them, or set the taskbar to group all instances, but that
> would be a third-rate hack, not a solution; the solution is to fix the
> GIMP's amazingly badly designed, dishonest UI.
*Smile* I'm beginning to think you have a little problem with GIMP's design
decisions...
>> What we ought to do is educate and train the children at school to use
>> the /proper/ desktop environment properly.
>
> Sounds good. Now, since the GIMP breaks virtually every UI rule in
> virtually every desktop, once the kids learn to use the desktop, they
> will, of course, quickly realize that the GIMP's UI is badly broken, even
> to the point of actually lying to the user. How is this supposed to
> address the issue?
People appreciate what they are used to. That's why it all should go back to
/education/.
>> however, complain to mom and dad that the PC at school is so much
>> better. "That's where the professional Linux tools are available,"
>> they'll exclaim.
>
> Hey, the GIMP is a professional tool; as I said, I think we cam all agree
> on that. The question is, why was it saddled with a UI so badly broken it
> actually *lies* to the user?
For people who grew up with the GIMP, all should be fine. Why not get the
plugin you desparetely crave? It exists. It's even prepaackged as GIMPShop.
> Funny, the folks who seem to want to defend GIMP (against what? I keep
> saying that GIMP, *as an app*, is good, it's simply the UI that sucks dead
> donkeys) never seem to address the UI failings.
Initially I learned to accept it and defend it. Later on, once accustomed, I
concluded it was better. I was more productive. Trying a Photosho-like tool,
as I did once last here, was very annoying. Cansading windows that do not
show me the images led to confusion.
> Explain to us, Roy, how you think a UI that actually lies to the user is a
> *good* thing.
Lies? Says you. :-)
> Assuming you don't recall the example... I'd opened a few images in GIMP.
> Because GIMP is too stupid to manage something as basic as keeping its
> main window visible, I wound up with multiple instances running. I
> happened to see the two tool selectors on screen. Well, hell, I don't
> need two, now do I? One is sufficient. Since the image windows are
> *first class windows* - not children of any parent - I can safely close
> one of the tool selectors. So I do. *poof*, there go the images which,
> based on the UI, *are not managed by this window*.
>
> So, the UI shows the windows as first-class citizens, whereas in fact they
> are not; they are second-class, managed by the tool selector, yet there is
> *no* visual linkage between them. Visually, closing one should have
> absolutely no effect, whatsoever, on the others... yet it does. Bad,
> broken, crippled.
Did you not get a warning about unsaved changes?
> Go ahead, explain to us all how an app UI that violates every concept of
> proper UI design is a fault of the *user*.
"proper UI design" is about consistency. Even using Windows everywhere is
about (de facto0) 'standardisation' and uniformity. Does it mean that
Windows gets /everything/ right? Security? Registry? Rebooting to update the
system?
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Computers are useless. They only solve problems"
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.39 0.84 0.78 3/136 16586
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
