On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:55:56PM +0000, Ken Bateman wrote: > I've independently been thinking of a similar imaging core for the last month or > so. Of course, I think it's a good idea. Logically, behind the scenes, > everything should be in the form of a DAG. But I think that a raw DAG does not > make up a part of a good user interface. > > Spreadsheets are in essence a DAG for performing numerical calculations, and I > would suggest that the user interface should take the form of a spreadsheet > since this is a model familiar to many users. Some cells would contain source > rasters, other cells would contain paths, vector graphics, or masks (or even > references to other functions), some cells would contain a function that > referred to other cells for inputs, some cells could contain labels or comments, > and most cells would be empty. The spreadsheet user interface is most useful when the data naturally fits into arrays. For many everyday applications, this is the case. I don't see it for graphics, unless you are actually talking about a mosaic. If you ignore the conventional meaning of the word "cell" in the above, though, what you have is very like a programming language. The traditional UI for a programming language has been ASCII text. For a different one try a tree structure with crossreferences to labelled branches. Something like that has been done for the scripting language in some popular war game -- I'm not sure I ever knew which. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Gegl-developer mailing list Gegl-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer
