On Sunday 13 February 2005 08:25, David Neary wrote: > Hi, Ok... Iá say I agree fully with Dave's comments. I'd have something to add here: > > One usability change which would be great, but I know that it is > a lot trickier, is to have the selection be both a selection and > adjustable at the same time. It would be great to be able to drag > the corners (or even, why not, the edges) of a selection to move > it around & resize it dynamically, but have it actually be a > selection if I do something like apply a filter. The question is > whether the adjustableness would only apply to the last element > added to the selection (ellipse, rectangle, or why not, > freehand?) or to the bounding box of the entire active selection. > I haven't thought a whole lot about it. > Great - I think that if the selection was not replaced by the rectangle, the adjustment could be - for the time being - on the boundng box of the selection. I say "for the time being" - because the olny satisfactory UI I can perceive for this is to have each element on the selection adjustable - that means that sucessive erctangle selects, ellipse, free hands, select by colors, use of quickmask, etc, should be individually "pickable" and re-edited. The only way this functionality might be implemented is if - or rather - when - Pippin's suggestions for what could be called an 'action' model for the drawables is implemented. That is - the GIMP would record not only the actuall raster data, but each action performed on a drawable as a "data independent" model. That would also allow for a great macro recorder, out of order undo/redo, per drawable undo/redo - and this - a fully readjustable selection. Maybe we could put some more thinking in how this proposed model would be achievable. > Cheers, > Dave. Regards, JS -><-
