On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:21:46 +0200, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 00:08 +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > > Anyway, my main argument is that it would be more consistent with the > > other tools: the other selection tools, the transform tools and the > > zoom tool only consider the state of the modifiers before the first > > click. Subsequent changes to the modifiers are ignored even if you > > spend quite some time modifying the selection, the transform parameters > > or the zoom area: only the initial state matters. > > All the other tools create the selection immidiately. All tools consider > the state of the modifiers at the moment you create the selection. > Whether that is the first click or not seems irrelevant to me. This is not really true for the rectangle or ellipse selection tools or even the free select tool (lasso). I think that you are taking the developer's point of view here, considering when the data structures are created rather than the user's workflow. If you look at the code and see that the selections (the data structures) are created only once the shape has been fully defined, then it makes sense to say that the modifiers deciding if the new selection should be added to, subtracted from or intersected with the old one should only be considered when the data structures exist. But if I think about how I work with selections, I usually do the following: I start with a selection created with one of the "complex" tools (iscissors, path converted to selection, magic wand or siox) and then adjust this selection by adding or removing some areas with one of the "quick" (one click) tools such as free select or rect select. Sometimes I also use one of the "complex" selection tools for adjusting the initial selection. In these cases, the decision to add/subtract/intersect is always taken before the first click with the other selection tool: I start creating the new selection because I know that I will add or subtract it from the existing one. >From that point of view (user's workflow), it makes sense to consider the state of the Shift and Ctrl modifiers when the decision to add or subract is taken, which is (at least for me) before the first click. In other words, I think about the modifiers when I start to define what the new selection will be rather than when the selection (the internal data structure) is created. This is only my point of view and I may be biased, that's why I suggested some usability tests to check what is best. If we do not have the time or resources for that, we could at least ask for the opinion of our resident artists or maybe discuss that on gimp-user. From my point of view, I consider the usage of modifiers in iscissors and siox to be inconsistent with other selection tools and I would like to fix that. But I also understand your point of view, which is closer to how the code works. > This wouldn't have happened to you if you have had a look at the cursor > changes. I know that the cursors are there to help, but it is too easy for me to forget to press Shift or Ctrl again when I finish drawing the shape, maybe because I have the wrong expectations about how the tool should behave. Besides, the cursors are actually wrong and misleading for siox. Compare what happens with one of the simple selection tools (rectangle, ellipse or free select) and with siox. With free select, I do this: - Press Shift to add to the current selection: the cursor shows a "+". - Click to start defining the new selection, release Shift: the "+" is still there while I move the mouse around. - Release the mouse button to finish defining the selection: the new selection is created and added to the current one. With siox (which uses exactly the same cursor), I do this: - Press Shift to add to the current selection: the cursor shows a "+". - Click to start defining the new selection (for siox, the first step is to define the area around the object), release Shift: the "+" is still there while I move the mouse around. - Release the mouse button to continue with the second step of siox (paint over the foreground): now the "+" is gone. - Press Enter to finish defining the selection: the new selection is created and replaces the current one, despite what the initial cursor was showing. I just discovered this bug, thanks to your suggestion to look at the cursors. Before attempting to fix it, I think that we should decide what is the correct behavior: considering the state of the modifiers before or after the selection is defined (user's point of view) vs. before or after the selection is created (developer's point of view). > [...] BTW, does anyone object to removing the possibility of turning > context dependant cursors off? They are very important and I can't > really imagine that someone would want to work without them. I thought that one of the reasons for having this as an option was that some displays did not allow them or did not work well with them (severe performance degradation due to lack of acceleration for this feature). If this is not a concern anymore, than I agree with the removal of this option. If some people have a bad vision or a bad screen and have problems seeing the changes in the cursors, then hopefully the new status bar messages should help them. -Raphaël _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
