On Tuesday 20 February 2007 16:28, peter sikking wrote: snip > > boy, am I glad we went out and did workplace observation as part > of the project I am running. that means I can say with confidence > that the brush is the way to go. actually healing is applied > extremely local, with the tiniest brush, to take out only the > irregularity, and not to destroy the all important texture around > this spot. > > > In most cases the lasso tool would do. > > Since the healing tool is of more 'global' nature, being forced to > > use a local tool like a brush seems misleading. > > > > What could make sense would be to use a selection (one in the > > destination area and a translated one in the source area) first, > > compute the 'healed' area without pasting it into the destination > > area, yet. Now the brush could be optionally used to copy parts > > of the healed area into the destination area. > > now that we got the brush part nailed, we need to find something for > the user to set the source area. To me as an interaction architect > the healing brush looks like a smart clone tool on steroids. > > that means we can use exactly the same interaction as the clone tool. This is exactly the way this works in photoshop and I can't think of any reason to do it differently. In fact this is exactly what I would expect as a user. snip > "the healing brush looks like a smart clone brush on steroids." > the solution is already there in the clone tool... > > --ps > > principal user interaction architect > man + machine interface works > > http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
