Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 16:50 +0200, peter sikking wrote:
>
>> The choice it to make either the dialog or 'no dialog' a tricky power
>> feature. I choose, without a doubt, the former.
>
> I explained you why that choice is not acceptable. If you did not
> understand my last mail, why don't you just ask?
I think we are talking now past each other...
>> When I look fundamentally at what layers are, the optional character
>> of all functionality (name, size, fill) offered by the dialog,
>> combining that
>> to realise the percentage of times that each will be useful and the
>> alternatives to reach the same goal, take into account that this is
>> part of user request #5, then dealing with this dialog dozens of
>> times
>> a day is a burden on GIMP's user experience.
>
> Please stop reiterating these buzz-words; it starts to become annoying
> after a while.
If user interaction problems need to be solved, then it needs to be
discussed in user interaction terms. If I would translate this totally
into user-space or developer-space, then it would trivialise the issue.
So that's it then, for this issue...
--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
