GIMPsters, I am very busy, so I am going to weed out the actual contributions of y'all and respond to that: Sven wrote: > We absolutely need to find a solution here that works for everyone. very well said. that's why the gimmicks section is in the spec. Thorsten raised a good point about the actual geometry of the 'no image' window. Of course this window is a nice drag and drop target for all those workflows that go to other apps of filebrowsers to open the next file or files. SO window not to small, not too obnoxious. Got me thinking again about always going to the minimal size when last image is closed. cool. Thorsten wrote: > The opposite side of "what are we going to do now" would be "see > how you > get along, I will not raise a finger to help you". Hmmm, menu commands, drag and drop on window and taskbar icon, menu shortcuts. A nice size window to find back in the window stack. saul wrote: > The "no image window" should have a status line, as this provides > useful feedback with regard to the hover-over hints of the menu > commands. Good point. But then I realised which menu items would be available at all. Still thinking about this one. Bill wrote: > If the user closes the final image by clicking the "X" in > the upper right corner of the window, we must close that window or we > violate a fundamental rule of window handling. Another good point to think about carefully. I evaluated both possibilities and in my minds eye leaving the window open is more elegant, less rupture. Sven wrote: >> I am talking about >> making some stuff transparent against a window background, hardly >> rocket science for GIMP... > > Even if this was possible, I still fail to see why this would be > useful. > To be honest, I am completely baffled to hear such a thing proposed > from > a user interface professional. What exactly, except for eye candy, is > the purpose of this? Let me state that I wrote my first email in this thread because (yes) I am struggling what to put there. It is easy for me to make the list of gimmicks that not should go in there. Every on of those sucks so much... But what is left? The window needs to be there, already outlined above the functions it does. So instead of just plain bgcolor, let's do something a bit more stylish, without drawing any attention to it. Seriously, I would like to hear contributions here what to do (read the gimmick list first: <http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/No_image_open_specification#no_gimmicks>) >> the slider is a dead serious key in the whole experience. to >> seamlessly >> track the mood of users over a a working day (or a hobby night) is >> worth gold in user interaction. > > Would you please care to explain this? I am going to let the slider rest until the window content is sorted out. Then redesign the whole package so it all fits together... Alexandre wrote: >> And we can't (yet) make GTK+ widgets translucent. > Are you 100% sure? > > http://www.breakitdownblog.com/gnome-murrine-theme-gets-transparent- > widgets/ that is cool (but not for this UI design). I would like to know how universally (all linux WMs, windoze, OS-X) that can be rolled out... --ps founder + principal 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
