On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Martin Nordholts<enselic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/22/2009 05:48 PM, Christophe Buffenoir wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I use the GPS set of presets and I think that tags system will be good >> on presets and not only on brushes. >> >> Nothing is done yet, the screens are just fakes to show my purpose. But, >> even if I've not enough spare time to do it quickly, I can code it. > > I think tagging of presets makes sense, in particular since brush > dynamics keep getting more and more sophisticated. > I immediately thought of Akira Shirakawa's proposition to move a majority of paint tool options into the concept of brushes. IMO doing that and using the already existing tagging for brushes would simplify the user interface and also the user experience. (like I've mentioned before in reply to Akira's topic, We have an example of how to make this work very well in MyPaint; the way MyPaint treats brushes really 'fits my brain' IMO and makes painting processes simple to think about, uncomplicated, and quickly done.) IMO tagging is sort of a patch over the real problem: part of the qualities influencing a brush are in the brush itself, with others in the tool options. Maybe we need tagging, but for the current situation, tagging would make the separation less ugly, while leaving the disjunction of 'brush' meaning in place. http://www.nabble.com/Improved-brush-editing-interface-mock-up-td24628609.html _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
