On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Martin Nordholts<enselic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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. > > I have also thought a bit on how to clean up the concept of brushes, and in > my mind, we could do it like this: > > We make a "brush" be just a bitmap/svg/whatever (possibly also an > animation). Note that a brush would not even have a spacing as the current > GIMP gbr brushes. Right, so what you call a brush here is really more like a 'tip shape' (assuming that tip shapes can change over time, which seems reasonable) definitely +1 on the transferral of spacing -- that illogicality is really annoying of having that lone option there. This would mean that we would also need to transfer the concept of ranks -- that is, a tip shape could specify what ranks it specified, and the actual meaning of those ranks would be specified in the other part you specified (the one I'm tempted to call 'tool tip') Mind you, I'm not sure that the flexibility of GIH brushes is a good tradeoff for the increase in complexity introduced by essentially multidimensional arrays of brush images; If it is, then it would help a lot to have a better way to lay them out (layer grouping functionality sounds like a good fit here -- one grouping level per rank. > > A "brush preset" is a brush + dynamics, and this is actually what the user > typically picks. If we would have tags for brush presets, we would be one > step closer to make brush options be part of the brush, so to speak. .. and I can't help thinking of this as a 'tool tip' :) This sounds like the best idea yet on this subject. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
