Hello Alexandre, On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre.prokoudine@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Enforcing vision is what software development is all about :) You've > been using GIMP for ten years after all, you were supposed to know > that :) I can see software development as making it more usable and functional, enforcing things is another story, especially when its regressive. > As for *ists, you got it exactly right: usabilists were involved. So, the usability theory now opposes what user think is usable because theory knows better..? Are you serious about that? I guess don't you know what people can do to fulfill the model..? Unfortunately logic says that proving something does not make is true, but proving it wrong makes it false. > In the new UI there is no way the toolbox menu can be useful. Really. > It's a dinosaur and it was about time for some meteorite to save human > embarassment of dealing with prehistoric creatures -- all claws, > fangs, pointy tales and whatnot. Please accept this change. Ok then, according to your way of thinking, I could call myself a neohuman and kill all other human beings because they are dinosaurs and dealing with these prehistoric creatures is embarrasment. Nothing more misleading :-( Development is totally not about erasing past... so I definitely dont agree with you. (here goes the othe part) >There's a lot of "I" in your mail, but please understand that >judgments of one person are not enough. Changes always mean that >somebody is going to be pissed off. Providing backwards compatibility >for behavior in an application means that this application becomes a >horrible mess, as a rule with no exceptions. There is "I" because these were the cases "I" used the menu in the toolbox, just as "I" was asked to do. I stated clearly that there are more people using this menu and they can have their own vision and habits on the usage. I also can deduct from what you say that your changes are to piss off people. Unncecessairly. What "I" told in point 1 is that these changes could have been done as an "option" to make both sides happy. You all usabilitists say "there is no way" instead searching for a way to make it happen. If you say that this menu is too wide to work on one column toolbox, then make a button that call top of this menu (ie. there is File, Edit, ... as the menu after button is pressed). This is possible and I can see on the Brainstoriming page that there are again ideas to make it happen. Regarding the backward compatilibility, I guess that you do not work on x86 machine (or even x86 equipped Mac product) and you have nothing to do with backward compatibility in your everyday life - no money, no mathematics, no four wheel car, no house with entrance door, no applications that were written more than 5 years ago....? Again please take a look at the x86 architecture, or Blender file format that contains structure definition so the file can be opened with different versions of the software. This is "by design" and this makes things work and people use them in a prodictive way with no disturbance - it is engineer work to make it faster and better, and hide it from end user he/she cam use it as is used to. Backward compatibility is what makes things work, this is also true for all science and technology. >Most of your points are raised because the toolbox menu was your kind >of central point of access to features. This is no longer true in the >new design and (arguably) cannot stay true. This is no longer true in your desing, but this is true for people that used this feature and still want to make use of it. I think you try to protect your own truth by all means necessary, listening no feedback from the users. Tell me please why didn't you create your own fork if you didn't like the GIMP way? Forks are when there is no agreement with the vision - I can clearly see that you enforce this vision destroying old functionalities. So what is this discussion about anyway - its not about bringing the damn menu back, but about some people forcing others to do what they want with no option. The patches are ready, the user feedback is there - what is the point, why it cannot happen - because your new bright vision is better than others. >Until optional single-window mode is finished (2.8, hopefully), my >recommendation to you would be to hold your judgments. What you are >seeing in 2.6 is an in-between state, a milestone. In other words, >things are changing. You might actually like the final result. Be >patient. OK then, I will wait for 2.8 and see if it is at least as usable for me as 2.4 was, because 2.6 is definitely not. There are some nice things implemented in 2.6 though. I just don't understand why some vision is enforced with no user feedback and no user option - from the programmer perspective it is even not hard to implement, either as a menu again, or button that calls the menu. I you hate this menu so much, you can also introduce programmable shortcuts or programmable buttons that could call menu elements - including the menu as a whole. Open also means open to ideas. Regards, Tomek Cedro -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
