2012/2/17 Aleksandar Kovač <alex.open.design@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> On 12-02-17 0:57 , Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Robert Krawitz<rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:51 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To Martin: even Save and Save as on toolbar saves one click. Not
>>>>> saying about such repitive operations as Rotate, Resize, Auto levels
>>>>> etc. Now trivial photo treatment is done with the whole lot of clicks!
>>>>> I'm pretty sure their count can be reduced thrice with toolbars.
>>>
>>> Generally, you're not doing those things more than once per image (well,
>>> when downscaling a large image by a lot -- say, reducing a 100 megapixel
>>> panorama to a web-size thumbnail -- I do it in multiple passes of no
>>> more than 50% each, which seems to reduce jaggies and moire patterns).
>>
>> Yes once per image, you right. But this doesn't change the point. The
>> click count from menu is at least twice, if from submenu then 3x. Also
>> such functions as 'Autolevel' is 3-4 clicks. When I have 10 photos I
>> need to process in some manner if I spend on one image 20 clicks, it
>> will be 200 clicks. From toolbar it would be, say, 70-90 clicks. And
>> please don't suggest me to write batch script (I know you have that in
>> Gimp).
>
>
>
>
> Hi People,
>
> Just to add another Slav by the name of Alex in the mix. I smell a
> conspiracy! :)
>
> On a topic of counting mouse-clicks and slightly off topic considering GIMP
> UI, since it mentions 'kitchens'.
>
> If anyone, anytime soon, happens to travel back in time. Please, find the
> guy or girl who started the mouse-click counting as a measure for 'quality'
> of user interfaces. Once you find him/her, please have them
> institutionalized. As a precedent. When you get back, I will give you a
> subscription to any dirty, non-dirty or cooking mag of your choice. For
> life.
>
> Mouse-click counting is a nice heuristic tool ('heuristic' being just a
> fancy word for something that amounts to 'not even a guideline') with a
> history brimming with stupendous displays of misuse. It causes obsessive
> counting disorder, too. This obsession seems to be contagious, spreading out
> from the world of 'measure/manage/makebelieve' infecting hard working, nice,
> decent people everywhere.
>
> For Alexei, and for myself, the other day I was counting the hits needed to
> hammer down a nail. About 6 hits per-nail on average! And not much of a nail
> it was. Inefficient hammer, inefficient nail, inefficient me? And the very
> keyboard I am typing on right now demands a stroke for each letter.
> Shouldn't it recognize my words almost automatically by now, somehow?
> Saddened by the inefficiency of the real world, I sat down to write; using
> good old ink pen and paper. Sure enough, I started counting the strokes! Too
> many strokes. Try playing a piano - minimum 3 keys pressed for a lousy
> chord. Take a walk... The steps! Running? Talking? Yikes!
>
> Repetitive little actions here are a way to get the things done. Not the
> only way, mind you. Just a way. A means to an end. There are many ways to
> get those things done. Use glue instead of nails, dictate a letter, use a
> sampler instead of a piano, ride a bike...
>
> There are many existing ways we can control a machine. There are also many
> open pathways we can explore to further the ways we control the machines
> (open source is a right setting for that, I think). Counting mouse-clicks
> and asserting that reducing mouse-clicking must be 'good', and that 'good'
> equals 'toolbars' is a mighy feat of jumping to a narrow conclusion. The
> mouse itself is an atavistic piece of 1-pixel pushing device. Ingenious
> device, but only a way to control a machine. At least those lucky enough to
> have both arms should be wondering every day: 'Why am I forced to push this
> 1 stinky pixel around when I have 2 arms and ~10 articulated fingers, a
> brain and motoric ability to support it? Can I have at least 2 mice, pretty
> please?' No, really, we should, and some do.
>
> 'Toolbars' are just a way of controlling the software, coming from a dogma
> that (almost) anything that can be performed by an application should be
> quickly accessible all the time. Generally, very questionable claim today,
> but admittedly useful sometimes to some people.
>
> When it comes to designing software and it's interfaces, frustration and
> inspiration flows in our effort to design a 'perfect tool'. But thinking it
> 'a tool' is a mistake from the onset, I believe. Software, especially open
> source software, is often not a mere 'tool' but a a workshop, a worktable, a
> kitchen... Designing a 'perfect kitchen' or a piece of software is a bit
> more complex. It is a subject to customizations, arrangements and workflows.
> In fact, if I am not wrong, it is meant to be re-arranged and customized 'a
> posteriori'.
>
> With this 'kitchen' metaphor in mind, I feel that 'demanding' mouse-click
> reduction via toolbars is like entering not ideally, but nicely equipped and
> stocked chef's kitchen, shouting at the fridge and the utensils, demanding
> for a '****** Big Mac already!'
>
That is one great piece of rubbish! :-) Because I'm telling about
mouse-clicks from my personal experience. And I know about how much
time they take because I'm using a lot of many different GUI. And when
the GUI demands many mouse clicks, I note the inconvenience right
away. This is my personal experience as of user of graphical
environments for 15 years. And this poem looks like the training in
essay skills.
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
