Slashdot Mirror
Integrating OSS Graphics Apps
erikharrison writes "Newsforge had an article recently which proposed an interesting way to make an integrated OSS graphics "suite" - namely, get existing apps to standardize their look and feel. Now, in a short and insightful article, Bryce Harrington (of Inkscape fame) responds with specifics on the advantages and problems with this approach, and where development should go next in the pursuit of a complete OSS stack for graphic artists."
This newsforge article is directed at the community. That's nice.
The community isn't who needs to hear this. The community already uses these OSS graphics apps.
The people who a suite like this would appeal to are people outside of the community-- people who shop at wal-mart.
The people who need to hear this are businesses.
If some company could have the foresight to gather together the OSS graphics apps, clean them up, tie them together make their interfaces consistent with Mac OS X and Windows UI guidelines, put this all in a nice pretty box, and sell it for $30 at Wal-mart, there's a decent chunk of cash to be had in this. The fact the OSS community has already done all the hard work in developing these applications means you'd be able to offer a very attractive package for a discount-rack price. And the people who would buy something like this wouldn't know how to download and compile software themselves if they wanted to, so they won't mind they're paying for GPLed software.
Just a thought.
Never (hopefully). Photoshop has a wonderful interface based on L hand on the keyboard and R hand on the mouse. I like it, artists like it, and it works a hell of a lot better than any other complex raster graphics program that I know of.
-shrug- I know this is heresy to UI wonks, but there are some tasks that are too complex for an idiot-proof interface.
That's not to say that friendly and discoverable interfaces are unattainable, just that making an interface without _any_
learning curve might be unrealistic.
If anybody has achieved this for a featureful graphics-editing application, I haven't seen it yet... Photoshop is
incredibly non-intuitive in my limited experience with it, Paint Shop Pro only slightly less so... but then, I'm just
"used to" the Gimp.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
He even addresses the issue you are berating him for. From the article (titled "Achieving higher consistency between OSS graphics applications"):
-- This post (c) 2003, Knights who say Ni, LTD.
If, on the other hand, you have to have your graphic designers use several graphics applications, you've got a problem.
You have to make the decision of whether to give them 2-4 disparate applications, each with its own learning curve and quite distinct UIs, or to just give them a handful of Adobe products they already know and use, which are all fairly similar UI-wise.
At some point $1000 worth of software really is cheaper.
Maybe stop complaining and try to do something about it
Become part of the project.
Whining all the time will get people down on a project they have spent lto of time on.
So how about you go to them and say, "This program is great, be here are a couple things that I think should change and this is how I can help."
Open Source "Community"
------
insert sig here,here, and here
When these apps use standard data formats and simple IPC, we can write our own GUIs (or CLIs) and make them look like they're integrated. Without standard interop, they never will.
--
make install -not war
We'll never have very rigid standards in anything OSS because, I believe, programmers let their egos get in the way of creating the most usable program possible. They resent the notion of someone telling them how their project should function, and offen interpret any feedback as an attempt to stifle their creativity.
A lot of people like doing things their way, and that's fine! But when we see such fragmentation, forks, redundancy, etc. in OSS projects, we can't be surprised when interoperability is next to impossible.
So if you need to make your project work in a way that only you want it to work, don't be surprised when nobody else uses it.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Use the proper control for the task, and don't clutter your windows. Example: Don't use 2 radio buttons when one checkbox would suffice, don't use more than 5 radio buttons when a combobox would work better.
Also - for God's sake - LINE UP YOUR CONTROLS. If you're a Windows Developer, whether it's VB/C/C++/C#, it's just a matter of laziness to not align your controls. If you're using Java - use a layout manager or a number of layout managers. If you're using GLADE or QtDesigner, take the extra 3 seconds to line up your controls.
Also, tab order should be logical. Focus should go left to right, top to bottom (Arabic and Hebrew - see above). You should also support keystroke shortcut keys that make sense, in fact, if you can make them user definable - do it. Not everyone uses a Qwerty keyboard, and not everyone uses the US character map. Don't make the user move his or her hands unless necessary. Also, right click (or Ctrl-Click) context menus are great - use them.
Finally, some people prefer SDI style apps (OpenOffice.org, IE), others prefer dockable MDI style apps (Visual Studio), and some prefer a collection of floating windows (GIMP). Internally, it's all the same, just each window has a different parent - provide the option to your user. Organize your code properly to handle this from the beginning..
Also - don't pick a color scheme - let the system color it. Same for fonts - that red and green text might look pretty nifty, but to a colorblind person there's no discernable difference. In fact - don't use specific colors at all to convey status. Here in the States, Red means Stop, but this is not true in all cultures. Plus... some people are colorblind. Changing an indicator from green to red is meaningless to them.
This really should be common sense, but I can't tell you how much GUI stupidity I've fixed in my career. Most of it can be attributed to 2 things: laziness, and the GUI done as an afterthought. This is a problem, because while your code may kick all kinds of ass under the hood, if your GUI looks like it was done during amateur hour at the YMCA, the user will think the rest of your app is just as bad.
Also, don't be afraid to consult a graphic designer about your user interface, especially when it comes to icon selection. They excel at conveying that kind of information. Chances are, you have at least one in your marketing department.
Stop right there.
Since when was the purpose of Linux to 'supercede' Microsoft? Isn't it enough that Linux already provides a free, open alternative to an inferior operating system?
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Before remaking their UI:s and such, please make them at least to _work_ together.
First, make them all handle the same file-formats - i.e. make them handle PNG and SVG. Not just pixmap formats, and not just a buggy SVG-model that can't handle fonts properly, but a fucking working import/export.
Secondly, make copy/paste of non-text data work. Implement something like OLE and make it work in _all_ apps.
An example of a scenario that does not work, but _must_ work: Start out to create a diagram in dia. Export to svg. Import i inkscape. Change some details. Save. Import in kpresenter or OO Impress.
For additional complexity, add some pixmap picture made in GIMP (with variable transparency) to the picture in Inkscape. Perheaps use eps in some steps instaed of svg. Also, you could import the vector-graphics picture as a path in GIMP somewhere in the middle too. Be sure to check that foints work all the way through, even with non-USASCII-characters (We non USAians don't like it when our Ås, Äs and Ös gets mangled to Ãås or =4711 or some other garbage).
When done with this, _then_ I think it would be apropriate to hack on the UI:s to get the a bit more streamlined. But until then, I'd much rather have it just work and look uggly, than not work bu t look great.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
That "you don't like it, don't use it!" thing tends to be pretty silly as well. First of all, it's stupidly obvious. If someone's complaining, and when the ask-for-help/offer-criticism, the response they get is rude and insulting, they certainly won't be using that software for very long.
Plus, it usually appears side-by-side with some statement about, "You're so stupid, I bet you don't even use it, so why are you complaining?!" So... if you use it and you don't like it, stop using it. If you don't use because you don't like it, then you're stupid, so shut up. And all of this comes from the same group who preaches that we all have a moral responsibility to support "FREE (as in speech)" software.
Listen, user feedback is a valuable way to make your software better. If you don't want to do what it takes to make your software good, then don't try to promote your software, and don't get upset when no one wants to use it. Don't sit back, shooting down user feedback because the users aren't elite enough, and then complain that stupid users aren't using your software.
Again, this ISN'T a complaint about OSS in general, but only a minority in the community. There is a lot of OSS that is quite good. However, those pieces of software usually come out of a community that is open to user complaints and receptive to input. They clearly were not employing the "If you don't like it, go f$#% yourself," method of customer service.
Isn't the main complaint about WIndows and many products that run on it that they pander to the lowest common denomonator while simutaneously trying to pack in every concevable bell and whistle?
"Pandering to the lowest common denominator" and "being responsive to the needs of your users" are two different things.
Isn't it good enough to say that The GIMP is very powerful and works really well fo the people who use it?
Well, it's true enough the GIMP is good enough at doing what the people who use it use it to do... but that isn't a very meaningful statement. Are the GIMP developers happy with their small user-base, or would they like to see their program used more widely? Do they want it to be considered a PITA to use by graphic designers, or would they prefer that a Photoshop user sits down in front of the GIMP and says, "Wow, this is nice."
The GIMP is just an example of something larger that we're talking about, though. The real question is, is OSS just supposed to be something that a small number of geeks tinker with, or is it supposed to be something my mom can use too? If you want my mom to use your software, than you should address the issues my mom will have with your software. If you don't want to do that, then don't be surprised if my mom start talking smack about how your software sucks for what she wants to do. Either way, the whole "holier than thou" attitude isn't impressing her.