Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Integrating OSS Graphics Apps

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the gathering-tide-spreading-cheer dept.

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."

7 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. What I think should be focused on first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is getting the GIMP's UI to standardize on "NOT SUCKING"

    Get back to me when you've gotten somewhere with that

    P.S. Repeating "you're just not used to it" doesn't make UI problems go away. If you can't use a program until you learn to overlook its idiosyncrasities, that's pretty much the *definition* of a bad interface

    1. Re:What I think should be focused on first by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's very easy to spot a bad UI, but a lot harder to actually pin down why its so bad. UI design is hard. It just looks easy.

      One of the problems with GIMP is that the toolbar feels very divorced from the wok area. While the X philosophy is that windows just sit there on the desktop, there are better ways of doing this. Why does clicking on a button on the Tools window affect things on the paint window? It's a different window. How many other applications do this? Most X applications don't work like GIMP. Gimp is trying to combine the Photoshop control layout with the X methodology. It would make things easier if they put the controls, work area and menus in the same area as panels. This would work for X. I don't know if its a good solution. Like I said - UI design is hard.

      But this is still wrong for Windows. Windows applications use MDI. Consistency is part of good UI design.

    2. Re:What I think should be focused on first by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is no need for the interface to be "idiot-proof." It just needs to be good. And there's no task too complex for a good interface.

      Consider Final Cut Pro. Editing video is among the more complex tasks people do with computers. Lots of tracks, lots of elements, many transitions, stuff overlapping with other stuff, keys, color corrections, audio effects ... it's a lot of stuff.

      Final Cut Pro has one of the best user interfaces for its task. Just the basic way windows work is great. Put two windows next to each other: they snap in place. You can grab the edge between them where they meet and drag it: both windows resize. Arrange four windows so they meet at a common corner, and you can drag just the corner point. All four windows resize.

      The net result is that you can change the way the windows are arranged to suit your project and your screen, but you can very easily make maximum use of your screen space. No floating palettes or windows at all, so nothing is ever in your way. And the interface works as well at 1280x1024 as it does at 2560x1600, as well for 2.35:1 content as for 4:3 content.

      The user-interface code that makes windows work that way is a framework called ProKit. It's compatible with AppKit, so it's incredibly easy to write programs that take advantage of it. If only Apple would release it as a standalone SDK instead of just using it for their internal products.

  2. How about... by Gruneun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Each person makes the best possible tool for the application and not stifle creativity or new solutions to the UI by trying to make things "marketable" as a package.

    If it's good, users will use it. If it's not, making it part of a suite won't guarantee that they will.

  3. palette plugins by soupdevil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The lack of pantone compatibility is a major roadblock. I suggest that the OSS design apps create an open palette plugin format, which would allow users to create and to load in palettes. Then some enterprising soul, who would of course have no connection to the apps themselves, could create a pantone-compatible plugin, which could be downloaded separately from the apps.

    This is similar to what happens in the audio world with mp3 encoders.

  4. Re:Where not-sucking == like photoshop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a frustrated Linux only user, I'm with you. I started in imaging using the gimp and ended up raised thinking it was MEANT to be hard working with pixels.

    After years with GIMP I used Photoshop (my sister has a Powerbook). If there's ever a poster boy for the advantages of proprietary software it's photoshop. It's a dream to use, and for the work I do so much faster on smaller hardware than my gimp box. It uses RAM like nobody's business, but then I buy my hardware in the expectation the software will make use of it.

    Now I'm still stuck with GIMP on my own box, and finding it harder to justify my use of it by some kind of moral & price advantage when it's really stifling my need for it to work as a graphic tool.

  5. Wish Lists, Cloning, and Integration by Eberlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wish lists are nice. They let developers know what features they want in a particular project. However, to paraphrase the Wesnoth dev team, "we wrote the program the way we did because that's how we like it. If we use some of your suggestions, it's because we like those, too." These folks write code to scratch their own itch. Scratching YOUR itch is merely a by-product.

    Yes, software use and usability is a good thing, but in the end, it comes down to whether coders want to implement it or not.

    Cloning: most "users" have a reference point when they use software. People used to windows will find a mac interface foreign and "wrong." Photoshop users will start out not being used to how GIMP works. Same with Word users and OO.org -- just the nature of the game. The real question is: do we have to clone popular interfaces? I suppose. At least maybe some sort of "Photoshop Interface" toggle. Then again you can be a smug developer and say "Use it or not. Go 'way."

    Integration: While we're making a list, here's mine:
    I want a Quanta that integrates to GIMP which supports editable text mask layers, editable bevel/embossed layers, and that whole color management thing. Integrate that with a managed FTP client thingy kinda like Screem advertises, too. Oh, and integrate that into something that can do Flash animations, too...which will dynamically embed itself onto a Quanta-generated xhtml-valid page. And and and I want a pony!!!

    The integration idea is nice. I suppose there's an argument to be made to integrate now and polish later but I think the focus is to make each individual part work well first, then consider integrating later.