Usability Eye for The GIMP Guy

TuringTest writes "The GIMP has recently signed up for evaluation by OpenUsability.org. 'Many user interface decisions are being made by developers who often have little experience in user interface design. In order to improve this, we need the help of experts. To find them, GIMP has joined the OpenUsability project. Here's a platform where Open Source developers and usability experts get together.' They also report their first experiences with the paper prototyping of a new Import PDF dialog."

Comments

Great.

[Poromenos1]

It's true that many times the developers that make the GUI decisions aren't fit to, because the average user doesn't have the same view of programs as a developer does. It's great that they're partnering with another site to promote usability (especially for the GIMP, which I find to be a bit overwhelming). I wish more programs did that.

Re:Great.

[Knome_fan]

I agree.

I just wanted to add that I really think that openusability is a great project and really needed.

Rock on guys!

Re:Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. I can honestly say there isn't a single product of any kind I swear at more than XP/Office. The usability experts have crammed in so many automatic features based on, at least in my case, unwarranted assumptions that I waste more time trying to undo something Word did for example than I would have spent manually formatting. The dynamics of notification when running a hidden taskbar, the way the OS ignores user input when focusing on a network task, or lies about the existence of files in a share to make it appear they copied faster, the juggling of configuration menus with every OS release, 'personalized mnues' which change the order of shorcut locations unrequested and many other 'features' make time spend using XP a major frustration.

Re:Great.

[llefler]

The problem many developers have is they write interfaces based on what the program does, while the user is concerned with what they want to accomplish.

For example, using Konqueror for file management on my Linux box. A friend occasionally sends me files, so I gave him an FTP account on my server. I'm logged in, I want to move the files from his user directory to mine. Security wise, I know that my user account shouldn't have access to his user account. But I'm admin so I have access to root.

Looking at it from a developers perspective, I should start Konq in super user mode, move the files, and set the owner/group.

From a user's perspective, I should be able to click 'super user' in an existing instance of Konq, type the password, move the files and expect the user/group to be set automatically. I don't need to think about the details.

Re:Great.

[CableModemSniper]

No, you should just move the files, and then be prompted that to do this you need to be root and it should ask you for the password. You definitely shouldn't need to go to superuser before you start performing the action.

Re:Great.

[LifesABeach]

From my view point, talk is cheap. So when my eldest daughter wanted to know more about Adobe Illistrator, I said her allance wouldn't cover the purchase price of this product. But if she was open to other ideas, she might want to try Gimp. She did, and she likes it. I don't mind cost of 'Gimp in 24 hours', and the 'Gimp Bible' with 2nd day shipping. But now I have to take her and her friend to an Animie convention a week from monday to pick up goodies, and picture ideas. God help me, I'm going in...

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

When the report comes back saying that it should have a proper window instead of floating toolbars, will they say "they weren't using it right, they are just used to Photoshop!" like they usually do?

Seriously, people have been complaining about the interface since day one, and the GIMP developers don't pay any attention. That's their prerogative of course, but if they aren't willing to listen, why are they signed up for this?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods must be on crack, It was meant as a joke. here is what the parent post in its full.

They shouldn't have to listen. If you can't use the GIMP, then you're too stupid to even exist let alone use a computer.

Oh

wait a second

THAT INCLUDES ME!

*me drinks Rubbing Alcohol*
&*$^@&*(#$^*(@&#$^ No Carrier. ;)

Re:Question

[RustNeverSleeps]

On a Mac, floating toolbars instead of a "proper window" is standard interface design. Mac applications are supposed to be document-centric, not application-centric like Windows. For many people (myself included) this seems like a much better way to handle things, and better fits the original desktop metaphor introduced with the Mac.

Of course I agree that the GIMP needs some improvement in the UI department, but the floating toolbars are good, at least in the Mac version.

Re:Question

[hazzey]

The developers probably want a professional, concise, consistient report. Not the random mess of thousands of emails and message board posts about some nit-pick that one user has that anther user loves. There is a lot to be said for having a clear direction to work towards.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about? Photoshop doesn't use a single window, it uses multiple. Just like The GIMP does.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be sorry if they choose to listen to you (plural) and to put everything into one big window. Managing windows is not the job of the application, it's the job of the window manager. And I want to be able to choose which window manager I use. I want to be able to use a tabbed window manager, and to tab together different views of the same picture. I want to be able to mutate menu entries into windowed toolbars, and dock them together. None of this would be possible with a Windows-MDI-like interface.

On the other hand, people who want a windows-photoshop interface have, mostly, two reasons:

- Most of them don't use a decent window manager, but a crappy thing like metacity (of Windows' window manager), that doesn't have edge resistance, docking, tabs, or anything usefull except a "maximise" button.

- Some of them find confusing the fact that their Gimp windows are mixed with other windows. This would be solved simply by using a different desktop for Gimp windows.

I understand these reasons, and this is why Gimp sucks on Windows: the WM is bad, and managing many windows is hard. But Gimp's main target is not Windows users, it's X users. Those can use a decent WM, and enjoy Gimp's wonderful interface.

Re:Question

[Liam Slider]

On a Mac, floating toolbars instead of a "proper window" is standard interface design. Mac applications are supposed to be document-centric, not application-centric like Windows. For many people (myself included) this seems like a much better way to handle things, and better fits the original desktop metaphor introduced with the Mac. Of course I agree that the GIMP needs some improvement in the UI department, but the floating toolbars are good, at least in the Mac version.

I'm no Mac user. I use Mandrake (I still can't bring myself to say I use Mandriva) Linux, and GNOME. And I certainly see nothing wrong with floating toolbars (maybe it's because GNOME is the most mac-like of the Unix/Linux DEs so there's similar point of view...). In fact, it can be argued that this particular design element is superior to Photoshop with regards to usability for certain tasks. GIMP may need some work on it's interface, but I don't think this is one area it needs it in.

Besides, if anyone wants a Photoshop-like interface for GIMP, let them use and support GIMPshop and stop complaining about GIMP.

Re:Question

[Takumi2501]

Mod parent up.

Personally, I'd be upset if the GIMP were to switch to an MDI-style interface. It would probably also result in a lot of extra code to handle all of the stuff that is now taken care of by the OSes window manager. Although, I could be wrong.

Personally, I'd prefer to see that effort put into adding new innovative features, but that's just me.

Re:Question

[Tribbin]

I'm quite sure there is a photoshop-style gimp-branch out there simply because it's a propable step in the open-source world. (?)

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

On a Mac, floating toolbars instead of a "proper window" is standard interface design.

I guess you've never used a Mac then? I can't think of a single Mac application that works like that. Not one.

Re:Question

[Blakey Rat]

It used to be the way things were done back in MacOS Classic (versions 7-9 or so), but it's not so much in OS X. Although a few apps still work that way, the vast majority have become more "Windows-like," putting all the functionality in a single window ala iTunes or XCode.

Back when they started designing GIMP, assuming it was designed and didn't just congeal, that would have been how the majority of Mac applications worked.

Part of the reason the palette system works in MacOS Classic is that when you bring an application to the front in Classic, you bring *all* its windows to the front, not just the one you clicked on. Applications were in "layers." This means you'd never have a situation where you could see your image, but not see your toolbar. That's changed in OS X, and it never existed in Linux or Windows.

So, at best, GIMP is trying to be like a MacOS Classic application and failing because none of the newest window managers treat application windows as "layers." (You can get this effect in OS X by clicking the icon on the Dock instead of the window to bring things forward, though.)

Re:Question

[Bob_Geldof]

If people are so ticked of about GIMP's UI, how about using GIMPshop, you can even have Photoshop shortcuts. I imagine that Adobe spend quite a penny on UI, so why not steal what they've shown to be good.

Re:Question

[fossa]

Can you recommend a good window manager with tabs? I've used fluxbox and pwm somewhat, but found them lacking. Thanks.

Re:Question

[timeOday]

On a Mac, floating toolbars instead of a "proper window" is standard interface design.

Many X applications used to be this way, too. "Let the window manager do window management," they would say.

The problem, IMO, is that the window manager doesn't really know what the windows do or how they relate, so it can't be very smart about it. For instance, I far prefer browser tabs to 20 open instances of mozilla, even though there's little difference conceptually.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem with GIMP is that you have to fucking click back and forth when you do anything on another window.

None of the toolbar windows and such should be separately focusable windows. This is because when they're in focus, keyboard shortcuts are ignored (because whatever image you're actually working on is not in focus).

But I don't want to preach to everyone what the correct setup is. There are plenty of programs (e.g. KDevelop) which allow you to pick the windowing mode -- MDI, tabbed, IDEAL, etc. That way, people are free to use whatever crappy windowing scheme they want.

Re:Question

[PixelSlut]

Someone should mod that up as insightful.

I never used MacOS a lot prior to X, so this connection never really occurred to me. But I think you're absolutely right.

I absolutely hate the floating toolbar system that GIMP uses, and I could just never figure out why it seemed like a good idea to the developers. My dislike of this system has nothing to do with Photoshop, either, because I've never used Photoshop. All my image editing experience has been using GIMP.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really not like the Mac at all.

Show my a Mac application which uses the toolbox as the main window. They dont, the menubar is the control window not the toolbox.

Re:Question

[cortana]

This has been fixed for some time. Keyboard shortcuts work even when palette windows have the focus. The fact that they steal the focus at all is now merely cosmetic--if the colour of the windows' title bars didn't change then I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

the whole claim about the GIMP being like a Mac Application is laughable and just another poor excuse for a user interface many people are terribly unhappy about.

Having said that the Window inside a Window a la Photoshop on Windows is not the best idea either.

GIMP should probably take a serious look at what Inkscape is doing.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's interesting. Why doesn't GIMP zoom the last active image to 1:1 when I press the '1' key, then? That only works when the actual window has focus. So you're talking out of your ass, it seems.

Re:Question

[cortana]

Strangely that one doesn't work. Perhaps '1' has some other function in a palette window.

Why so rude? I wish Slashdot didn't allow anonymous posts. Then I could killfile people like you.

Re:Question

[Hannes Eriksson]

I've been using ion (http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/) for some time now, it's good enough for me now that it's got floating windows (it's a frame-based design).
Prior to version 2 it was a bit awkward with xmms and gimp.

Re:Question

[zsau]

If they change the interface to be more like Photoshop, I and many others will be very pissed off. The Gimp does have some useability problems, but these are usually oversights than actual integral problems with the design. The single window interface makes it really difficult to work with two programs at once.

Re:Question

[zsau]

Part of the reason the palette system works in MacOS Classic is that when you bring an application to the front in Classic, you bring *all* its windows to the front, not just the one you clicked on. Applications were in "layers." This means you'd never have a situation where you could see your image, but not see your toolbar. That's changed in OS X, and it never existed in Linux or Windows.

Part of the reason it worked my arse! That only gets in the way of it working. Why would you have multiple windows if you want them all to behave as a single one? You might as well just have a single window.

The Gimp's interface in combination with most window managers gives me the flexibility to have any windows in any order. This means that I can have a window open as a reference from one program behind the window I'm working on, but in front of everything else. If we lose this, using the Gimp will feel like using a horrible pile of sludge.

Re:Question

[The Original Yama]

So, at best, GIMP is trying to be like a MacOS Classic application and failing because none of the newest window managers treat application windows as "layers."

Oh but they do, just a little differently. OpenOffice.org, for example, uses multiple windows at once (the main document views, the Stylist and the Navigator). When OOo is given focus, all three come to the foreground. The three windows are all given taskbar entries when the app is in focus, but when the focus is on another app only the document views have taskbar entries. It feels a little weird at first (simply because I'm used to something else), but I have grown to like it very much.

Re:Question

[The Original Yama]

Learn to use multiple desktops. That's what they are designed for. You will never be happy if you expect X to behave like Windows. Windows has its own set of problems, and we'd be stupid to duplicate them.

Re:Question

[The Original Yama]

Money spent does not equal quality. That is because there are other factors that the app developer must take into account. Microsoft spends big bucks on usability, but their interfaces still suck, partly because they don't want to break compatibility/familiarity. Photoshop on Windows (but not on the Mac) uses an MDI because Windows has a crappy window manager. Photoshop on the Mac does not use an MDI, because Mac OS can handle windows better.

Re:Question

[Blakey Rat]

Part of the reason it worked my arse! That only gets in the way of it working. Why would you have multiple windows if you want them all to behave as a single one? You might as well just have a single window.

Did you ever use MacOS Classic? Macintosh was renowned for its great usability long before OS X came onto the scene and, yes, believe it or not: It worked very well. In fact, I kind of miss it since Apple went another direction in OS X.

Re:Question

[Blakey Rat]

Except that there's a Windows port of GIMP, and it's stupid to tell Windows users that their program, compiled specifically for Windows, requires a feature not available in Windows to work well. That's like the very definition of "half-assed port." (Plus, us Mac users don't have multiple desktops, either, and we have a GIMP port... even if you don't care about the Windows users, that's an issue.)

Re:Question

[zsau]

Yes. I have—not much, I'll admit, but it mostly got in my way. X-based systems don't work that way. They work a different way, and it happens to be one that I reckon is superior. (Personally, I don't care whay program I'm running. I care what I'm doing. When a system highlights the program at the expense of the task, I get annoyed. Macs do that, an awful lot.)

OS X also has some similar behavior with some programs, and it (amongst other things) got in my way enough that I piked and installed GNU/Linux on my iMac G5.

I'm not saying the X/Gimp system works for everyone, because it doesn't. But it does work for some people, and that's half the reason these other systems exist (if open source development is going to take us to the same place that commercial software was ten years ago, how is it a superior development model?). (The other half being that they're free.)

Re:Question

[fbjon]

Windows doesn't have multidesktops by default, but Gimp assumes it has. That's a clear design mistake there.

Re:Question

[It'sYerMam]

Even on X the main WMs are Metacity and KWM. Do they have the features you want? If not, then GIMP needs to do something, because it's pointless saying "well if you used a decent WM..." to the majority of the audience. Likewise, when designing a site, you still have to code for IE, even if it sucks.

Re:Question

[RustNeverSleeps]

This is only true to some extent. It doesn't make sense to have iTunes have multiple windows, because it's not an application used to manipulate documents. Photoshop CS2 on the other hand (which I use every day) continues to have multiple windows and floating toolbars under Mac OS X.

Generally when you click on an open Photoshop document, it comes to the front and so do the Photoshop toolbars. Photoshop documents other than the one you click on remain in place. Photoshop is not the only program that works this way. Dreamweaver, Graphic Converter, BIAS Peak and Final Cut Pro are some others that come to mind.

It seems to me that document-centric applications have multiple windows and/or floating toolbars. There are exceptions of course, but I believe that's the general idea, and it makes sense (to me, anyway).

Re:Question

[RustNeverSleeps]

I guess you've never used a Mac then? I can't think of a single Mac application that works like that. Not one.

I guess you've never used Photoshop on a Mac then?

I'm posting this from my Power Mac G5.

I saw that show!

[Anonymous Coward]

They totally redecorated a wheel chair ramp in like 3 hours.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[darkwhite]

I have used GIMP many times and tried to do useful things with it. Overall the feature set is acceptable. But I will never be able to use it for actual work until they fix the big one.

PROVIDE AN OPTION FOR AN MDI GUI ALL IN ONE WINDOW.

With dockable tool palettes.

Every time I bring this up to anyone who knows gimp, they tell me to run it in its own virtual desktop. I don't use virtual desktops, and I don't want an app to have a ton of toolbars floating around anyway.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[quantum bit]

I don't mind that so much, as long as it's an OPTION.

The thing about MDI schemes is that they make it impossible to efficiently use multi-monitor setups. Even if the tool palettes can be undocked, it makes it so you can't have different "document" windows on different heads.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for now you can use the de-weirdifier plugin if you run Windows; it does what you want. If you don't run Windows, you can either learn a couple of keyboard shortcuts that make working with Gimp windows easier, or you can run Krita.
 
For what it's worth, you sound completely lazy to me, and I speak as someone who has used the Gimp extensively in a professional 3D graphics workflow. Remember what you are if you blame your tools?

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

erm... you have access to the source code... if you don't like what it does, then make your own fork... until then, quit yer whingeing.

Well, erm... you have access to the code... if you don't like the "whingeing" here, then make your own site...

Oh wait, that isn't very helpful, is it? Can't quite understand how the parent was modded Insightful, when he's just repeating the same tired line that's been heard so many times before.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[kevin_conaway]

I'm sick of this tired old "fix it yourself" argument.

Obviously, you're not a professional software developer otherwise you would see the utter stupidity of making such a statement.

To be able to make even minor modifications to a major software project could possibly takes MONTHS of prep work. Its not like opening up a book and fixing a spelling mistake, you need to understand the ins and outs of the module you're working on and the modules that depend on it. And thats assuming that the code is well documented and there is other supporting documentation

What he is talking about is most likely a major undertaking, not something some guy off the street can fix over the weekend off the latest CVS trunk.

In short, please stop repeating that tired old argument, its not feasible for 99% of the user community for any particular application and it makes you sound like an arrogant prick.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[croddy]

I will never understand this complaint. i can't imagine anything more annoying than having to constantly minimize and restore, minimize and restore, alt+tab alt+tab alt+tab back and forth to the GIMP every time i want to look at something else.

it's much easier just to point my mouse at the window i want to use, and start working.

by the way... last time i checked, the tool palettes were dockable. and they still are, unless they've removed that since 2.2...

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Gyga]

I once saw something called gimpshop that wrapped everything in a window. That might work for you.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[exKingZog]

Like Dreamweaver MX, you mean? That implements an option for MDI or separate windows.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Pentagram]

S/he wasn't whinging. Darkwhite was merely stating what it would take for him or her to use the Gimp; entirely acceptable in a discussion-oriented website in a story about the Gimp's interface.

Since the Gimp developers have asked for evaluation by OpenUsability, that would seem to me to be a solicitation for comments by the app's users about its interface.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Kegetys]

In the newest version of Photoshop (CS2) you can move even the "document" windows outside the main window, including to other monitors.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[spectre_240sx]

The GIMP foundation is specifically asking for opinions on the user interface, this person gives their opinion and you tell them to go hack the source code themselves... Yes, truly brilliant, because we all know that anyone on slashdot knows every programming language and has all the time in the world to make any software they use do whatever they want.

There are many times to be annoyed when people bitch about free software. This is not one of them.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[cortana]

xnest -- :1
export DISPLAY=:0
metacity &
gimp

There you go.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Jesus_666]

Any radically different new GUI would be appreciated as an option and only as that. While the GIMP's interface is nt perfect, I like it much better than the approach Photoshop takes (cramming everything down your throat so you either buy a book on how to use the program or spend half an hour trying to find out how to draw a straight line).
The GIMP is intimidating, but I find that once the initial "omg, so many windows!" shock has worn off it's easier to use than certain commercial offerings.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Blakey Rat]

My big gripe about GIMP right now is that after you run "Script-fu" it doesn't put things back how they were... some of the scripts might add layers, some might leave a selection (different than the original selection) behind, etc. It's annoying as hell. "Script-fu" items should run the same as plug-ins in Photoshop... it does its work, it leaves the work area *the exact same* as it found it, and you can undo the whole she-bang with a single selection of Edit->Undo.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Chainsaw]

I'm sorry to ask, but what the hell does those commands do? Oh, and the only lines that worked for me on my Mac OS X install was #2 and #4, and it still looked like crap. I guess that only the very last line works for Windows users.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[GMFTatsujin]

If you don't like how even minor modifications can take months to implement from the latest CVS trunk, fix it yourself, you insensitive clod!

(In Soviet Russia, that one saw *you* coming.)

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[quantum bit]

I'm not sure I see the point of having an MDI window if it doesn't contain the document windows. Is it just to keep the task bar tidy on MS Windows? Any decent *NIX window manager can already use window groups for that, and even Win XP can do some form of grouping.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[ilselu1]

'I don't use virtual desktops, and I don't want an app to have a ton of toolbars floating around anyway.' I couldn't agree more. The need I have for stability is far above the want I have for accesability.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[kevin_conaway]

Like, I said, its not feasible for 99% of the user community, just because someone is doing it doesn't mean everyone can. From http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241:

I have been hacking the Gimp for weeks and it's finally ready.

...

What made this project especially difficult is that there isn't one file that holds all of Gimp's tool names and menu structure. I've modified hundreds of files and combed thousands of lines of code to make this version of Gimp a reality. This work pales in comparison to real coding, but for a hack like me, it required a lot of learning and work.

And thats just for moving the menu widgets around.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Photoshop Essentials 3 doesn't have a main window either. All tools and windows default to one screen, but they can be moved to any screen.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[cortana]

$ whatis Xnest
Xnest (1x) - a nested X server
$ help export
export: export [-nf] [name[=value] ...] or export -p
        NAMEs are marked for automatic export to the environment of
        subsequently executed commands. If the -f option is given,
        the NAMEs refer to functions. If no NAMEs are given, or if `-p'
        is given, a list of all names that are exported in this shell is
        printed. An argument of `-n' says to remove the export property
        from subsequent NAMEs. An argument of `--' disables further option
        processing.
$ whatis metacity
metacity (1) - minimal GTK2 Window Manager
$ whatis gimp
gimp (1) - an image manipulation and paint program.

Xnest is from XFree86/Xorg. It creates a new X display as a client of another X display.

The DISPLAY environment variable tells an X client which display to connect to. Here, :1 indicates the nested X display created in the previous command.

metacity is the default window manager for the Gnome desktop. I chose it because I assume it is what most Gimp users use.

I expect it didn't work on your Mac OS X machine because you don't have XFree86/Xorg. Being on a Mac OS machine, you don't really need MDI since the Mac's window management scheme makes it easy to raise all the windows of an application at once, and to hide all the windows from another application. IIRC it's under "$Application -> Hide others".

HTH HAND

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Ambush Commander]

And therein the problem with "open" source.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[darkwhite]

I don't use GIMP on Windows, because on Windows I have Paint Shop Pro, which for what it's worth I believe to be the most underappreciated graphics editing app ever and one of only two apps which I feel justified in paying money for.

I'm not a professional graphics editor, I just use editors casually for vector, raster, web, and (most of the time) photo editing work. I know a bit about various editing and filter features, workflow organizations in different editors, and so on. I know PSP is absolutely amazing in terms of saving my time - last weekend I spent maybe five hours to go from my camera's output to 200 best picks, all retouched to the best of my liking. I know it would take me days to do that in GIMP, considering how disjointed its interface is when it's not the only thing on the desktop and how it doesn't have many of the adaptive filters I was using in PSP. Frankly, I'm sure the same thing would happen for original graphics workflow, since GIMP doesn't have any of the integrated vector features of PSP. But then GIMP obviously has the advantages of being open and running under Linux.

I tried Krita, and found it to be very feature-incomplete. It has far less features than GIMP, and I've already mentioned how many features I think GIMP has. I'm sure that if I spent more time in GIMP I would be able to use it more efficiently, but I think the lack of an MDI is a fundamental shortcoming and I won't invest my time in learning more until I see it fixed or hack up a fix myself (the first month of the first semester of grad school is not the best time to do that, you know...)

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[EvanED]

It will also raise all the windows when you choose one, probably. I have the Gimp installed under Windows, and even though I'm happy with most of the Gimp (even most of the UI!) I almost never use it when I'm in Windows. The reason is that I find it very annoying that if I have another application open, switch to that, and switch back to the Gimp (not minimizing anything, just changing z-orders) I have to go through and manually raise the window with all the tools, the document(s) I'm working on, and the two tool option windows I use. IMO, raising one of them should raise them ALL, and I have yet to find a way to do that. If you know of one (Windows OR Linux), please tell me.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[techno-vampire]

My big complaint about The GIMP starts with the huge number of overlapping windows it opens by default. Let's say you're just learning it and use it to view a .jpg. You get all those unneeded windows. Not being afraid to close a window, you close the extras. Next time you use it, you're planning to do some editing, and those windows are still gone. Not only that, it's hard at first to find out how to reopen them. There should be a place to specify which windows open every time, and which don't, and the menus or help system should make it clearer how to get more windows open when you need them. The GIMP suffers from the usual problem of a program tested only by its designers: an interface that makes sense only to the designers, without a long, hard learning curve.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[darkwhite]

Thanks, I know about that fix. My problem is, it's a bit too ugly for my taste. The GIMP devs say that window management of the app's windows is not their problem but the WM's problem... and I say bullshit.

I wouldn't even mind having one window per each open image (MS Office style) as long as the toolbars are all dockable to each window, or at least are all raised with each window.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[aAnaRchY]

I don't get it why you don't want to use virtual desktops. Just press the button on your Linux box and use it. If you don't want to do it then is more difficult for you to use that program.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[techno-vampire]

Well, for now you can use the de-weirdifier plugin if you run Windows;

Why shoud I need to? If the program's interface is so bad that you need a special plugin to make it usable, there's something badly wrong, and putting a bandaid like this over it is just ignoring the issue.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[quantum bit]

Hmm, that's a good point but I'm not sure there's an easy solution. I could easily see the other side of that as well, someone with 2-3 monitors and gimp windows spread out across them opens a web browser on one monitor to read about some new technique, covering another image window that's not being used at the moment. Giving focus back to an image window (even if it's already visible) causes everything to jump to the foreground, covering the web browser. Oops.

The best way to go is probably still an option that lets the user select "MDI" or "non-MDI" interface, depending on how he/she wants to work. This is complicated by the fact that X11 doesn't really have any equivalent to Windows-style MDI, but I think it can be simulated.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[spectre_240sx]

You shouldn't have to rely on the "hide others" functionality, though. In a program with complex windowing like the GIMP, it really should do a lot of the management on it's own. I really dislike "hiding" windows in OS X, because it's easy to forget what you had open with no icon in the dock.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Deadguy2322]

And the open source community wonders why it has an image problem....

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[EvanED]

I agree that an option would be nice, and that a UI like the current Gimp might work better if you have multiple monitors. (I suspect I'd still want the raising behavior, based on how I use the Gimp under Linux with multiple virtual desktops, but the prefence would be much less.) However, I think that for one-window, one-virtual-desktop editing, the current interface sucks. And sucks to the point I don't use it.

(Under Linux I dedicate an entire virtual desktop to the Gimp, that way I don't encounter the problem.)

(And if anynoe happens to know of a decent Windows virtual desktop manager I'd be interested to hear about that too. I've tried MS's VDM or whatever they call it and found it slow and not nearly as featured as a decent one, so I got rid of it.)

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[cortana]

So don't do it. When you bring X11 to the front, all the Gimp windows come with it...

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[spectre_240sx]

The problem you raise is valid, but I still think it's the better solution. That's pretty much standard behavior for that type of application. It's exactly how photoshop works and I've never heard a complaint about it. The easiest way to address it is just by hitting tab and hiding all the palates. Unfortunately GIMP doesn't support that function at the moment, but it certainly could.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

2) I'm an arrogant prick... (it helps in getting MY way in a project)

Here's hoping no one ever has to work with you. Since I'm pretty certain that YOUR way is probably not going be the RIGHT way.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[advocate_one]

I don't fscking believe this... the original poster (an obvious troll post if ever there is such a thing) gets modded +5 insightfull, and I get modded into oblivion for telling him just what his options are... which are a damn sight more than he would have with Adobe Photoshop for starters... which are, if you don't like it, tough... or if you find problems with it, yeah, just shell out $xx for the next version which has the fix

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Mad Merlin]

In KDE at least, using KHotKeys, you should be able to set a mouse gesture or keyboard shortcut to raise all of the GIMP windows. In the KDE Control Center under Accessability, open up KHotKeys, then add a new group of shortcuts for GIMP using the window class of "gimp" (all the GIMP windows appear to have this), then just set up a shortcut to raise all of the GIMP windows. This probably sounds pretty opaque right now, but it should be reasonably self explanatory when you're looking at it.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[jabuzz]

The MDI is a hack that dates back to the days before Windows 3.0 Back in those dark days there was a technical limitation in Windows that allowed each application to have only one top level window. So if you wanted to open more than one Word document for example, you would have needed to open several copies of Word. The result was that Microsoft invented the MDI to get around the technical limitation and sold it as a feature.

Then a mear ten years after the limitation in Windows was lifted, even Microsoft abandoned the MDI in Office 2000.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct commands should be:

sudo aptitude install Xnest blackbox (in case you don't have them and are using Debian like me)

Xnest :1 &
export DISPLAY=:1
blackbox & (or any other window manager instead)
gimp &

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Actually the argument isn't "fix it yourself", but rather "fix it yourself or pay someone to do it for you".

We sound like arrogant pricks because we got users like you demanding (requesting) we do this and that, without anything more than a thanks and some karma.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Coryoth]

IMO, raising one of them should raise them ALL, and I have yet to find a way to do that. If you know of one (Windows OR Linux), please tell me.

Use a window manager that support window groups and group your GIMP windows. Enlightenment does, I'm not sure about others. I have a proposal for a decent way to do window groups easily here, with advanced features if you want to offer something new for power users. Basically the principle is this: all your GIMP windows belong to a group, and actions applied to a member of the group (like a raise operation) get applied to all members of the group.

The other option, which may e easier to find, is a window manager that supports "send to back", and simply send the other application to the back behind all the various GIMP windows. This used to be a standard feature of X WMs with a toggle key that alternately raised to the top or sent to the back. For some reason a lot of window managers have hidden this feature, or simply not include it at all.

In my opinion a lot of the "issues" with the GIMP interface (in terms of the multiple windows) is more to do with the lack of good window handling from mainstream WMs rather than inherent failings of GIMP. Yes it would be nice to adapt to what's available now, but WMs used to have all these features, so it made sense at the time... and now we're waiting to get our perfectly reasonable and sensible features back damnit!

Jedidiah.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[brsmith4]

Boohoo... I got modded to oblivion. Tough shit. You act like an ass, you'll get treated like an ass. You came across as crass, arrogant, and so as-a-matter-of-fact-ish that we could have sworn that you were the troll.

An "obvious troll post"? I beg to differ. An MDI interface for gimp would be great. Since they've added the top menu to the document window in Gimp 2, this has alieviated some of the headaches with using it, at least for me. How is asking for a perfectly legitimate feature an "obvious troll post"?

So, why don't you say something constructive and quit yer whining?

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Jessta]

I agree, GIMP is very usable in comparison to photoshop. But the multiple windows thing still annoys me. I use ratpoison, the best window manager around, which doesn't handle GIMPs strangeness very well.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[cortana]

Actually, if we are going to be pedantic pricks, then the package to install is 'xnest'. There is no 'Xnest' package.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Blakey Rat]

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& q=xnest+--+:1export+DISPLAY=:0metacity+%26gimp&ie= UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Don't be a dumbass. There's no way to look something like that up on Google.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Mozk]

That's not reasonably self-explanatory for many people. For those who just want to edit family photos, they're not going to set a keyboard shortcut and press it every time they want the windows up. For the professional editors, they're not going to get that far into the OS. They'll want to edit pictures, and that's all.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Narchie Troll]

Use Xnest with another window manager inside it. I used to do that, but newer releases of Ion work better with the GIMP.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[MrHanky]

Why don't you just learn how to use Google instead. Instead of pasting in the whole Hamlet when you look for information about Shakespeare, you could try searching for just Hamlet and Shakespeare, for instance.

In this case, you could search for just Xnest, read the manual you find in the first link, or the page about it on MacOSXhints for a more gentle introduction. When you've read that, you know what DISPLAY=:1 means, and can go on to search for metacity.

It really isn't hard at all.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Hosiah]

In short, please stop repeating that tired old argument, its not feasible for 99% of the user community for any particular application and it makes you sound like an arrogant prick.

Well, excuse us all to hell! We've seen to it that there's a wonderful avenue available for people who don't want to do their own programming - proprietary software! We have generously left companies like Windows and MacIntosh enough market share that they'll be in place to offer you compiled binaries only without bothering you with all the tiresome code for years to come. Run - don't walk!

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[i wanted another nam]

Who chooses to make free software?

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to ask, but what the hell does those commands do? Oh, and the only lines that worked for me on my Mac OS X install was #2 and #4

Are you in the habit of randomly running commands people on Slashdot tell you to? That's pretty fucking stupid.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[LurkerXXX]

"fix it yourself or pay someone to do it for you".

So he can spend six months fixing it himself, pay some software develper 6 months salary to fix it, or spend a few hundred dollars and get Photoshop.

This is why OSS isn't going to kill commercial software for a loooooooooong time.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows and MacIntosh. What wonderful companies they are.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[cortana]

http://fuckinggoogleit.com/search?q=xnest+export+d isplay

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[cortana]

Pressing tab here hides all palettes (Gimp 2.2.8).

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Peter La Casse]

It's not a problem with open source, it's a problem with complexity. The fact of the matter is that complex things are complex.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[WhitetailKitten]

Yes, truly brilliant, because we all know that anyone on slashdot knows every programming language and has all the time in the world to make any software they use do whatever they want. They have so much ample free time, they read Slashdot!

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't help that you're an idiot who won't use virtual desktops.

a little explanation of WHY you don't use virtual desktops would be nice. MDI is incredibly annoying, as are tabbed interfaces (although tabbed interfaces are MUCH less annoying and are faster).

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Cutterman]

Right on! Agree 100%. I use Paint Shop Pro for editing medical images and it is really excellent. My only regret is upgrading from v6 to v9 - not much to show for it apart from a longer load time.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[EvanED]

This isn't nearly the same though. Now you have two different ways to raise a window; for the Gimp you use your keyboard shortcut, but for everything else you do it normally.

It's a workaround, not a solution.

(Easier I think is just to dedicate a virtual desktop entirely to the Gimp; this is what I do under Linux)

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Feztaa]

Latest GIMP allows you to dock tool palettes to each other. I have GIMP set up so that it's one large tool palette spanning the height of my monitor, but not very wide, and then I have the image window I'm manipulating beside it. All the tool palletes are docked into the one window and I navigate between them with tabs. There, only two windows to work with, not bad at all.

I still use virtual desktops though.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Feztaa]

(just found a screenshot)

Kinda like this:

http://gimp.org/screenshots/linux_screenshot2.png

Except instead of having one big panel on the far left and far right of the screen, I just cram it all into one big panel on the left.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Hosiah]

At least commercial software works.

There yah go! That's the spirit. Use what works for you!!!

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[mshiltonj]

I'm sick of this tired old "fix it yourself" argument.

[...]

In short, please stop repeating that tired old argument, its not feasible for 99% of the user community for any particular application and it makes you sound like an arrogant prick.


If 99% of the user community can't follow the "fix it yourself" advice, they can easily can do the next best thing. They can write a check to some developer who will do it. If users *really* want an MDI in Gimp, they can pay a team of developers to do it.

The current GIMP team doesn't want to do it. That's not their itch, and they don't feel the need to scratch it. Fine. It's a free product. The project doesn't have shareholders or clients to please. Their job is not on the line -- because they are doing it for free.

You accuse developers of being arrogant pricks, but many users of Free software can just as easily be accused of being ungrateful freeloaders.

I admit to being a freeloader, but at least I'm grateful.

I just don't understand how people can be so venomous to a project's development team for not implementing a feature on a free project that no one is paying for.

If you pirated a copy of Photoshop and found that it was missing some crucial feature, would you write Adobe and demand it be implemented? Of course not. If you did, would Adobe have any reason to listen to you? No. Why? -- Because you aren't paying the bills.

Why should you expect the Gimp team to treat you any different?

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[The Original Yama]

PROVIDE AN OPTION FOR AN MDI GUI ALL IN ONE WINDOW

Why are you yelling?

Every time I bring this up to anyone who knows gimp, they tell me to run it in its own virtual desktop. I don't use virtual desktops, and I don't want an app to have a ton of toolbars floating around anyway.

You only have yourself to blame if you refuse to use the app porperly. GIMP is designed around the concepts of virtual desktops and decent window management. GIMP is not Photoshop, and X is not Windows (thank god!).

Even Microsoft has realised that MDIs suck. MS Word doesn't use an MDI, and its new Photoshop competitor Acrylic doesn't either.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Blakey Rat]

It's all gibberish to me. How was I even supposed to know that xnest was a program? As far as I'm concerned, you might as well have typed:

fasaugw:=3287sda:d
dkash--98*823
saw__231"dsfa\
dsah11qdaaa.exe

That makes about as much sense. In any case, the original poster (Cortana) didn't provide summary of what those commands did, or at least are supposed to do, is because they wanted to lord their Unix knowledge over everybody else. All hail the high priesthood of technology! Otherwise, they would have given a reply that was useful including what the commands do and how they improve GIMP's functioning. Or maybe he was just a jerk, whatever.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[spectre_240sx]

My bad, thanks for the corrections. Tab definitely does hide all palates. Sorry bout that.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

Use File>Revert.

Script-fu... how do I put this, writes checks that Undo can't cash. Here's my solution after I found that out the hard way: What I do is I save the file, run Script-fu, and if I don't like the result, I click on FIle>Revert.

It is a habit worth forming. Think of it as Edit-Undo's Big Brother.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Pete]

The topic here is the Gimp. The overwhelming majority of Gimp users are still on Linux or Unix based X11 environments, so it's quite reasonable to give four lines of shell commands to "solve" the described problem (keeping the Gimp windows grouped/managed together) for a Unix-ish/X11 display environment.

cortana made the point concisely and effectively. Yes, it does assume a little knowledge... but if you explain every technical solution to make it understandable to someone who knows absolutely nothing, it can actually obscure the valuable information and make it less accessible to people who do know what they're doing (or who at least know enough to recognise patterns and find out the things they might not know (like, eg. "what is xnest?")). And, not to put too fine a point on it, it's hard work to tailor information down to the lowest common denominator - you've got to work out for yourself whether it's worth expending the extra effort.

You making assumptions about cortana's motivations was kind of amusing, though. Especially as my experience is that people doing that tend to ascribe their own motivations to others (as those motivations are the only ones they really understand).

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[stry_cat]

You really should look into using virtual desktops. They help a lot with keeping screen clutter down.

The current GIMP interface is fine. I actually liked the 1.x way better.

I use to use Photoshop before I started using Linux on the desktop. Best move I ever made. The GIMP is much more intutive and it makes some really complex tasks in Photoshop just simple and easy. Now that there is CMYK support, the GIMP is the only application you need for graphic work.

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

From my view of the problem, that would be the work of the script. Save the current state, do the work, restore the state. And plugins can also be used to create useful selections and change states. So you're either looking for better scripts, or an option to ignore the above?

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[2short]

He does not accuse the developers of being arrogant pricks. The developers make araingements with someone to take a look at how the usability of the GIMP might be improved, and slashdot posts a story on this. In a comment connected to this story, he says "Well, here's how I think it could be improved..." Someone else says, "How dare you complain, code it yourself!" It is this person who is accused of being an arrogant prick. I see no indication that he is one of the GIMPs developers. Were he, he would realize that sugesting one just re-organize the entire gui oneself if you don't like it is in fact an arrogant, pricky thing to say.

Many people can and do write a check to a developer who produces what they want. That developer is Adobe.
I could write a check to some developer, and pay them to improve the GIMP. For the amount it would cost, I could instead buy several hundred copies of Photoshop. Now what I really need to do is get several thousand GIMP users together and get them all to contribute some smaller amount. To get them to contribute I'll have to balance what improvements to pay the developers make so as to please as many of them as possible. You know, this would be a lot easier if everyone who benefited from the improvements paid. But to do that, I'd need a proprietary product. Then I could have a company to run the whole thing; maybe I could call it "Adobe". Point being, saying, if you can't code it, just write a check! is equally naive. I can't write the check for the same reason I can't code it: it's a massive undertaking.

If some people want to write some program and give it away free, good for them. If that's as far as it goes, I still feel free to say I don't think it's very good, biut it would indeed be obnoxious to really go on and on hammering on it. But if they, or others, go on and on about how it's just the coolest thing ever and there is nothing wrong about it at all, the fact that it is free does not make it off limits for criticism. If they, in fact, go looking for how to improve it's usability....

Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

[kyb]

Have you seen the windows gimp deweirdifier plugin? http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=3892 It might help if you're using GIMP on windows. The latest gimpShop for windows includes it by default. http://blog.yumdap.net/archives/20-GIMPshop-for-Wi ndows.html

i like how the gimp works.

[yakhan451]

I used to think the usability of the GIMP was bad, turns out it's just different from what i was used to. The more i used it exclusively, the more i figured out how nice it was.

Nowadays, if i go back to a windows system with photoshop or paintshop pro, it feels really cluttered and i get 'clausterphobic'.

Of course, i'm speaking as a casual user who does pretty basic operations. Maybe it's different if you work with it professionally?

Re:i like how the gimp works.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the usability is poor. For one, having to click to expose just the root menu is excessive. The root menu should always be visible, IMO. Hiding everything as much as possible goes too far, and requires more work to do the same task.

Re:i like how the gimp works.

[Timesprout]

I used to think the usability of the GIMP was bad, turns out its just bad compared to what the rest of the world is used to.

Re:i like how the gimp works.

[mothlos]

The trick is creating a clear and nagivable path for people new to the system to learn it. I work with professional graphic designers who are married not only to specific programs but older versions of those programs because learning the new interface would just cause too much headache and hurt their livlihoods.

If GIMP and other mass user Linux products (read, X) want to get users to convert they need to make the transition much easier than it is now otherwise the less savvy professionals in less technical areas will keep using what they are comfortable with.

Re:i like how the gimp works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to draw a pro/non-pro line. I use it for making web graphics mostly. Since it's the only real contender for a Linux graphics program I have no other choice. I put in the time to RTFM and it does everything I need. What I have discovered lately is how to take it apart and use ImageMagick and GIMP plugins dynamicaly from inside Perl, so I can actually make graphics 'templates' which are dynamically rendered on the server. I don't think photoshop has any such extendable interface.
Also in GIMPs favour are the numerous input output paths to import and export all manner of data.

I know someone who is a REAL graphic artist. She has used GIMP a few times and is getting to love it but the support in Linux for peripherals is poor. She has a Wacom tablet that 'just works' on Windows XP but still hasn't managed to work on Linux despite much RTFM and fiddling about.They should fix that if they want pro users. [Yes I know it's 'fixed' but a 4 page list of command line instructions is not 'just works']

Re:i like how the gimp works.

[Anonymous Coward]

on the other hand, using the menu on the image is annoying. It's so much better to just right click to get to the menu. That is one feature I've actually come to like... and teh fact that one can detach the menu of interest even in teh Windows port is a great plus.

Re:i like how the gimp works.

[i.of.the.storm]

Yes, I feel the same way. Although I still feel that the tool palette should be dockable to the side of a window.

Re:i like how the gimp works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gimp does not do >8-bpp or color management. Any "professional" using that limited of a tool is nobody that I would want to pay for a job.

The Gimp has lots of neato features, filters, whiz-bang doodads, and portability... but without deep color and color management, it's just a toy.

Re:i like how the gimp works.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but it can be argued that color management isn't that important for web graphics, which is gimp's primary use.

For photo editing however...

Oh, wonderful

[quantum bit]

Now the "usability" people will ruin GIMP the same way they ruined GNOME.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[MighMoS]

How did they ruin GNOME? I actually like having less stuff in my way. Of course, when I fused GNOME with FVWM, I guess that put me in a very small minority, come on. Do you want to actually wade through useless options to find what you really need? Most of them AFAIK are still available through gconf as well. They just took the UI element away for the n00bsters in the crowd, which I actually like.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Chainsaw]

The dumbing down of GNOME has absolutely nothing to do with OpenUsability. I'm not really sure who to blame for turning a pretty good desktop into a software where all the settings you would really want to change are available only via a Regedit clone.

At least we have KDE, which is improving at an impressive rate, while we wait for the GNOME guys to realize their mistakes.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Waffle Iron]

Do you want to actually wade through useless options to find what you really need? Most of them AFAIK are still available through gconf as well.

Yeah, I'd rather launch separate program and wade through a myriad of Registry-like settings find what I really need. Nothing beats action-at-a-distance for useability.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[quantum bit]

The dumbing down of GNOME has absolutely nothing to do with OpenUsability.

I'm not saying that the OpenUsability group had anything to do with it. But the stripping of all of GNOME's useful configuration utilities was done in the name of "usability", and I do remember several big GNOME usability studies that reached the same conclusion. I just don't remember who did them.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Blakey Rat]

Hey, guess what... I like the new Gnome. I like their file browser better than any other available right now... they're the last game left in town with spatial browsing. If you don't like it, use something else. There are craploads of OSes with browser-based file browsing, and only one with spatial.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[FyRE666]

Now the "usability" people will ruin GIMP the same way they ruined GNOME.

Somehow I doubt that's possible - unless they add "Spacial layers" so that you have to edit each one in a separate window ;-).

I use Linux on my desktop at work, and have Gimp installed, and I've found it the least usable program I've ever seen. Admittedly it's rare that I need to work with images at work (I use Fireworks and PS at home) but even operations such as resizing and adding a background to an image are ridiculously long-winded. For instance, I had to Google to find out why the option to change the stacking order of layers is greyed out by default - there's no sane reason for it...

Every time I've attempted to use it I've found it so frustrating; it feels as though you're fighting the program rather than using it; that I've ended up giving up in disgust and found a spare Windows machine to do the job. I'm sure it have some great features, but it's viciously protective of them and doesn't want anyone to use them!

Re:Oh, wonderful

[hasst]

Are they bringing in consultants? ;-)

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about spatial browsing when everybody could use krusader or gnome-commander ?

Re:Oh, wonderful

[quantum bit]

If I want to edit config files by hand, I'll use command line tools. I use mutt as my primary mail client and I don't complain about having to set a lot of options in .muttrc to get things the way I want them.

The whole point of a GUI is to have a graphical interface. If I want to slip into 'point-n-drool' mode for a while, why should I have to wade through some arcane XML or registry syntax just to set some simple option that the developers don't think a "normal" user would need. How would they know? Maybe normal users don't use that particular option for no other reason than it's been hidden away.

KDE is moving in the right direction. Keep the commonly used options in plain view, and have the not as commonly used ones be in the same place, but under the "Advanced" section. Configuration shouldn't be divided between two different tools.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

You admitted to using PS so the mods are likely to poop on you. I only use GIMP, whether on Windows or Linux, it's the only image editing program I've ever used that's worthy of that name (or does anybody count paint?). Yet I find the interface horrible, I suspect the BOFH had a hand in it, it's the worst thing I've ever seen, and I once played a japanese hentai game in an emulator without configuring the keys, and I don't know japanese (and I didn't know what hentai was at the time, found out quickly heh). Yeap, the GIMP interface sucks badly.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Slack3r78]

You, sir, do not understand usability. Usability is *not* having 10,000 options for the user to customize and play with. Usability, in the strictest sense, is having an interface such that a user can pick it up *without* having to dig through options.

Here's something else you're missing - the type of people Gnome is targeting *DO NOT CARE* about 95%+ of the settings that would require opening GConf to change. For these users, it's far better to have a tool layout such that finding basic options does not require digging through 4 layers of option dialogues.

I'm not saying Gnome is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, simply that the majority of people on Slashdot who complain about Gnome being 'ruined' just plain do not understand how difficult seemingly simple tasks are for the average user. I mean, really, I've been using Linux since around '99, and run KDE from time to time just to see how they're progressing, and it almost always ends up with me digging through the control panel searching for things that should be rather simple to change because KDE exposes too many options for the average user.

Sure, if you're a geek and enjoy playing with all your settings, more power to you. But for people who simply want to use their computer, the KDE Control Panel is a confusing mess. So I'd really take issue with the idea that KDE is improving at an "impressive rate." If they spent more time cleaning up the Control Panel and building in HAL tools instead of adding huge oversized tooltips and calling it a usability improvement, I might be able to agree.

The changes that have been made to Gnome (for the most part) were not mistakes. It was a deliberate decision to move toward an interface that's more usable to a computer neophyte. Argue that the KDE interface is 'familiar' all you want, but the idea behind usability is that you don't *need* to be familiar with it to figure out how to do what you want.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it already is kinda "spacial gimp" so they can't screw that up at least...

Re:Oh, wonderful

[MighMoS]

What do you think other users felt like with all those options there? Everytime you include a checkmark or radio box in preferences, you're forcing the user to make a choice. Sometimes choices are bad. Have you looked at IE6 preferences?

Re:Oh, wonderful

[grumbel]

While the road that Gnome takes is certainly a very rough and often frustrating one, I am extremly happy that they are taking it. Yes, the other button order can be confusion, the tab-completion in the new file dialog is still rather broken and nautilus is still the same pile of junk that it was from day one, but in the end they are taking that road not to please you today with what you are used to, but to please you in the long run, by doing things the 'right' way, instead of the used one. I sure would have been happier if the switch from Gnome1.4 to Gnome2.0 would have been a less dramatic feature-removal cut, but on the other side now with Gnome2.10 most of the stuff is back and better ordered and working then before.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[multipart]

A better mod for the parent would be "shortsighted" instead of "insightful".

Re:Oh, wonderful

[quantum bit]

I actually expected 'Troll' but was going for 'Funny'...

Not sure where insightful came from.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[cortana]

Arcane XML or registry syntax? Have you even heard of gconf-editor?

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Elladan]

You sir, do not understand usability.

Usability means the program performs the tasks the users need it to in an efficient and easy to learn manner, with minimal interference. Ideally, it should perform the tasks in the manner a wide range of users want it to.

Gnome's new UI is a classic example of a bad UI: It is inefficient, does not perform the necessary tasks (look at the horrendous file dialogue - it's quite literally the worst I've ever seen), is difficult to learn since many basic options are hidden and require undocumented keyboard shortcuts, and the users are forced to do tasks in a particular, usually inefficient way.

Almost as bad, it's buggy as hell and slow. Why does opening a menu from the panel take 2 seconds on my 1.4Ghz Athlon? It should open in less than 1/4 of a second for seamless operation. It should open in milliseconds to not be an embarrassment.

All of this is made the more aggravating by the fact that in many cases, the very last point release actually worked better. Case in point: the file dialogue. All of a sudden I need to type control-L to type in a filename? And tab complete, which used to be supported, is removed? What sort of low-grade crack were the "usability experts" smoking?

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Waffle Iron]

So put that stuff you can't seem to handle under an "Advanced Options" button. It would still be far better than trying to clone REGEDIT.EXE.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[MighMoS]

Regedit never bothered me. If you're such a poweruser, it shouldn't bother you, either. Or, checkout other MS Clones like gtweakui, which is a program for a lot of commonly reset gconf keys.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

I only use GIMP, whether on Windows or Linux, it's the only image editing program I've ever used that's worthy of that name

It's the only image editing program worthy of being called GIMP? Flattering indeed! :)

Re:Oh, wonderful

[dahlek]

This is a rather silly view point. What would you have KDE do, have a "beginner" mode that hides features?

GNOME is primitive - sometimes, its Windows3.1 primitive. I can, for example, take a snapshot of the screen using ksnapshop and sometimes, I click on save again just to get a quick file list - from here, I can drag and drop the file, delete files, rename files, etc. In general, GNOME apps have a silly, simplistic and archaic file chooser that seems like taking 12 steps backwards to me...

Even if KDE did as many suggest and "hid" its infinite configuration abilities, it would still have thrice the features that GNOME has. Using GNOME is like working with your hands behind your back.

And, I'm not a GUI-needing n00b by any stretch - I always have a shell open.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Waffle Iron]

So the registry, which is generally considered to be one of the worst ideas in the history of personal computing, never bothered you. Fine.

You still haven't explained what's wrong with putting the settings in the program as I described. Being a power user, I prefer not to have to manipulate the app using an inconvenient separate program where everything is forced into one tree control, whether or not that's the best way to present the settings.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[swillden]

Every time I've attempted to use it I've found it so frustrating; it feels as though you're fighting the program rather than using it

I feel the same way when I try to use Photoshop. I think it depends a lot on what you know.

even operations such as resizing

Click "Image" then "Scale Image".

adding a background to an image

Assuming your foreground has transparency, this is trivial. If you have to make parts of the image transparent so the background will show through, well, that can be a lot of work, depending on what you want to achieve, but it can't be any other way unless the program can read your mind.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the "usability" people will ruin GIMP the same way they ruined GNOME.

How did this comment get moderated Insightful instead of Troll?

Comparing Gnome 1.4 to Gnome 2 is like comparing a Spork to a good sharp knife By any reasonable measure Gnome 2 is whole lot more user friendly and useful than the mess that was Gnome 1.4.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically we need a range of applications. Some things should cater for the lowest common demoninator whilst others cater for normal folk.

Whilst KDE caters for normal folk, I'd like to see something that goes one step further and actually have something with a lot more options. This would allow me to have things the way I want to do them.

Its like having a moulded plastic car that just has a steering wheel and 3 pedals on one side, and a fully customisable model on the other. Do I want alloy wheels? Sure. Would I like blue seats? Why not. Maybe I'd like to tune the engine? Its my choice and I'd like to have that choice, please.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[FyRE666]

As far as I remember, the image had the wrong aspect ratio (eg, 300x200, and I needed it scaled to 150x150). So I scaled it to 150x100, then set the image size to 150x150. Problem then was that the background was transparent (original image had a background colour). No problem, I thought, just set the canvas colour - no option for that that I could find. So I decided to create a new layer the size of the image, fill it with colour and move it below the original. New problem: no way to change z-stacking of layers. I've since found out that unless the layers have alpha-channels set, the restacking is disabled (why?!) That was the point on that occasion that I said "screw it", and used an old copy of Paintshop Pro 5, which allowed me to handle the job in all of 20 seconds...

I don't think I'll be using Gimp again. I'm sure it's more productive to spend an hour installing PS or Fireworks under Wine than several hours looking up various Gimp idiosyncrasies and hidden "features" on Google.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[MighMoS]

The windows registry is a bad idea because its in two giant files, which are easily corruptable. Gconf settings are stored in keys, small text files, I believe. And yes I have. Keeping extranious options in the UI causes the user to make more decisions. Most users don't want to make that many decisions. What options are you missing?

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

the registry, which is generally considered to be one of the worst ideas in the history of personal computing

The Windows registry is evil because its back end is a fragile, binary database with a wacky proprietary format that must be edited with special tools. It is a single point-failure source, it can corrupt itself over time ("registry rot"), and it's nontrivial to migrate a user's custom settings from one computer to another.

There is one good feature of the registry: it eliminates a race condition when you have multiple processes open, each of which can change settings that are stored in a settings file.

GNOME kept that one good feature: the GConf system manages the settings and eliminates race conditions. But GConf also kept the traditional text-based config files to store the settings. Text files don't get corrupted, can be edited by hand with any text editor, and since the user's settings are kept in the user's home directory it is trivial to migrate a user's settings from one machine to another.

If you hate and fear the user interface of the registry editor, well then there is nothing I can do to help you. But I claim that GConf is a good thing.

You still haven't explained what's wrong with putting the settings in the program as I described. Being a power user, I prefer not to have to manipulate the app using an inconvenient separate program

As I understand it, users can click on the "Advanced" button by mistake and then get bewildered by all the settings. Worse, they can click on something and change it.

In good UI design, the options stuck into GConf should be options you seldom need to change. For example, I was perfectly comfortable with needing to use GConf to disable the "spatial" file manager by default in GNOME; you make that change exactly once and you are done.

Me, I use GNOME all the time, and I haven't had to go into GConf to change anything in MONTHS. So you won't see me crying about how hard it is to use GConf to change things. I think the GNOME guys have done a good job of making GNOME usable without making it too "dumbed down".

Re:Oh, wonderful

[strikethree]

limiting the ability to modify things sucks for everyone who is not happy with the defaults. your argument implies that you have to make it impossible for people to modify settings in order to please the idiots and that is not true at all. you can still have a "kontrol panel" without forcing the idiots to use it. hide it if you must, but make it available, otherwise you are pissing off most of the people who are likely to spend their time with linux to begin with.

strike

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the stuff was chopped out in the name of usability. But also some stuff was chopped out because the code was getting to be too big a mess.

For example, Metacity was written to replace Sawfish because, popular as Sawfish was, the developers found its code base hard to work with. Metacity is less featureful but easier to develop.

I agree that over the long haul, all the important stuff has gone or is going back in, and I'm happy about that.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell uses krusader or gnome-commander? Maybe you and five others.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[whereiswaldo]

I think GIMP's learning curve is needlessly steep. Some of the common operations one needs to do are hidden with confusing terminology and/or too far down the menu.

I've been tempted over the years to make a Gimp that looks like just PaintShop Pro which IMO is pretty darn easy to pick up from scratch. I don't have the time to learn what it would take to make such changes.

One thing Gimp lacked last time I used it was an easy to use redeye reduction tool. Compare using Google's photo retouching tool's redeye reduction feature which is dead easy and works well.

Compare switching photo software with switching cars. You know what you need (lights, window washer, mirrors, etc.) - you just need to find where they are in the new car. Making things easy to find is the key.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnome runs on Linux (amongst others). It's a geek OS par excellence with a tiny market share among ordinary users. Honestly, how many people using it fit into this category of no interest in changing their settings?

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Almost as bad, it's buggy as hell and slow. Why does opening a menu from the panel take 2 seconds on my 1.4Ghz Athlon? It should open in less than 1/4 of a second for seamless operation. It should open in milliseconds to not be an embarrassment.

Just wanted to let you know that there was/is something seriously borked with your system... Menus open instantly (or definitely in less than 1/4 secs) on my 400Mhz machine.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[cfuse]

I use Linux on my desktop at work, and have Gimp installed, and I've found it the least usable program I've ever seen.

The GIMP developers really haven't taken the GUI to its logical extreme - which is to dump it completely ofcourse. GIMP would be perfect if it had no GUI, only a command line. All functions would be performed by passing options that have no relationship to their purpose, ie. Resize is -k, select all is -x, etc. All error messages should be as terse as possible and direct the user to the man page. The man page should either be incomprehensible or voluminous, or both.

Why do such obviously smart people such as the GIMP devs go to such effort to abuse the users of the program? Trying to use GIMP is about as much fun as poking yourself in the eye with a pointy stick.

Re:Oh, wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pointless to put a layer behind a layer with no transparency. You wouldn't be able to see it. Restacking is NOT disabled, you can change the order of other layers just fine. You just can't put a layer behind the non-transparent background.

Gimp devs are doing a fantastic job

[Anonymous Coward]

For the number of complaints they get from people who just assume Gimp sucks from the start, these guys are doing great. I have been reading Sven's remarks on his blog and the Gimp user forums, and it's obvious that he puts up with a lot of idiotic complaints. At the same time, he is doing things like this to actually make solid usability improvements. Be sure to check out SIOX (siox.org) for another really cool feature that's coming up.

Will they be able to take...

[TorKlingberg]

Will they be able to take criticism on interface decisions they have taken years ago and argued for many times since then? Many open source projects have these really stupid things hanging over them because developers can't admit they have been wrong all this time. Take this one in Firefox as a prime example.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen! Mozilla devs are completely pigheaded when it comes to making changes requested by users. Take this one, for example -- 299466, breaking the update.mozilla.org service not just for installing software, but even for viewing plain HTML content. Arrogant and stubborn.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[tooth]

On the firefox print thing: Write an extension if you want it that bad. It's not that hard, even I've managed to write some simple stuff.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[TorKlingberg]

There are such extensions. But can you really expect the average user to install an extension just to be able to print from popup windows?

Re:Will they be able to take...

[slavemowgli]

Or, for that matter, this one. Admittedly, that's not a UI design bug, but it's a very good example of the arrogance that some Mozilla users unfortunately show at times.

It's been open for six years, there's more than 750 votes (IIRC, it's the single most voted-for bug in Mozilla's bugzilla), and patches have been provided and kept in sync for a long, long time.

Still, it's not implemented because it might cause the default installer to grow by 50 KB. Sad.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[Cerv]

Basic functionality should not be implemented as extensions. Firefox will become a mess with that attitude.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[cortana]

It seems that the easiest way to solve that bug would be to prevent windows from opening that don't have a menu bar/address bar/button bar/status bar.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[tooth]

can you really expect the average user to install an extension

Yes, I do. I don't really think it's that hard, and if it's something they want they'll figure it out. If they can't figure out how to intall an extension then 10 seconds of googling should fix them up. Though I think there should be a 'what is an extension' button on the extension window.

I wish they had *less* things on the context menu. I want to get rid of send link, send image, view source and set as wallpaper. The only time I hit them i by mistake.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[tooth]

Basic functionality should not be implemented as extensions.

Seriouly, how often do you print? I wouldn't call it basic functionallity, and it's under file - print. You can even add an icon to the task menu if you want, it's in the default set.

I don't see the problem with extensions. Just because some people want an option on the menu doesn't mean that everyone should be lumped with it. That's what extensions are for, so that it can be customised. I don't know about you, but I only have 2 or 3 extensions at any time, but that doesn't mean that i should force them on you.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[TorKlingberg]

Extentinos is fine for new functionality that most people don't need. Printing is used extensively by anyone who uses a computer for anything serious. It's not even a new functionality, it's just about having access to printing even in a popup window.

I want to get rid of send link, send image, view source and set as wallpaper.

Send link, send image, show background image, stop and add bookmark can all go away from the context menu as far as I care. I like to have view source available there, but I could accept it going away. Printing is more important than any of those.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[TorKlingberg]

Seriouly, how often do you print?

You don't work, do you? And you never shop online and want to print the order confirmation? Or buy a ticken online and have to print it and bring it to the event?

You can even add an icon to the task menu if you want, it's in the default set.

The task menu is not there either on popups. People expect to be able to print from a web browser, and when that is suddenly impossible, it's very disturbing.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been following that bug for about a year, yes I agree the Mozilla developers have a huge stick up their arse.

That's why I'm starting to use Konqueror more often.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[serber]

You don't work, do you? And you never shop online and want to print the order confirmation? Or buy a ticken online and have to print it and bring it to the event?

Er, yes, yes I do. Number of times I've printed something from a web browser for work purposes? Once. That was just to test the A3 colour laser anyway.

Order confirmation? Comes via email.

TIckets online? Have to print? Not in PDF? File->Print.

The task menu is not there either on popups. People expect to be able to print from a web browser, and when that is suddenly impossible, it's very disturbing.

Then that is a better argument against the not showing a task menu than adding bloat to the context menu.

At the end of the day, I'm quite sick of reading on that bug report "you don't work, do you", or "all users want this", or "developers have sticks up their arse because they don't agree with me".

Grow up!

More on topic of the GIMP UI, there's an app that scares me back to just coding. It's horrible to do complex things, it's unintuitive when trying to do simple things, and it's not exactly pleasing to look at either (though of course that's subjective).

Re:Will they be able to take...

[elmegil]

Given how often the developers list has shouted down independant GUI consultants trying to provide feedback, I'd have to agree with your concern. Though I suppose that if the GIMPs are ASKING for input, maybe they'd be more reasonable about acepting it.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[Tom Veil]

Seriouly, how often do you print?

Speaking for myself, I'd probably average at least once a week, frequently more. Usually bank transfers, driving directions, etc., but any variety of things. (Intersting articles to read away from my computer, song lyrics I want to put with a CD, etc.)

it's under file - print.

That was my first thought too, but real-world applications include printing pop-up windows (without having previously memorized the key combination) or printing in a full-screen or kiosk mode. More commonly, printing a frame is far more natural through right-clicking rather than making sure the frame is the active one before going to the "Print" dialog. As far as customization goes, doesn't it make more sense to design for the users who don't know how to add/remove/customize these things? The advanced users could remove it if it irritated them, but really, how is this less basic than "View Background Image"?

Re:Will they be able to take...

[Tom Veil]

A good idea, but it doesn't fix the problem of printing in frames. True, you can select "This frame only" in the dialog, but this is awkward (especially for new users), since you have to make sure the frame you want is the active one first. Adding this to the context menu for frames would make this far simpler.

Re:Will they be able to take...

[TorKlingberg]

Order confirmation? Comes via email.

After up to a few minutes. I don't like to wait for no reason.

TIckets online? Have to print? Not in PDF? File->Print.

Not available on a popup.

Then that is a better argument against the not showing a task menu than adding bloat to the context menu.

That would be fine too. But I don't see that happening either.

At the end of the day, I'm quite sick of reading on that bug report "you don't work, do you", or "all users want this", or "developers have sticks up their arse because they don't agree with me".

Those comments are from this /. discussion and not from the bug report page. The one about sticks up their arse is a bit over the top, and not about his bug.

This is not that I need "Print" on the context menu. I have learnt to press Ctrl+P now. This is because I want Firefox to be a good program for a lot of people.

A little while ago I introduced Firefox to another person. Within 10 minutes he had this problem and asked my what's wrong. What am I supposed to answer? That the developets are too arrogant to admit they made a mistake 2 years ago?

Re:Will they be able to take...

[tooth]

You don't work, do you?

What a silly assumption and argument :) Of course I do. I still don't see why it can't be an extension. If you want it, load it, otherwise don't bother. I only print directions occasionally (for in the car), butfor reciepts I'm one of those crazy copy/paste and save reciept-as-a-text-file (or right click, save page as...) type of people to cut down on paper usage :)

Re:Will they be able to take...

[TorKlingberg]

I still don't see why it can't be an extension. If you want it, load it, otherwise don't bother.

As I said in an other comment here, this is not that _I_ need print on the context menu. I have learnt to press Ctrl+P now. This is because I want Firefox to be a good program for a lot of people.

A little while ago I introduced Firefox to another person. Within 10 minutes he had this problem and asked my what's wrong. What am I supposed to answer? That the developets are too arrogant to admit they made a mistake 2 years ago?

Phew.

[IainMH]

Thank $Deity for that.

As good as the gimp is, it can be nightmare finding tools when you start using it.

Oops.

[seramar]

At first I thought this referred to the way that icon looks at me every couple of seconds. It still freaks me out.

Definitely a good thing

[real_bassman]

Not only does this make the GIMP more accessible, it can be used as a "selling point" against the likes of Adobe Photoshop, and if more high profile Open Source stuff does the same, it's yet another benefit of Linux over Windows!

bravo!

[ecalkin]

this is the kind of action that not only opens the door to 'regular users', but it should help people understand how microsoft had sooo much popularity with certain softare (i.e. office).
    microsoft had some design standards and then they got a lot of feedback on usability. outlook may be full of security holes, but a lot of people find it amazingly intuitive to use.

eric

Re:bravo!

[Gadren]

I hate to post a "yeah, that," but as one who is increasingly becoming disenchanted with Microsoft products and wishes to move into the open-source field more, I have found interface to be a big issue for OSS, something which is one of the main contributors, I believe, to the sharp learning curve for OSS. Of course, much of that learning curve is inevitable, but a good UI will make people feel much more comfortable, and, when they get open source software, they'll stick with it.

Usability

[Mark_MF-WN]

The usability of the Gimp is actually a lot better if you are using more than one monitor (which a lot of graphics artists do anyway). It's only in the far more common scenario of using a single monitor that the Gimp becomes hideously ackward.

Re:Usability

[Ford Prefect]

I've been using The GIMP for about seven years now (it's the reason I originally became interested in Linux). It's quite possibly my favourite program ever, and until recently I would have agreed that the lack of a Windows-style MDI was most definitely a good thing.

It's brilliant with virtual desktops. It's great with multiple monitors. The interface works really well with KDE's window manager; it works really well with X11.app on my iBook.

Of course, I then recently installed in on Windows, having until then never used it on that platform. Setup was gloriously smooth - but actually using The GIMP alongside other programs proved distinctly awkward, thanks to the horrible window management in, erm, Windows.

I'm really not sure what a correct, elegant solution would be. I loathe the usual Windows container-window MDI, and I do realise that GTK has very little, if any support for writing applications in such a manner, but I do wonder how the situation could be improved for Windows users. A default setup with all the tools and palettes in one tall window on the left of the screen, and some code to grab the 'Maximise' button on image windows so that they expand to fit the space not occupied by the tools window?

Likewise, the 'Minimise' button on the tools window could minimise all windows belonging to The GIMP - perhaps a bit of a hack, but it could help. The GIMP's definitely not a Windows program, and many aspects of the interface's design make perfect sense when you realise it's the same interface for all platforms, but Windows is (unfortunately) an important platform, so some concessions may have to be made...

Re:Usability

[spectre_240sx]

Unfortunately, on windows at least, I'm still stuck with 8 or 9 separate taskbar buttons when there really should only be one per document. Why the hell would anyone be working in another program and then decide they want to switch to the history palate? If I'm going back to the gimp, I want the whole damn thing to come back up, not just one toolbar. At this point, after going to another program, I have to either alt-tab through all the palates (which doesn't always work) or select them all in the taskbar and then go back to the document. That's a freaking ridiculous waste of time.

Along the same lines... why does the tools palate have to have a menu at the top of it? That should be located in a central place as well, like the document's menu bar.

Those annoyances alone are enough to keep me away from the GIMP right now.

Re:Usability

[oliverthered]

IMHO Gimp becomes hideously ackward... when ever you try to do anything with it, something as simple as drawing straight lines is a major headache and don't even think about making them pixel perfect. I've also found it to be a nightmare to use a graphics tablet with.

Re:Usability

[Christianfreak]

In a focus-follows-mouse setup (Default on WMs like Blackbox) GIMP works pretty well on a single monitor.

Maybe is just because I started with GIMP and have always used it, but I find the Photoshop interface more awkward, sometimes I just want the toolbar to get out of my way! I haven't tried the new CS so I can't really comment on it.

For that reason I hope if they do make interface changes that they leave the old one in as an option.

Re:Usability

[vrt3]

Unfortunately, on windows at least, I'm still stuck with 8 or 9 separate taskbar buttons when there really should only be one per document. Why the hell would anyone be working in another program and then decide they want to switch to the history palate? If I'm going back to the gimp, I want the whole damn thing to come back up, not just one toolbar. At this point, after going to another program, I have to either alt-tab through all the palates (which doesn't always work) or select them all in the taskbar and then go back to the document. That's a freaking ridiculous waste of time.

I couldn't agree more.

Along the same lines... why does the tools palate have to have a menu at the top of it? That should be located in a central place as well, like the document's menu bar.

That tool palette is Gimp's main window. The menu there is for stuff that is not specific to one document: open a new document, preferences, ...

Functionality specific to a document can be reached via the traditional right mouse click, or recently optionally via a menu in the image window. Suits me fine, really.

Re:Usability

[Ford Prefect]

Along the same lines... why does the tools palate have to have a menu at the top of it? That should be located in a central place as well, like the document's menu bar.

What do you do when there's no document open?

The tools window is The GIMP. Its (few) menus are operations which do not act on any currently opened document. Conversely, a document window's menu actions act on that particular document.

If The GIMP's interface annoys you so much, try using vi, Windows Media Player 10 (WHO STOLE THE MENU?), Blender, Softimage XSI, whatever...

Re:Usability

[fossa]

I never quite understand everyone's obsession with Photoshop's "line tool". Not having used Photoshop much, I'll probably come across as ignorant... but the GIMP's model has a certain elegance to it: choose a "pen" (ink pen, pencil, airbrush, whatever) and draw with it. Any and all of these use the exact same drawing commands, and can draw straight lines with "shift", and straight lines snapped to common angles with "ctrl-shift". The action of drawing a line is seperate from the tool with which the line is drawn. How does the line tool in Photoshop decide how to draw the line?

Re:Usability

[spectre_240sx]

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the reason for having the menus there currently and that there's a definite hurdle to get over trying to remove them, it's just something that bothers me personally. I guess I've just really fallen for the Mac way of things where there's always that toolbar at the top of the screen until you fully quit it. That does have it's own issues, though, especially with regards to multi monitor setups.

As for your other arguement, I realize that there are other applications out there that could use some interface improvements (I really like vi by the way), but this discussion is specifically about the GIMP. There's no reason to bring other annoying software into the debate unless as an example of why an idea may not work that well.

Re:Usability

[Coryoth]

I'm really not sure what a correct, elegant solution would be. I loathe the usual Windows container-window MDI, and I do realise that GTK has very little, if any support for writing applications in such a manner, but I do wonder how the situation could be improved for Windows users.

GTK doesn't have support for MDI for a very good reason - it just isn't its responsibility. A widget tollset shouldn't be implementing its own separate window management scheme, which is what MDI as part of GTK would amount to. Handling windows is the Window Managers job. Unfortunately current X Window Managers want to absolve themselves of responsibility and pretend the toolkit should do it. Much silliness and bitching from users ensues. I do agree though, that on Windows, which does provide its own (different!) window management scheme as part of the toolkit, and hence provides no facility in the overall window manager, this presents a problem. But GTK isn't really designed for Windows... perhaps the Windows-GTK people ould add a special patch or soemthing...

A default setup with all the tools and palettes in one tall window on the left of the screen, and some code to grab the 'Maximise' button on image windows so that they expand to fit the space not occupied by the tools window?

Again, I have to blame Window Managers - where oh where is the "maximise to available area" function?! This used to be standard on X WMs, and is still available in things like FVWM and Enlightenment. Windows certainly has no such thing, but then Windows window management is quite sad in so many respects that we shouldn't be surprised.

Likewise, the 'Minimise' button on the tools window could minimise all windows belonging to The GIMP - perhaps a bit of a hack, but it could help.

Ideally I'd like to see a solution that allowed you to finesse that so it does what you want, and you can, for instance, just minimise a single image window, or minimise everything, or maybe just all the tool palettes in an easily controllable manner. It isn't that hard to do.

Jedidiah.

Re:Usability

[Narchie Troll]

How is drawing a straight line a "major headache"? You grab a drawing tool, click once, hold Shift, and click at the end of the line. Hold Ctrl if you need perfect horizontal, diagonal, or vertical lines.

Re:Usability

[Psykosys]

As opposed to being able to click the line tool and immediately draw a line. If you're used to using keyboard-button/mouse combinations, I can see how the Gimp interface would come naturally to you. But for beginning users or those more used to the point-and-click design of Photoshop and Paint Shop, the choices made by Gimp's UI designers seem absurd. Especially when all they'd have to do to remedy this is put the line as another option for the preexisting "shape tool".

Re:Usability

[oliverthered]

You grab a drawing tool
click once
hold Shift
and click at the end of the line. Hold Ctrl if you need perfect horizontal, diagonal, or vertical lines.

Well, those last two operations are what makes is a major headache, a simple feature like drawing a straight line is hidded under keyboard modifiers.

You still haven't been able to answer how I would draw a line from exactly 10:30 to exactly 40:50

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

I run dual monitors and The Gimp is still a pain to use. I have Photoshop installed and run it via wine, but try to use The Gimp more. Floating windows/palettes don't bother me; what DOES bother me is when I click a document/application button in the dock, I expect all of the applicable palettes to come into focus with the document. Nope, need to go and raise each one individually.

Running Gimp alone on one monitor is fine - until I have two web browsers, file explorers (usually konqueror) open, plus Quanta+ or Eclipse - then, I have my source editor in one window, web browsers in the other, then when I have to edit graphics, guess what? I have to hunt for the Gimp windows I need, instead of just clicking the button for the document window to get everything I need into focus.

It's stupid and painful (I've posted a more constructive post elsewhere in here today) and makes what would otherwise be an excellent program only mediocre at best.

Usability/GUI may not be everything, but it is a huge part of the user experience. With users, perception is everything.

Re:Usability

[Narchie Troll]

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The GIMP model lets you select the tool you want to make a line very quickly. It doesn't have a built-in concept of a "line" as a shape -- it's a shortcut for using a tool over a line.

There's no such convenient way to use a "line tool" to, say, use the Dodge tool over a straight line.

Re:Usability

[Narchie Troll]

Move your mouse to 10:30. Click.
Hold Shift.
Move your mouse to 40:50. Click.

There you go. It can be easier if you have a grid on.

Re:Usability

[oliverthered]

Move your mouse to 10:30. Click.

I would give up art and move over to being a surgeon with your pixel perfect, shake free hands.

It can be easier if you have a grid on.

I though this was supposed to be about usability, and it's even easier still if you have a type in box to control the points, and what's more you wouldn't have to switch between 'modes' modal interfaces are generally the worst (even for people who use strange pointing devices or their voice to control the PC)

Custom Palettes

[Doc Ruby]

I use only a small subset of GIP operations, like most people, though each of us has a different subset. I have to hunt through lots of sub/menus and button palettes to find the operations I use, especially when I go for months without using it. I'd love to have a custom palette that I can populate with my own menu items/buttons, and maybe even a library of values/settings, all in just one palette that I can set to open when the app opens. Stored in a config that I can easily email or otherwise transfer to another workstation with a different GIMP install (or upgrade).

Maybe the GIMP already does this, but I can't find any sign of it - that's kind of my problem with its UI, anyway. And if the GIMP can do this, I'd of course love to have the function in all my GNOME apps.

While I'm wishing, I'd love to have a GNOME-level app itself with cross-app palettes of all the buttons / menu items / config values I use in all my apps. I'd love to open a data file, "for editing", have GNOME detect its MIME type, and open the palette I use for that MIME type, with my custom GUI palette for all the apps that I'll use to edit that data. Why should I have to flip between all these featureful apps on my screen, each with their modes and GUI paradigms, just to use the small combo of features I actually need?

Gimp is great

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I have used Photoshop, Corel Photopaint, and Paint Shop Pro. I hated Photoshop's deeply hidden functions and general bloat. I hated Photopaint's lack of options when it came to layers. PSP is pretty good, and I would have considered buying it if I hadn't found Gimp. Gimp does everything that I want it to, and it doesn't have a confusing interface.

paper?

[coshx]

Maybe they had good reason to use paper (so they wouldn't be biased), but I'm wondering why they didn't use Gimp or Photoshop to create the prototype? To me, it's easier to cut and paste, and move things around with a graphical editor than with tape and scissors.

Re:paper?

[nado]

The idea is that anyone can use paper and will be comfortable with it.

Re:paper?

[Farmer Tim]

The idea is that anyone can use paper and will be comfortable with it.

Proof positive that GIMP's interface is too awkward for most.

(Its 8 degrees C here, the flames will be very pleasant)

reminder : GimpShop already exists!

[tuxliner]

1 - You want a GUI which looks like Photoshop? Get Gimpshop and stop whining! 2- Now, what about comparing GimpShop to Photoshop?

Re:reminder : GimpShop already exists!

[teknomage1]

Actually, it's not the apperance I miss from photoshop, it's the actions palette. Being able to record and playback simple macros was great. Nowadays I have to whip out scheme. Likewise, the layer styles from photoshop are also very cool. But the UI look itself isn't critical.

Re:reminder : GimpShop already exists!

[Coryoth]

1 - You want a GUI which looks like Photoshop? Get Gimpshop and stop whining! 2- Now, what about comparing GimpShop to Photoshop?

Unless GimpShop for Windows is different that's probably not going to make people as happy as you'd think, because GimpShop (the Linux and Mac versions anyway) was altered by a Mac Photoshop user... which means floating (dockable) tool palettes and multiple individual image windows, just like Photoshop on the Mac, and many of the complainers really just want an MDI like Photoshop on Windows. I can kind of understand the complaints about lack of an MDI on Windows in that Windows has such sucky window management that it is a little clunky, but on Linux, with a decent WM? Its fine. Unless you're wedded to Photoshop on Windows and simply can't understand that document centric is a reasonable way to go - hell it works for Mac.

Jedidiah.

please don't change a thing

[eneville]

Well done to the GIMP developers getting this far. I really don't understand when people say that it's not got a good interface. I really like it the way that it is.

I don't think GIMP has any problems, other that other desktop clutter that might get in the way, and perhaps the icon toolbox is a little too big, but that's only because of my system settings.

I hope the test is not conducted on KDE because that will probably make the tester suggest that GIMP looks more like the rest of the desktop.

Deweirdifyer

[tepples]

having to click to expose just the root menu is excessive. The root menu should always be visible, IMO.

By "root menu" do you mean the menu bar at the top of the tool window, or the context menu in the document window? If the latter, then GIMP 2.0 and later have added that menu to the top of the document window. If the former, then try the Deweirdifyer extension on Windows or virtual desktops on *n?x.

Getting used to it

[AtariAmarok]

I'm getting used to it. But there are some flaws, like that you don't get a standard file selector from "Open" that lets you enter a file name: you have to use "Open Location" instead (it should be one function), and the oddity of having two "Rotates", one crippled and one not. The more useful one is buried deeper.

Don't just to something, stand there!

[hasst]

By excellency, in OSS, the Inmates are running the Asylum. Usability is by far the biggest problem OSS software has right now. Not security, since security does not matter that much. Yeah, it does not matter. Microsoft gets away with the biggest security stunts in history of modem society, but this only because their products are a lot more USABLE by the end user. And the user will obey and put up with the mistreating, just to be able to use the darn COMPUTER.

Gimp is the epitome of wrong UI in OSS, I can barely use it without online howtos, and I'm experienced. Now, imagine Av. Joe ... Learn how to develop USABLE stuff, not USEFUL stuff, since there are hundreds of applications for almost every darn task out there.

Re:Don't just to something, stand there!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree that usability is the biggest problem OSS has. It completely depends on the software package. OSS exists for various reasons, and one of those reasons may well be (and often is) that the proprietary alternative is not very usable.

Re:Don't just to something, stand there!

[quantum bit]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Once they conceded and put a menu bar in image windows in 2.x, it's not so bad anymore. Most operations I don't find any more difficult than using Photoshop or the like. Don't forget that advanced image editing is an inherently complex task. No interface can make it easy eithout sacrificing flexibility.

The only thing I can think of that is a bad interface is the gradient editor. It's awful. Look at Corel PhotoPaint for an example of what a good gradient editor is like.

Re:Don't just to something, stand there!

[hasst]

Please provide me with some serious examples that back up your considerations, since I have a strong belief that the reason for _not_ using OSS has mostly to do with the UI/design issues so common in these type of products. I don't like, since I'm also working on various OSS products, but this is what I got out people after some big faliures in deployments of OSS software (Linux desktops, or just OSS apps. under Win).

Re:Don't just to something, stand there!

[tooth]

I can barely use it

Increase your sample set. I actually like the UI, but hey, that's just me. p.s. I turn off the menu and undo a lot of the new things that came in in 2.0

Re:Don't just to something, stand there!

[Gactaculon]

I really don't understand all this hate for the GIMP. It's not that damn complicated. Once I figured out that all of the most direct-to-image functions are contained in the right-click context menu, the program only took a bit of exploration to become proficient in. I haven't run into anything yet that I needed a howto for, except for creating animated GIFs, which I suspect is a somewhat tricky hack in any image editor.

After using it for a while, it's my opinion that the GIMP's interface is quite well thought out, while still being accessible to the new user (who isn't a Photoshop curmudgeon and unwilling to learn). I've used some legitimately difficult OSS programs, like vi, emacs, Blender 3D. These are tough to learn. Still, are they bad interfaces? There's certainly a method to their madness that makes professional users love them. They're simply not targeted to the casual user.

Personally, i'm okay with the idea that OSS projects can be targeted at serious users, not the type of user who'll "use" it for 5 minutes, then pan it on the Internet. Maybe there could be a cut-down image editor that looks like a mutant MSPaint, so the Windows users are comfortable. I'm sure any lack of features would escape most usability critics' attention span.

First non-cowchip post.

[Rahga]

A link to Sven Neumann's blog has more on this.

In fact, it's probably a lot better than any of the other comments, the dead openusability website, or whatever that site may or may not have posted about this. Simply put, it looks like the gimp is merely a project that has been registered by one of the developers to see what or if any good can from from those guys. That's all. No massive throw-in from the collective force of Gimp users and developers.

I've got a ton or respect for the dude (I've fixed far fewer bugs in GNOME bugzilla :) ), but honestly, I've not yet seen OpenUsability do anything worth bragging about. At all. Just a couple of flimsy "ooooh boy this is great KDE is JOINING FORCES with OpenUsability, which is GRATE because everyone KNOWS programmers don't no jack about usability." stories.

Feel free to call me the stop-motion energy guy... I'm just skeptical.

Re:First non-cowchip post.

[danlaba]

but honestly, I've not yet seen OpenUsability do anything worth bragging about. At all.

You don't use KDE, do you? Try the new kpdf, in KDE 3.4 and the improvements will jump in your face. An article about this was published on Slashdot at the beginning of summer: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 6/20/2215230&from=rss

Re:First non-cowchip post.

[osi79]

The folks at OpenUsability supporting OS projects all the time, made several usability reports and gave also useful hints for my project. These reports are not visible on the main site, but you can find them if you browse the project list. The most visible work of the openusability folks will be the KDE4 HIG and usability work there. The openusability people also support developers on KDE usability MLs, IRC, or just face to face on conferences and such. They do a great job, if you don't see much of it at the openusability main site.

yay

[kiwibird]

I hope Blender signs up too (unless they have already, the site's a bit too /.ed to find out right now)

Its SOOO BAD

[AgNO3]

The Gimp UI is so bad the the Cinepaint http://www.cinepaint.org/>(based on gimp) people are writing a whole new ui. Live Picture had a great UI. Combustion Shake Digital Fusion have good UI's. Gimp and photoshop have bad UI's Gimps UI is just freaking crappy. I had to use CinePaint once and I tried and tried. Uh is there is keyboard shortcut to increase brush sizes? Then on top of that It was so slow. Doing a little websize image its fine. Give it a 2k cineion file add a few layers and it just goes dead. I tried everything. Made the tile cache 512MB (tried smaller and bigger and lots of different settings)

KDE's Krita as a GIMP alternative

[applecrumble]

People might be interested in Krita (http://www.koffice.org/krita/screenshots.php) as an alternative to GIMP. It has an interface similar to PaintShop Pro where all the interface windows are contained within one main window and it integrates well with KDE.

Seashore for OS X Users

[BioCS.Nerd]

For those of you using OS X that have an interest in GIMP, I ran across Seashore the other day while reading Drunkenblog. It's a major improvement over GIMP for OS X. Definitely something to keep your eye on.

I agree

[KingSkippus]

You're right. The interface for The GIMP is very different from any other application I've used. It's not really bad, it's just different and it takes a lot of getting used to.

I just started using The GIMP not too long ago. I don't want to spend the money to upgrade my old copy of Paint Shop Pro if there's software that's just as good for free. If it takes me a little longer to learn how to use it, that's fine. (Unlike most people, my time is worthless...) But if they could improve the interface, I can't imagine that people choosing a graphics software package wouldn't use the free one, especially for low- to intermediate-level graphics needs.

Who knows? If they improve it a great deal (and improve the text tool, my only complaint with the software right now), we could be seeing a huge GIMP / Photoshop rivalry on the horizon!

Re:I agree

[BrokenHalo]

I'm not too sure about this. We've seen a lot of column space on slashdot.org devoted to PhotoShop shills and their flames about the Gimp, and I find them a bit tiresome.

If the openusability thing actually makes changes which are demonstrably an improvement then I have no problem with it.

However, if all that happens is that they turn the interface into a clone of PhotoShop's then the developers will be doing the Gimp (and us) a disservice. Personally, I find the "classic" Gimp UI perfectly approachable (and I actually use it on a daily basis).

Incidentally, IIRC I heard (probably on /.) that there is some sort of extension or whatever that is supposed to emulate PS's UI already in existence, but a quick google just now failed to find it...

Re:I agree

[ptlis]

It's called GimpShop.

Re:I agree

[KingSkippus]

You're right, too. Keep in mind that I've never actually used Photoshop, so I'm not qualified to compare the interfaces to each other. What I meant was that the interface for The GIMP is different from pretty much any other application that I've used, with at least three entirely separate windows being required by default to do any productive work. My layers and tools windows always seem to get buried under others and I have to hunt for them in my taskbar. I've gotten used to it by now, but I still don't find it very useful and wish that at the very least, the windows were logically "attached" to each other and bringing one up would bring the whole application up.

I'll probably skip the PS extension. Now that I've gotten used to The GIMP's interface, I don't want to mess with my head, and since I've never used Photoshop, it probably wouldn't be that useful to me. It's still really cool, though, and if it gets Photoshop users to switch, then I chalk it up as a good thing.

Re:I agree

[Chrax]

GIMPshop - It was an inconsequential patch job. I installed it and the GIMP and compared the interfaces. The only differences were changed labels on tools to be more comfortable to Photoshop users. Big fucking deal. It didn't fix any problems on a deeper level than that.

Re:I agree

[Mozk]

I thought that GIMPshop contained the "de-weirdifier" or something like that. It's supposed to make all the windows belong to one MDI window, much like how Photoshop does it. IMO, it's easier to use that way, so you don't have windows scattered about the screen and taskbar.

Re:I agree

[springbox]

It's not hard for me to pick up on a new program after playing with it for a bit. Yes, there IS a slight learning curve with anything like that, but I'd rather see them make their own usable UI (the current one isn't horrible) instead of copying from Photoshop.

And yes, for Photoshop people, even the current version of the GIMP shouldn't give you much problems if you spend a little bit of time with it. And no, learning how to use the GIMP won't make you forget how to use Photoshop.

Re:I agree

[jandrese]

I started out on the GIMP and now find Photoshop's interface infurating at places. There are some things the GIMP just does better, and some of the interfaces just seem to work better.

A lot of the griping probably comes from people who just are expecting Photoshop. OTOH, there are some things you can do in Photoshop that you just can't do in the GIMP, and some of the interface decisions are a result of needing to accomodate additional features.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they're going to get the file dialogs changed back, or at least to something sensible, who gives a fuck?

Re:I agree

[timeOday]

I don't think gimp is very suited to picking it up just by using it (that's the problem). For instance, you want to draw a line. You look and look, and nowhere anywhere in the UI is the word "line," not on the toolbar, in the menus, anywhere. Somehow you have to know about the shift-click thing. Of course after you know the secret, it's a pretty quick and convenient way to draw a line.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's certainly better than The GIMP, Photoshop's interface is not an usability holy grail by any means.

Re:I agree

[OneDeeTenTee]

I've haven't tried Photoshop, so I don't have enough data to do a valid comparison, but the "how to draw a line" question and a few other things (mostly having to do with seemingly inconsistant behavior when trying to insert text) were very frustrating to deal with.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

windows were logically "attached" to each other and bringing one up would bring the whole application up.

I *hate* that. When I "bring up" one item I just want that one item. Thats what I asking for, not the whole application. I've found a lot of Microsoft Windows applications "bring up" loads of trash I never asked for - and worse still they then take over my choice of window precedence! Horrible! That was one of the many things that helped me upgrade to Linux.

Re:I agree

[diskis]

Photoshop does the same thing. There is no "line" in the drawing tools, only under the vector shapes button, and yes, the line will be a vector shape. Using shift is the simplest way to make a straight line of pixels, and information about this is buried very deep down in the manual.

Re:I agree

[Martin Blank]

Thank you for noticing. I tried using it a few weeks ago, just to make a simple triangle. Figuring out how to draw a line took about 20 minutes, and then all of the other things that seemed to contravene everything I knew about GUIs made me give up, infuriated. I wondered how anyone could tolerate it (in somewhat more coarse language) before going and pouring myself a glass of scotch and watching Mythbusters, who at least make some sense.

Re:I agree

[Hannes Eriksson]

No, the simplest way to make a straight line of pixels in Photoshop is to use a ruler with your graphics tablet.

Re:I agree

[diskis]

I don't have a graphics tablet. Can I use my mouse with the ruler?

Re:I agree

[jZnat]

Well, that problem is easily fixed in most Linux window managers: Virtual Desktops.

Re:I agree

[mcrbids]

You can draw a line in GIMP with shift-click!?!?

I've been using GIMP for YEARS and I gave up on lines a long, LONG time ago... I use it weekly to retouch photos...

WOW! I just tried it... I didn't know you could do that! That's mighty convenient! Where does it tell you this ANYWHERE??!?!

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually Tip # 467,295:

To draw a line, use shift-click and drag the mouse button.

And it will definitely pop up. WHen you (or your great-grandchild) opens gimp for the 467,295th time, on the same P3 box you were using, long, long time ago, in a basement far, far away.

And my rant about GIMP? That I have to 'anchor' layers ALL THE TIME. Heck the Photoshop 5 I've been using let's me stack em as much as I want to. For me to delete or flatten anytime. All the free software in the world, but I'm not free to stack layers as I please.

Re:I agree

[springbox]

I didn't say it was perfect. It does have those weird things that could have been done better, but it's not too horrible (look at the UI for GIMP 1.x.)

Re:I agree

[fbjon]

You wouldn't happen to know if tablets work well in the Gimp, like my Wacom for example?

Re:I agree

[Hannes Eriksson]

I've been using a Wacom Graphire for years with the Gimp. They work well. This is how hard it is to get a howto from a google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=gimp+wacom
At least for me, the above search yields http://linuxwacom.sourceforge.net/index.php/howto/ gimp
The XOrg X Server is shipped with a driver that Works For Me, but if you are unlucky, you might have to download a driver from the Linux Wacom project. They are cooperating closely with Wacom Technology Co. on these drivers and are doing really nice work.
Check it out at http://linuxwacom.sourceforge.net/

Re:I agree

[Hannes Eriksson]

It is indeed possible, but if you cannot afford a graphics tablet you wouldn't be able to afford to license Photoshop.
It is easier with a mouse on a tablet (such that the angle of the mouse doesn't matter to pointer movement), but in the case of a "regular" mouse (optical or mechanical) you just have to keep the correct angle to the ruler. Sticking your thumb in between helps.

Re:I agree

[Curtman]

If you get X configured to use it as an input device it will.

Re:I agree

[It'sYerMam]

Firstly, not on Windows. Secondly, it doesn't have other advantages, such as not hiding the tool menu/layers dialog (which can then fold up when not needed)

Re:I agree

[Chrax]

I don't know. I use Linux w/ Enlightenment or Fluxbox (depending on the machine). I haven't had a taskbar in a year.

-1 Flamebait

[dmaxwell]

Make it work exactly wacktly like Photoshop or I'll...or I'll...or I'll whinge. Yeah! That's it! I'll whinge and then I'll whinge some more until..until...you've had enough! And then I'll post some flames!

Easy solution...

[NemosomeN]

Make a MDI clone, but make it act so that windows inside it move with it, but windows outside it do not. Kinda like Winamp, where things docked to the main window move with it, but things that aren't don't. You could then pull all the toolbars out and maximize the document window inside the faux MDI parent, and it would act like normal GIMP. Or, you could leave them inside the MDI parent and it would act more like Photoshop. Make it tweakable for the nitpickers (How much of the window has to be inside for the window to be "inside"?).

I never got what the whole fuss about the UI...

[Anonymous Coward]

I never really understood what the fuss about The Gimp's UI was about. Sure, it took me a while to get used to the interface, coming over from Photoshopland.

But now, I find myself staring blankly at the screen in PSP/PS clicking on images waiting for gimp-like menus to pop up for about 20 minutes, until I realize that it doesn't quite work that way.

Personally, I like the floating toolbars, they let me set up my workspace in a more multitasking-friendly kind of way, when I'm working with multiple images and multiple programs, great on multi-headed setups as well, as has been previously mentioned.

You just need to get used to it, really, and I like the menus and junk much better than hiding multiple features under single icons. Besides, if you really want the MDI UI so badly, just hook up gimpshop, as has been also previously mentioned.

yes, I do this proffesionally, and yes, I use The Gimp for about 90% of my work. Besides, as I've always said, it's not the tools that get the job done, it's how good you are at using them, how resourceful you are, and really, in the end, it comes down to talent.

GIMP horror stories

[FoboldFKY]

Ok, here's my GIMP usability horror story:

I was at university, and needed to crop and rotate some images for a 3D modelling assignment. I took a look at the programs installed and noticed The GIMP. "Well," I said to myself, "that'll do--how hard could it be?"

It took me a few minutes, but I managed to work out how to rotate and crop my image without any dramas. But then I tried to save it.

Imagine my horror when I discovered that the File menu didn't have a Save item. "Bloody GNOME developers..." I thought, and looked through the (two?) other menus on the main window. Nothing.

I hunted through the other windows to no avail. I right clicked everything I could hoping for SOMETHING to let me save, without success.

I eventually stumbled upon the image's right-click menu. This one had LOTS of submenus, so it just HAD to be there somewhere. Of course, I ignored the top "File" menu since I'd already ruled that one out.

About ten minutes of fruitless searching later, I decided that maybe I'd upset it somehow and gotten the "Save" item disabled. I was about to give up when I accidentally opened the File submenu on the image's context menu.

And there was "Save As". I wanted to scream and smash the computer into a million pieces. The GIMP wasted about 15 minutes of my time.

I honestly don't believe that the GIMP's developers could be so incredibly incompetant as to break two of the most fundamental assumptions people have about GUI apps: that "File" operations are under the "File" menu, and that if you have a menu in two places, it's the same damn menu. I can only imagine that the GIMP developers don't want people to use it.

I hope these usability guys flay the GIMP developers alive for that one alone...

Re:GIMP horror stories

[omry_y]

Since Gimp lets you manipulate sevetal images at the same time, it does not make sense to put a save item in the menu of the main window. (which image do you want to save, exactly?)
however, each image window has its own file menu, which includes save.

Re:GIMP horror stories

[Tidal Flame]

The foremost one. Seems obvious enough to me. I won't pretend I've never saved the wrong image in Photoshop, but having "Save" under the "File" menu should be a given.

Re:GIMP horror stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you must have been using a very old version of Gimp, or a tweaked one. Gimp has a menu on every image window, which is the same menu that you get by right clicking. It has a "file" entry which itself contains a "save" entry. This menu can be disabled, but is enabled by default.

Re:GIMP horror stories

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like a lot of tools in the Gimp are stuck either in the right-click menu, or the image menubar, and you don't know which one it is until you go looking.

That's probably the single biggest issue with the program, right there.

Re:GIMP horror stories

[BitwizeGHC]

It makes a lot more sense to have one menu for the whole program, and put it at the top of the screen where it is easily accessible with a flick of the mouse. Usability test after usability test has confirmed this, and Windows and Un*x have yet to catch up.

Re:GIMP horror stories

[bbc]

[Context menu woes]

"I hope these usability guys flay the GIMP developers alive for that one alone..."

Heh, I feel your pain.

You will be glad to hear that since a year or two, in the Mac and Windows builds at least, the default setting is to have the menu bar in the image window be switched on.

Re:GIMP horror stories

[bbc]

"Usability test after usability test has confirmed this"

In that case you won't have any problem providing links to the results of at least some of these tests. Because, quite frankly, I don't believe you. Usability tests rarely produce such generic results.

Mod parent funny!

[BitHive]

With all the crap jokes people crack around here, this one needs way more love.

Hrm...

[Praedon]

How can it be OpenUsability when we all Slashdot it?? : ) Oh well, Ive seen the site earlier in the week.. Id have to say that a GUI Interface is the most important piece for especially new people to a specific program. I use GIMP on a regular basis, and the "Usability" is pretty easy to Use! : )

Text manipulation?

[Shazow]

Anyone find that the ability to manipulate text in Gimp is... lacking? I was trying to make a basic logo in Gimp a few weeks ago, an operation that would take me five minutes in Photoshop, ended up taking me almost two hours in Gimp.

It's really difficult to resize text to fit the shape you want while maintaining good quality, while I believe Photoshop does this by maintaining the font's vector information until you rasterize the layer.

Also it was very difficult adding simple effects to it, such as a outline, glow or shadow. And at the same time, having it adjust dynamically when I alter the parent layer.

I found it very frustrating, and I've been using Gimp for many months now. >.< Maybe I'm missing something and still have more to learn, but I don't think many people would disagree that some of the interface on Gimp is unintuitive.

I'm happy to hear that they're trying to improve.

- shazow

Re:Text manipulation?

[L.Bob.Rife]

You're right, the Gimp doesn't have very strong text manipulation. What I do is run both Gimp and Inkscape. Inkscape is wonderful for text.

Re:Text manipulation?

[IamTheRealMike]

Well, I was doing exactly the same thing the other day and didn't find it too hard. While you can't drag the text out to the size you want, you can specify the size in points and the text information is preserved just fine in a separate layer. To add effects to it, convert the text to a path. Now you can stroke it (to get an outline), or convert the path to a selection and use any of the standard effects.

Now, I guess that's not totally straightforward, but it's no worse than Photoshop or any other pro paint package. Doing nice effects with these packages requires a basic knowledge of theory like what a path or selection is. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Re:Text manipulation?

[Shazow]

I am aware of these techniques. I've been doing digital art for several years, though most of that time was spent on Gimp. I just feel that the current methodology in Gimp requires you to jump through several hoops while Photoshop allows you make all the relevant adjustments in one convenient window.

Yes, you can outline things using a Path, you can create shadows by duplicating the layer, solid colouring it, and putting it behind the original layer, you can create a glow with the same method and some blur, but the problem is: To make minor adjustments, such as opacity, colour, position, etc., you're essencially required to start from scratch.

Yes, most effects can be made "manually", but this is awfully inconvenient, which is why filters and various features were created.

In my opinion, it's at least a little unreasonable to be forced to do those, very common things, "manually".

- shazow

Re:Text manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's shadow effects hidden in the Script-fu menu...
What I find annoying (MacOS-X) is Gimp can use any and all my fonts in the delightful places they get hidden, but, it must first create its own fonts cache, and woe betide if any font should have the slightest defect :-(

GIMP vs Photoshop, AGAIN

[LinuxThis]

Best experience with GIMP:
Use lazy window focus and a single linux desktop (e.g. Desktop #4). Isolated on its own desktop, it has an mdi-like feel to it.

Worst GIMP:
Running under windows, you don't get lazy focus or seperate desktops, it gets messy. Hence the call for MDI-ness.

Also, file open dialogs still kinda suck, esp under windows.

GIMP's great feature set is masked to newcomers by its 'horrible' UI. But like anything else, you can get used to it if you need to. It doesn't make the whole app broken, it just makes it harder to use (still a bad thing though).

Don't like the UI? Use something else, its that simple. Articles like this show the GIMP dev's are at least aware of the UI issues and maybe are taking steps to improve it.

But don't let your initial impressions stop you from learning a great tool. GIMP's functionality is rock solid, lets just hope the UI gets there someday.

Or just stop complaining and use Photoshop. I've used both GIMP and Photoshop for professional photo work before, and either one works great (just one doesn't cost me $700).

How Do I Look?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen that TV show (maybe it's on the Style Channel).

They take some fat slob who is a gawdawful mess, and they do a makeover. They buy him/her new clothes, a haircut, back waxing . . . whatever. At the end of the show they call all the friends together to view the results of all that work.

Voila! We now have a fat bloated, slob dressed up in new clothes. Maybe instead of the clothes they should have paid for a fat farm or a stomach staple.

Gimp, are you listening?

Issues

[Syrra]

I use GIMP for spriting and some other stuff, and I must say, it does have a confusing interface. Once I was trying to isolate the two layers of a .gif and I had to accedentally open up the layers menu and copy them elsewhere to get them apart. GIMP isn't too bad though, if you want an interface to complain about take a look at Blender! http://www.blender.org/

The usual mistake

[ArmorFiend]

Gimp is perfectly usable. I know. I use it. The question here is one of "easy to learn". Gimp is not easy to learn. Gimp is extremely powerful and fast to use for an experienced user. "Easy to learn" and "good for the pro" are not mutually exclusive, but they're almost so. I don't think Gimp will ever be the application grandma fires up to rotate her digital photos 90 degrees. That's fine.

Grandma also doesn't edit the Linux kernel source code in emacs and recompile it to support her digital camera. Emacs is extremely powerful and efficient for an experienced user, but totally unscrutable to the uninitiated. For the uninitiatied there's gedit or notepad. For the initiated there's emacs. This is as it should be. So should it be with Gimp.

Learning is fun

[slick_rick]

I had the same experience when I first tried Gimp. But then again I had the same experience when I first tried PS. The fact is you have to learn how to do anything non-trivial in any non-trivial program. Next time take the approach of "I would like to learn how to do X with Y" instead of "I need Y to do X even though I already know how to do it easier/quicker with Z" and you might be pleasantly surprised.

Just give me adjustment layers...

[jonr]

And I will STFU and never use Photoshop again...

An accurate, but useless point

[Anonymous Coward]

Gimp is perfectly usable. I know. I use it. The question here is one of "easy to learn".

In that sense, all UIs are usable. Given enough practise, anybody can learn how to even use the most arcane UIs. When people talk about "usability", they are pretty much always talking about "easiness to learn". You are correct that Gimp is good for an Emacs-loving experienced user, but unless you want Gimp to be confined to that userbase, Gimp's usability for the common folk must improve. And that is a requirement if it ever can be a Photoshop replacement for Linux.

Re:An accurate, but useless point

[ArmorFiend]

And that is a requirement if it ever can be a Photoshop replacement for Linux.

Last time I checked, Photoshop was in its own way as inscrutable as Gimp.

I find the entire "usability" talk about the Gimp to have a strong undercurrent of whining: "People who take the time to educate themselves on how to use Gimp can do useful things. I want to be able to do useful things, but I'm not willing to educate myself. Therefore I blame the Gimp for not being "usable" enough, rather than my own lack of comittment to self-education."

Its like a luser I know, who wants to be able to author web pages, but hasn't ever learned the concept of "heirarchical file system", and so can't grok how to lay out or even give names to her web pages saved on disk. She accuses "web authoring" of being too hard. Well, get yourself a shovel...

I see the same thing in the Gimp. Layers are hard. Understanding alpha transparency is hard. Understanding color mappings is hard. Understanding color index versus RGB is hard. Understanding the benefits and drawbacks of jpg or gif or png are hard. Before people grit their teeth and teach themselves these concepts, no amount of "usability" is going to help them accomplish their goals.

Re:An accurate, but useless point

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like a luser I know, who wants to be able to author web pages, but hasn't ever learned the concept of "heirarchical file system", and so can't grok how to lay out or even give names to her web pages saved on disk. She accuses "web authoring" of being too hard. Well, get yourself a shovel...

While I do not deny that lusers out there like that exist, thats a poor comparison. People at that level of understanding simply cannot and will not be able to author web pages, beyond exporting HTML out of word. However, people that are graphic designers (i.e. - people that understand PNG and alpha channels) sit down at the Gimp and find it very hard to use.

Sure, they could learn how to use it in the same way that someone does a lot of word processing can eventually learn Emacs and Vi shortcuts, but part of developing good software is working to minimize these barriers as much as possible. Until that happens, Linux will never make headway on the client.

There is no gimp foundation

[Anonymous Coward]

If you check mail archives (gmane, official ones are down) you'll see there were plans, but got ditched.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[Noksagt]

I agree that it is trollish to say "fix it yourself." It is wasted breath.

But so is demanding such changes from developers who are scratching their own itches, often for freee.

People who want a feature that isn't currently in another product have many options: politely request that the developer work on adding the feature (normally through bugzilla or feature requests in some online CMS, like sourceforge), do it themselves, pay someone else to do it for them, offer up a bounty (how about the comparable license cost you'd be paying for Photoshop?), use some other software (such as Photoshop), or bitch and moan in a public forum, such as slashdot. Out of all of those options, the last is the LEAST effective method.

People who use it should expect dumb replies, such as "you have the source--fix it yourself." In short, it is often flamebait to make such posts & those who do make such posts can be just as bad as the people who then flame them.

Gimp's ok but...

[Anonymous Coward]

looks horrid. Lots of superfluous visual stuff going on (eg change of pointer orientation over menus; odd button effects) which doesn't inform the user or beautify the interface.

I will allow nothing into my house that I do not know to be be useful or believe to be beautiful.

My wife's experience

[xrayspx]

Usability reasons are largely why my wife hates the Gimp. She makes her living on Photoshop, but I use the Gimp for all my random junk. One weekend I decided to try her out on it and her experiences were like this:

-- Dialogs were inconsistent and many times didn't properly explain their function (filters)

-- Layers are handled 'quaintly'. No layer grouping, which takes it totally out of the running for her day-to-day stuff. She will often have documents with 100+ layers, grouped and folder-ized.

Those were two of her biggest compaints, most of the others were "this feels different from Photoshop", which you can't do anything about. But the large compaints were all layer and user interface related.

She didn't care about CMYK because she wasn't doing anything destined for print, but that would have killed her too.

Most of my personal beefs have to do with palettes that get behind other objects (like my workspace) and I have to track them down. But I'm not an artist.

Most of her compaints exist in previous versions of Photoshop too, to be fair, but if I even joked about "hey, why don't I install Photoshop 6 for you on that new machine", well, I wouldn't eat for a month.

The experience of trying to get her to use Gimp for a day scared me off of ever trying to get her using Inkscape or any of the other vector stuff, even for 5 minutes, instead of Illustrator.

Usability lab testing can only mean good things for this project, I hope a lot of good comes of it!

What the Gimp (or Metacity) really needs

[cortana]

The last few versions of the Gimp have really improved.

No longer does every palette count as a separate window in the Alt-Tab list/window list.

Clicking on a palette no longer steals the focus from the document window*. This used to drive me insane.

The visibility of palettes can be toggled by pressing Tab.

Raising a document window now even raises the palettes along with it!

The one thing I find missing is a way to maximise the amount of space a document window takes up, without making it so large that parts of it are obscured by the palettes.

As much as I hate MDI, I have to admit that being able to maximise a subwindow, having previously docked the palettes into the main window is very handy. Likewise, on the Mac OS, the window manager knows to avoid overlaying a window on palettes or the dock when hitting 'the green button'.

So, all I want is for the Gimp to borrow this behaviour from the Mac OS. Have it avoid my palettes when maximising windows. The 'correct' place to implement this is probably even in Metacity. I don't really care who gets it fixed, but once it is, I will no longer have cause to complain about the Gimp's UI.

Gimp: Usable yes. Powerfull no.

[Qbertino]

Calling Gimp "extremely powerfulll" is like calling WordPad a strong layout tool.

Re:Gimp: Usable yes. Powerfull no.

[Qbertino]

Good heavens. Modded -1 flamebait. I can't believe it. What is this? Idiot day at slashdot? Had the same class of tread just an hour ago (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160244&cid=13 415812/) ... Did I say slashdot? Never mind...

When will they add...

[ShawnD]

...a way to draw a circle in less than 5 steps and 2 layers.

I miss Deluxe Paint. Simple, but powerful. EA should get back into productivity software :-).

Re:When will they add...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look a bit harder. My project, Lunapaint, is in cvs now, and a new version will be released soon. Lunapaint tries to emulate all the features of both TVPaint and Deluxe Paint, including animation and onion skin, and paint effects.

It's not an image editor though...

Re:When will they add...

[prockcore]

It's two steps and only one layer.

Use the circle selection tool, then select Selection -> Stroke.

Re:When will they add...

[ShawnD]

It used to be:

1. Circle Select
2. Fill
3. Shrink Select
4. Cut or Delete

   and you had to do it on a seperate layer to avoid damaging the stuff under it. It's greate that they fixed that, but I still miss having a circle and rectangle button on the toolbox.

Re:When will they add...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you just want to draw simple shapes, use inkscape.

Re:When will they add...

[prockcore]

Oh yeah, that's awful. Being able to stroke selections is easier but still isn't very intuitive.

If I were a gimp programmer, I'd add a line tool which has a pullout for a circle tool.

To be honest, for what the majority of users need, Inkscape is better suited (the same goes for Illustrator versus Photoshop)

Funny enough, the best paint program I've ever used was a program called Platinum Paint for the Apple IIgs. Second place is Painter, back when the software came in a paint can.

Gimp hides with tab

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're refering to auto hide, or you just not tried.

death to MDI

[Anonymous Coward]

Having windows captive in other windows is riduculous. It not only makes multiple monitors difficult to use, it makes large monitors useless too. Because anything that isn't document content is useless backdrop.

Plus MDI just encourages this "buildup" of little palette windows that makes your useable monitor area much smaller than it needs to be.

Wrong To Complain

[buckhead_buddy]

To a developer the Gimp is really two projects in one: functionality and interface. To a user it's all just interface. The unique functionality that The Gimp provides can be completely obscured if hidden behind atypical GUI behaviors. Users complain that the interface doesn't work as expected; developers complain that the users aren't being objective. Both sides venom demoralizes and drives away the other.

Photoshop had a similar issue with it's great color model and anti-aliasing tools in version 1.0. The interface was akin to Pixel Paint or other paint programs, but users weren't able to make retina-searing RGB color gradients and everything always looked fuzzy because of anti-aliasing. Rather than just arguing technical supperiority of their tool, later versions added more color models and ways to turn off anti-aliasing. Users saw Photoshop was easier to use and could produce better results.

If the Gimp wants to evolve into an OS independent graphics platform (like Adobe apps have), they'd be smart to create a version that lets users explore in a way that meets their expectations. Make a "Gimp Lite" that works like dozens of other MacPaint inspired tools (Paint Shop Pro, MS Paint, Photoshop, etc). Some functionality will be more difficult to use because of the more constrained interface, but users will learn the capabilites of The Gimp in a familiar way. When they hear about how much more productive the interface of "Gimp Advanced" is than Gimp Lite they'll be more capable of making the jump to a new interface.

On the other hand, if they have to learn both functionality in a new interface they'll only be likely to complain.

OK, let's start with the open/save dialogue

[Air-conditioned cowh]

I tried introducing Windows users to Gimp and even Gimpshop but the thing that always gets in the way is the file open/save dialogue. It might look right at home on a Gnome desktop but in Windows or KDE it just looks, works and feels completely different to the open and save dialogue you get in other applications. It's different, very different. Firefox on KDE also has this problem, that is a Gnome-esk file browser.

Openoffice used to have this problem too but now at least uses the native open/save dialogue to blend in with the style of the window manager it is running with.

Is this too difficult to do?

Re:OK, let's start with the open/save dialogue

[Anonymous Coward]

I too have had this problem with KDE not fitting in with the dialogs on popular applications. If you find a solution please post it.

OpenUsability

[Anonymous Coward]

So they start with an OpenUsability site that has no clear purpose, no information, a cluttered design, a bunch of irrelevant stuff on the front page, and where the only seemingly-relevant link opens a new window (a big usability no-no)

So where are the usability experts?

I applaud the GIMP initiative. Try using Photoshop

[Anonymous Coward]

All of you bashing the GIMP should try to using Photoshop which will set you back about $500. If you think the GIMP has usability issues I wonder what you think about Photoshop. Unfortunately the GIMP took many of his queues from Photoshop.
As much as I appreciate Adobe's innovation I hate their bloaded implementations that eat all resources of your system and their unintuitive user interfaces. Obviously there are these artistic types that went through years of conditioning who claim the contrary.

In any case I hope the GIMP will improve usability for all users and not only the artistic (read photoshop conditioned) and hacker types (including myself).

FS

The GIMP Feature I Most Miss

[Nom du Keyboard]

The usability feature I most miss in GIMP verses Photoshop -- if it's there, I haven't found it -- is the ability to modify a rectangular selection by dragging any side or corner after the selection is first established. I use it in PS all the time to fine tune my selection, and if it's in GIMP it wasn't obvious to a search.

I don't mind looking like a GIMP idiot if someone points out to me where I've so obviously missed this useful feature.

Re:I agree -- SO WRONG!

[Nom du Keyboard]

However, if all that happens is that they turn the interface into a clone of PhotoShop's then the developers will be doing the Gimp (and us) a disservice.

That is so wrong an attitude. It's elitest, and unproductive.

Having a highly similar to virtually identical interface for two programs that perform the same function would be a Godsend for anyone who ever has to use both of them. Unless you can clearly demonstrate why GIMP's interface is significantly superior to PS, you have no argument that just because you like the current GIMP UI, that there wouldn't be an important advantage to more commonality between programs that perform the same functions. Even naming the tools and layer effects the same is greatly useful. And this is not to flame either GIMP, or PS.

Of course, with Look and Feel lawsuits not forgotten, such common sense is unlikely.

As one of the GIMP's biggest fans,

[Hosiah]

I would like to say that I, for one, love the GIMP exactly as it is, and want no changes in the interface design at all. Yes, it is a complicated program. Yes, it is overwhealming for the novice. So is POVray and Blender.

That's because, unlike toys like "Windoze Payntbrush", you can actually DO SOMETHING with it! A lot of functionality necessitates a lot of buttons, or menu options, or configurable widgets. As I harp on again and again, a Stealth Bomber is more powerfull than a tricycle, so when you get into the cockpit of a Stealth Bomber, don't complain because you didn't find a set of rubber-gripped chrome handlebars and a set of plastic pedals to operate it with.

And, as always, I expect I'll be shouted down by the mob. We will have our handlebars and pedals anyway, even if it means chopping a Stealth Bomber down to the functionality of a tricycle. It never occurs to people that if a tool is too difficult for them to use, that probably means that they don't need it - they need to stick to their tricycles and leave the Stealth Bombers alone for those of us who NEED them.

Re:As one of the GIMP's biggest fans,

[OwP_Fabricated]

Besides the really, really stupid analogy, can you explain why a powerful program needs to have a complicated and unorganized interface?

Re:As one of the GIMP's biggest fans,

[Anonymous Coward]

all the complainers are not realizing what they are complaining about, including you.

what everyone is really is saying is: "it has taken me 6 to 12 months to become even mediocre with photoshop, i don't want to waste another 6 to 12 months of my time re-learning a NEW TOOL so can you spend the rest of your life making gimp exactly like photoshop because I'm too fucking lazy to learn a new tool or spend $800 on photoshop. thankx."

what everyoen should saying is: "oh look, here is a new tool, let's learn how it works, why it does what it does, and how can i most effectively learn to use it."

gimp will never be photoshop. gimp should never strive to be photoshop. in a lot of ways gimp is already a lot more than photoshop, especially with the scripting abilities it has. gimp already has a lot of the same or similar features of ps, it also has a lot of features ps doesn't have. the few things that ps can do but gimp can't are being worked on slowly.

and gimp is free.

the key to success in the information age is 'learning to learn'. once you master that skill this entire thread becomes irrelevant.

Re:As one of the GIMP's biggest fans,

[volvis]

Photoshop is like a tricycle when you first ride it. The next time you ride it, the tricycle has turned into a bike. You repeat this until you're sitting inside a Stealth Bomber cockpit and thinking: "Whoooah! All this shit in a tricycle! Who would've known?"

That's usability for you!

Re:As one of the GIMP's biggest fans,

[Hosiah]

I don't know what else to say. My eight-year-old daughter uses GIMP with no problems. Nobody taught her, she just figured it out from playing with it. My wife has also toyed with GIMP occasionally, and she's such a technophobe, she was the last person in the house to quit using Windows.

BTW, I've used Photoshop, MGIphotosuite, Corel Draw, MacDraw, xpaint, KPOVmodeler, Blender, and just about every other imaging program out there. I say again: There is NO difference between the buttons and menus and commands of one, and the buttons and menus and commands of another, save functionality. More features = more buttons. Who else but a simpleton would expect otherwise?

Do you expect to be able to talk expansively about every topic, while having a vocabulary of just 50 words? Do you expect to be able to build any structure in the world of architecture with just a hammer and a screw-driver? After seeing some of this mentality, I am becoming convinced that some people do!

GIMP is free. It's developed by people just like you for free. The people who program it don't get paid to do so. If you don't like it, go buy a comparable product that you do like. Re-write it yourself how you like it. Or, best option of all, quit using computers altogether, especially to post your snivel symphony with backing violins about how EVERYTHING is just so damn hard on widdle ol' YOU.

End of story!

Noooooo... not again.

[HermanAB]

Just as I finally figured out how to draw a straight line with The Gimp, they want to change the UI again?

Re:Noooooo... not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are trying to be funny, but...

Program should be show easy to use that you don't need to learn how to use. You should be able to use it right away, without any learning. I also had problems drawing a line and I have quite a lot experience with software. I have even written one paint program myself.

Re:Noooooo... not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, for a minute I thought you were going to tell us how to draw a straight line.

Try Ion

[Anonymous Coward]

Ion is a windows manager that allows you to group applications together in their own tab like groups. Or strictly subdivides the desktop into different areas.

Hopefully the way of the future TM.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The big problems I have with The Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

He's too submissive! (ok, lame Pulp Fiction reference)

Now in all seriousness, here are the things I absolutely, positively HATE about The Gimp:

* Feather; works slightly differently than practically every other paint/image editing program in existence. Combine grow and feather into a single step, else make "photoshop-type feathering" a user-configurable option. I'm used to it but I can't get my full-time graphic designers to try The Gimp because we have Photoshop licenses already and they can't stand how this works

* Tablets are a PITA to configure in The Gimp. Once configured, tablets work GREAT but getting there is a chore

* Taskbar/dock buttons must be document-centric. There should be ONE taskbar button for the application if no documents are opened. When documents are open the application taskbar button should be destroyed and buttons instantiated on a per-document basis - preferably with the icon being a thumbnail of the current document.

* Windows/Docks/Pallettes should be dockable. Check out the CS2 suite and emulate that GUI as much as humanly possible

Things I'd "like to see" in The Gimp:

* Better vector support
* Better text handling (see Photoshop, Illustrator)
* improved layer/selection scaling tools

Awesome.

[TheSpoom]

First laugh out loud comment on Slashdot for me in a few days. You'd get a +1, Underrated if I had some mod points.

Correction

[Shazow]

Correction: Most of my experience was spent on Photoshop. (Didn't catch it in the preview :()

adadadadadalol

[Anonymous Coward]

People who want a feature that isn't currently in another product have many options: politely request that the developer work on adding the feature (normally through bugzilla or feature requests in some online CMS, like sourceforge), do it themselves, pay someone else to do it for them, offer up a bounty (how about the comparable license cost you'd be paying for Photoshop?), use some other software (such as Photoshop), or bitch and moan in a public forum, such as slashdot. Out of all of those options, the last is the LEAST effective method.

It's sad how the second-to-last is the most effective, and probably will be forever.

To me, the only purpose of the open source 'movement' is to clear the real job market(the one for grown-ups) of competition with useless projects that cater to naive idealists. And that's fine with me.

For every single dead page on sourceforge, I can xerox my ass with impunity, on company time.

Make simple things simple

[Anonymous Coward]

My major gripe about the GIMP is that simple things are hard to do. For example: draw a circle. I have to Google the instructions for that evey time. And I still don't know how to make a circle that is transparent except for the, well, circle. Would it hurt too much to add two icons next to the selection tools that would let you draw these common shapes like ellipses and rectangles?

Artist feedback

[PromANJ]

I'm an artist who paint a lot in Photoshop. Some of you might have seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster vs Adam (Sistine Chapel) painting I did.

Anyways, I've been trying to give feedback to GIMP(shop) for quite a while, but I can't find any feedback emails or forums.

I failed to register at "open usability". I couldn't activate my account, because of an error or I just got my password wrong (which I wrote down clearly). I also tried to register another account, but that didn't work since my email was taken by my previous inactive account.

So my feedback will have to go here. It concerns mostly my painting technique. Maybe someone could drop this in a relevant inbox?

1: Colorpicking has to be easy. I prefer temporarely shifting to the colorpicker while holding down a key. The colorpicker should be able to handle average colors too, in case you colorpick from an area with a lot of noise.
In GIMPshop it seems I have to switch to the colorpicker tool manually, then when I colorpick a dialog comes up that I have to click down. This takes several seconds and kills workflow. Basically thing single 'feature' alone makes it practically impossible for me to paint in GIMP. I need to be able to colorpick once or twice per second. Yes I paint fast and I blend by using a 50% transparent brush and dabbing several times if I want opaque color, or I dab and colorpick if I want it more transparent. I use a wacom but have pressure sensitivity set to size so I can reach narrow places or fill large areas without having to change brush. Workflow and accesability is VERY important.

2: Brushes. It would be useful to be able to make several brushes that are just a click of a button away. When painting I generally use a few hard brushes and a few soft airbrushes, and some for multiplying on base colors onto line art. I do not want to manually set these up everytime I'm changing brush.

3: Photoshops 'Fade' is very useful. It brings up a slider which allow you to fade the last change, which can be a brushstroke, a curve/level, a hue/saturation change, or almost anything. This is very handy since it's realtime and you can fade your change until it looks balanced.

4: Photoshop's history can be useful. Some artists also make a new layer to experiment, paint a little and if they're happy they merge, otherwise they delete it. I use the history brush occasionally to erase changes I made with a soft or hard brush. This is useful if I for example painted a lot of cool armour details, but ruined the head, then I can just history erase the bad changes to the head. Theoretically this can be done with layers though, if the old layer without the changes is perserved somewhere.

5: Brushstroke quality is important. There might be an option for it but my version of GIMPshop made irregular little blotches on my lines. Giving any changes to pressure some sort of weight might prevent this, so transitions to thinner lines goes smoother somehow. Flimsy and chaotic does not look good unless you're Pollock.

Re:Artist feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

I am using the full gimp not gimpshop...
so there might be differences but

1) CTRL Key with any paint tool gives you a colour picker... (alt key is often used by other things on linux)... Also there is a dock that is a colour picker. unlike photoshop your interface wont lock up when you open a dialog box.

2) Again this functionality is provided by a dock.

3) The simple solution though is to copy layer, apply effect on copy, use the opacity slider to replicate the effect. It is not as straight forward but you can experiment with layer modes and masks... what you are asking is a reasonable request though.

4) Again this already exists as a dock

5) Yeah this very annoying behaviour - You need to adjust the brush spacing to get decent results with the brushes (or use the ink tool)

Re:I agree -- SO WRONG!

[Urchlay]

Having a highly similar to virtually identical interface for two programs that perform the same function would be a Godsend for anyone who ever has to use both of them.

I don't know whether this is just me or not, but I find it maddening to switch between two user interfaces that are similar but not quite the same. Not too long ago, I switched from Opera to Firefox... I went through a period of cursing and threatening to delete both of them. I have the same problem with languages: After using Perl for a few years, I had to use PHP for a project... the languages have similar syntax, and it drove me crazy every time I'd write "split" instead of "explode" in PHP. Another one is Java vs. C: I can't tell you how many times I tried to test whether an int was zero or not with "if(myInt)", which of course won't compile in Java... and I *knew* the difference, but my fingers (or brainstem?) kept trying to do what they always had done.

I don't use either the Gimp or Photoshop much, so can't say whether one's got a better UI... but if they're going to be different, they should be *wildly* different. If they're going to be the same, well, that would be better for all concerned... but as you said, expect a lawsuit :(

Hopefully they will listen to recommendations

[edxwelch]

Gimp has amazing graphics capablities, but is let down badly by some elemental bad UI design.
The thing I hate the most is that the open file dialog does not open in the directory that you last used to open a file. It hard coded to the users home directory. This assumes that the user keeps all his/her graphics in one directory, which is riduculous.

Re:Hopefully they will listen to recommendations

[togofspookware]

And on Windows, it doesn't use the regular windows dialog. Instead, it uses the GIMP-specific one which treats root directories (c:/, d:/, etc) very strangely. Click on c:, and you end up in c:/program files/somethingtotallyunrelatedtothepictureiwanted toedit and have to click '..' 5 times. >:#

And you're full of shit too.

[OwP_Fabricated]

With Photoshop, it took me a good half hour to get familiar with the menu, option, tool positions, and the keyboard shortcuts I used the most.

Now, am I a Photoshop ninjitsu master capable of doing professional quality editing? Hell no. That has nothing to do with the positioning or layout of the tools themselves as long as they work. Being professionally capable with photoshop is knowing what values to put in where and what combination of filters, tools, and masks let you produce the desired effect.

Photoshop was intuitive and well organized for the most part.

Ditto for Paint Shop Pro, which while being nearly as powerful, had a markedly different interface outside of the fact they both used MDI. It took me even less time to learn how to use Paint Shop Pro.

Photoshop's interface is intuitive. Paint Shop Pro's interface is intuitive.

I tried using the GIMP (1.x and 2.x releases both) and went into it full well knowing I was going to have to learn another interface. I struggled mightily with the GIMP's odd menu layout, its clusterfuck of taskbar cluttering tool windows, and general lack of usability.

It's not learning a new tool, it's just the simple fact that Photoshop is a better one.

Ok, but how about you

[Anonymous Coward]

stop requesting features that aren't useful (and are distracting) to 99% of the user community.

"Usability Eye for The GIMP Guy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst pop-culture pun on Slashdot ever.

Re:I agree -- SO WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it open source developers fail to get the idea of "Embrace and Extend"? Copy the good ideas.

The major commercial graphics applications from people like Corel and Macromedia deliberately copy a whole lot of basics and keep things similar to Adobe unless they have a good reason to do otherwise.

The GIMP is being different for the sake of it most of the time and is much more different from Photoshop than most other graphics applications.

Re:I agree -- SO WRONG!

[zippthorne]

Who says photoshop has the best interface? Certainly they've done more research into useability than the GIMP dev's have had the resources to do, but GIMP should strive to be whatever its creators intended it to be. If that's a photoshop clone, then so be it. If their goal is a maximally useable program and that happens to converge to a PS-like design, the so be it, but if GIMP doesn't want to just be another Buran, they will consider everything they can.

The parent was expressing the desire for this to be a genuine improvement in GIMP's useability, rather than a consult-job going in with a pre-concieved notion that photoshop already does everything in the best way possible.

Re:i was the same way

[symbolic]

GIMP isn't as bad as people say it is. However, I will admit that there are some issues that are still annoying- but not exactly show-stuppers. Just the same, I'm glad that the GIMP team have the foresight to try and improve on this further.

Sliced Hot Dogs

[Anonymous Coward]

The original intent of The Gimp was to provide a set of modules to insert into a larger application for image management, as well as provide a framework for image modification libraries. Hence the floating palette model and distributed UI system.

It just so happens everyone just wants a binary to run Gimp directly on their OS because the binary which showcased the code waaayyy back in the day ended up turning out pretty darn good?

I can only imagine a usability call is more likely a shift to focusing on a specific Gimp application rather than an API. Yay. If it turns out decent, then y'all got what you wanted. If not, you'll all be using a code showcase as an image editor. Here let me pause and LMFAO.

The Gimp as a standalone app was an appropriation never intended, but unavoidable the day the first Win binary was released. But as everyone knows, if its free, and it does one thing everyone wants, it turns into that one thing, and so The Gimp grew like a Boil that everyone picked at, trying to figure out just what the hell it was.

Is it that Slashdot is once again complaining about getting a free Hot Dog, carefully slicing it into very small lunch meat and calling it bologna?

Re:I agree -- SO WRONG!

[EggyToast]

That was part of the big deal with Adobe doing the whole "creative suite" thing -- they had finally brought the overall UI of their programs together so that they were rather interchangeable.

Obviously there were differences enough respective to each program -- the tools for Illustrator are quite different from the tools for GoLive, for example. But the palettes and use of each program was exceedingly similar, after years of being just different enough to be annoying.

Still, Paint Shop Pro uses an interface very similar to Photoshop, and I'm relatively certain that it's how it holds on to its relatively small marketshare. It's an alternative that's similar enough so people can use it as either a "home alternative" or a "stepping stone" if they're already familiar with Photoshop.

While naysayers will say that just because Photoshop is popular isn't reason enough to start using a similar interface, there are a lot of things that Photoshop just does right. Putting tools that are semantically similar yet different enough that they won't be used simultaneously on different tabs of one window keeps them visible without getting in the way or "losing" them. And all the tabs can be pulled off if you need to use them a lot. All of the windows recognize one another, and if you start moving them around they'll auto-align with one another and so on. Similar tools are grouped together and are easily accessible.

It's not a perfect interface, but it's one that's easy to pick up on right away and create or edit materials. It's had a long history of user testing, and it shows. An interface should be easy to use for a beginner -- it shouldn't require its userbase to "just spend time getting used to it." Similar to how someone familiar with Office can pick up Open Office with relative ease, so should it be true of most similar applications -- good user interface design will ultimately end up with some similarities, but should be obvious and usable enough for most beginners.

GIMP interface and graphics tablets

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think the GIMP's interface was terrible. But then I splashed out and got a graphics tablet. And I found that GIMP has a pretty damn good interface - if you're a graphics tablet user! Mouse users are obviously second-class citizens in the GIMP UI.

I'd say this might be as it should be: If you're a professional image manipulator these days (no, not all of us work in the porn industry... only like 95% of us :-) ), you'll have a graphics tablet.

Re:I agree -- SO WRONG!

[CastrTroy]

This is the exact same problem with command lines. Every time I start using the Windows command line. I start typing ls, rm, and using the / key. I can make batch files that call the proper commands for ls and rm, but is there any way to get the windows command line just just substitute / for \.

Let's talk about the complexity in the room.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that in one. Money motivates one to deal with that hurdle (sometimes with better tools). With the other, complexity, much like dirty laundry can be put off, either at a later date, or onto someone elses shoulders, or just simply not delt with, period.

Re:I applaud the GIMP initiative. Try using Photos

[Farmer Tim]

All of you bashing the GIMP should try to using Photoshop which will set you back about $500.

If you look carefully, I think you'll find that most of the comparisons are with Photoshop; in other words, they have tried it, and apparently it is worth $500 (or $1200 here in .au) to have a program thats been laid out with some regard to years of user feedback.

Obviously there are these artistic types that went through years of conditioning who claim the contrary.

Again, considering the fact that Adobe have used user feedback to refine their product, is it a question of the "artistic types" being conditioned to Photoshop, or Photoshop being conditioned to the "artistic types"? If I was designing a graphic manipulation program the first people I'd ask about UI layout is graphic artists, and I'd take their comments seriously because they set the (de-facto) standard that everyone else follows.

And bearing in mind that graphic design is a specialized discipline with a technical language of its own, how intuitive do you expect a user interface to be for "hacker types"? Do you also expect to be able to use Blender without understanding coordinate geometry? Neither GIMP or Photoshop promises a novice complete usability from the start, that's the price of a comprehensive feature set. But the fact that anyone is still prepared to pay hundreds of dollars for one, when they can both do (almost) the same job according to the specifications should be a bit of a clue stick: apparently it is possible to make a UI suck so badly you can't give it away, regardless of the underlying features.

Frankly, I recommend GIMP to everyone I know who thinks they need a pirated copy of Photoshop. I've handed out over thirty copies for various platforms on CD; the only person who persisted for any length of time was my 71 year old father, and he gave up using it when he found Graphic Converter had a clone stamp tool. Think about it: "does everything you'd need from Photoshop, its free, has no license issues", yet not a single taker, even from those who have never used Photoshop. Care to explain that?

Oh, wonderful-The Introvert OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sure it have some great features, but it's viciously protective of them and doesn't want anyone to use them!"

Linux? Is that you?

Let's talk about the patterns in the code.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should read Holub on Patterns

Re: restacking is disabled.

[Ayanami Rei]

The "Background" layer in GIMP is special if it doesn't contain transparency. In that case it tries to keep you from putting foreground layers (which might be transparent) behind it which would not be good if you tried to Flatten Image or something.

Just duplicate the resized layer, then do a canvas fill on the Background layer.
That's it.

Usability eye?

[_iCeb0x_ (1337 and k]

Hey! I am not really scared that the usability people will ruin the GIMP. What scared me the most today was that GIMP's mascot/icon, Wilber, was moving his eyes. Damn stupid GIF animation just made me jump away from my monitor! =)

More artist feedback

[PromANJ]

Thanks for the reply!

5: Spacing fixed the blotches on the lines.

1: CTRL worked fine for colorpicking. However, I can't CTRL colorpick in the drawing window right after selecting a tool from the tool menu.

Made this: http://web.telia.com/~u48508900/gimpd.jpg (@ 50%)

Problems remaining:

2: When changing between the airbrush and paintbrush the program seem to forget what brush size I used. The functionality I'm after is something like this: CustomBrush(i) / BrushSettings ie. each custom brush has its own settings and can be saved. I couldn't find anything like this in GIMPshop but the interface is still a bit confusing to me. PS 5.5 don't have it either but the Airbrush and Paintbrush remembers what brush they used.

Very large (100 radius or more) airbrushes are very very slow, even with some spacing, and even when not drawing. Not sure what's up with that. In PS (5.5) I use size 500 brushes sometimes. Using large airbrushes is good for making changes on major element in the painting, such as fogging an arm, or increasing saturation in an area, or laying down a base color, or making a sky gradient smoother.


The docks and menus are HUGE, especially the color mixer. There's many large gray areas. Compare with the PS 5.5 GUI: http://web.telia.com/~u48508900/psgui.jpg (@ 50%)

Use child windows

[spitzak]

The only solution on Windows and X is to use what Windows calls "child" windows (X calls them "transient" windows). Each window has a "parent" window and the child is always atop the parent window. If the user clicks in the docuement/parent window to raise it, all the toolbars (which are children of it) are raised as well.

Now this is far from perfect, but it is the only thing you get out of X or Windows that works reliably. The most obvious problem is that there is only one parent. This makes using the same toolbars for more than one document impossible (on X you can hack in the ability to change the parent once the window exists, but you cannot do this on Windows).

The real solution is to *STOP RAISING THE WINDOWS ON CLICK!!!!!* Unfortunatly the designers of Windows and X are way too stupid and set in their ways to ever realize this. But the truth is that it is trivial for a program to raise it's own window in response to a click, and it can thus enforce any window ordering it wants.

Re:Use child windows

[arkanes]

Each window has a "parent" window and the child is always atop the parent window.

This is wrong - "child" windows do not always float on the parent (sadly - the amazing vanishing dialog box remains a hassle in Gtk apps to this day)

on X you can hack in the ability to change the parent once the window exists, but you cannot do this on Windows

This is not true. You can dynamically reparent windows in Windows.

Unfortunatly the designers of Windows and X are way too stupid and set in their ways to ever realize this.

And neither is this. Focus policy in X is the responsibility of the WM, and all the major ones allow you to switch off raise on click. You can do it on Windows, too, although it requires some low level hackery. I believe that the Windows XP power toys includes an option for it.

Re:Use child windows

[spitzak]

This is wrong - "child" windows do not always float on the parent (sadly - the amazing vanishing dialog box remains a hassle in Gtk apps to this day)

This sounds like a GTK bug. I have never seen any X window manager developed in the last 10 years ignore the TRANSIENT_FOR hint. And on Windows it certainly obeys this rule.

Focus policy in X is the responsibility of the WM, and all the major ones allow you to switch off raise on click

The problem is that the program cannot *assumme* the raise-on-click is turned off. It is *TRIVIAL* to do raise-on-click yourself if you know the WM is not doing it. The opposity is physically impossible. For this reason the WM should NEVER do raise-on-click.

Developer take.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a developer, I develop programs that do what I need to do the way I want to do them. Posting the source and making it available to others is simply a courtesy, I post my code in hopes others will do the same. I could care less if others use my software, if you don't liek it don't use it, don't demand I change my gift to you. If I were developing software to sell I would listen to complaints, if I were making the program specifically for the public or business then yes I would try to design it to be usable, but if it is just for me I will do it the most efficient way for me to use it. anyone else who picks it up, goo luck your on your own.

Re:I agree -- SO WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried GIMP before I finally tried photoshop. With GIMP, I read through the documentation and tried to get the thing to do what I wanted. Hours later, nothing was accomplished. Everything is assbackwards. When I finally got the chance to use Photoshop about a year later, I had the basics down in under 30 minutes.