Layer entry - too little space?

[Ilya Zakharevich]

"The developer's vision" of GIMP UI directions complains that there is
no space on a layer entry (one in the layers list) to show layer
grouping.  My observations on the topic:

  a) Current layer entry contains too little info anyway.  There is no
     indication of presence of a alpha channel (moreover, the layer-mode and
     transparency lock are shown on current layer only).

  b) The left 40-50 pixels (or somesuch) are used to visualize 2 bits
     of information only.

  c) To visualize groups, you need about extra 5 pixels per extra
     level of depth (ask me if one doesn't see how).

So a solution which immediately comes to mind is:

  1) merge 3-4 bits of info into 1 icon (using transparent icons as layers ;-).

  2) make this icon twice as narrow as each of the current wasteful
     visibility/move-lock icons.

This would free enough space to 4-5-deep layer group hierarchy.  The
other layers will have more space for names, or may be used with
larger icons.

How to implement (2): make the eye to look to the right instead of "at me":

   /
  /\
 < O    This icon may be of 1:2 aspect.
  \/
   \

How to implement (1): make icons (decreasing order in z-layer)

  "eye": black on transparent;
  "chain": gold on transparent, along left edge;
  "has alpha": usual checkerboard.

If desirable, one can also add "lock" icon in LR corner (for
transparency locking), and/or "Layer mode" icon in the UR corner
(e.g. red "ASCII-symbol for the arithmetic operation").

Both below eye in z-order.

  [I do not think that "transparency locking" is needed to be visible
  on all layers - it influences only editing, and one cannot edit
  non-current layers ;-).  However, "non-normal" layer-modes should
  better be visible on all layers.

======================================================= DEFECTS:

Currently, one can switch "chain" on/off by clicking on chain icon.
With a merge, this should be controlled separately (e.g., the same way
as "transparency locking"?).

What do you think?
Ilya


_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Jason van Gumster]

Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@...> wrote:

>   a) Current layer entry contains too little info anyway.  There is no
>      indication of presence of a alpha channel

I could be wrong here, but at least for me layers without an alpha channel are
named in bold text.

As for the merging of icons, how do you handle toggling
visibility/locking/chaining/etc? If you merge icons, that means you'd have to
have a separate control elsewhere (although I suppose you could cycle through
multiple states, but that would be annoying). This means you'd have to do two
clicks to change any non-active layer's state (one click to activate and a
second to change visibility, etc.) That makes things particularly troublesome
for changes that users make to multiple layers at once, like visibility and
chaining. You could make it so clicking certain parts of the icon toggle one of
the states (e.g. click just the chain portion) but that kind of requires more
precise clicking which can lead to incorrectly toggled states.

Granted, I'm a nobody here, but it seems to me like while your suggestion may
reduce some visual clutter, it complicates matters for users and could easily
slow them down. Either that or I'm simply not understanding... again. :)

  -Jason
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-10-21, Jason van Gumster <jason@...> wrote:
>>   a) Current layer entry contains too little info anyway.  There is no
>>      indication of presence of a alpha channel
>
> I could be wrong here, but at least for me layers without an alpha channel are
> named in bold text.

Might be.  But you see that it being non-self-documenting is as good
as having no indicator...

> As for the merging of icons, how do you handle toggling
> visibility/locking/chaining/etc?

Addressed in the OP.  Toggle-visibility is as now (click on composite icon).
Toggle-chaining must be moved elsewhere; the OP suggests moving to
near lock-transparencey (where, IMO, it belongs anyway).  (It might be
duplicated in a context menu of the icon too.)

Locking - I have no idea what you mean here...

> This means you'd have to do two
> clicks to change any non-active layer's state (one click to activate and a
> second to change visibility, etc.) That makes things particularly troublesome
> for changes that users make to multiple layers at once, like visibility and
> chaining.

Toggling visibility is a non-issue.  Chaining MAY BE an issue
(although I can't comment - I never needed chaining).  If judged
important enough, toggle-chaining on non-active layers may be also
implemented as Alt-Click (would be self-documented if mentioned in
right-mouse context menu).

Thanks,
Ilya

_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer