Re: Looking Ahead to K-3D 0.9

> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Timothy M. Shead <tshead@...> wrote:
>> Joe Crawford wrote:
>>
>>> All very cool.  I would like to make a quick note that I think we need
>>> to fix up a little bit of the fundamental stuff before we go off
>>> making anything wild.  I will attempt to test the newest version and
>>> go back to my previous tests, finding where users got frustrated, and
>>> also noting some of the things that I think are fairly obvious needs
>>> of a typical artist.
>>
>> To be honest I'm not sure much of anything has changed UI-wise since you
>> did that work, so don't be discouraged - what might be useful is if you
>> could reorganize / consolidate / distill the existing work - my
>> recollection is that there were multiple user studies and writeups
>> floating around.  I'm at a point where I'm starting to speculate about
>> what needs to change at a technical level.  Having a well-organized list
>> of problems would be a good place to start.
>>
>
> Joe, did you have a break down of the differences between the needs of
> 3D character animation artists and more engineering oriented people?
> The reason for asking is that for character work you use an
> approximate mesh and a detailed displacement map, whereas a person
> working on buildings or technology models (even for the same scene)
> requires a whole set of different tools.
>
> Can we start with a set of sser types and then compile sets of shared
> and unique tool requirements?
>