Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkkollaw | Hacker News Reader

Downvote all you want--I know open source can't handle criticism, but as much as I want to love GIMP, it's completely unusable.

First, it's still in GTK2 so on my monitor it looks zoomed out at 50%.

Then, the UI is the least intuitive thing I've ever seen. To resize and move a layer takes 4 times the steps compared to Pinta (or of course Photoshop).

Shortcuts are the weirdest thing, completely different compared to any other software I've used.

It's such a pity because undoubtedly there is so much work behind it, and the effects are absolutely perfect.

I really don't understand why they don't try to make it usable instead of showing a performance meter.

View on HN

Maybe i'm an outlier, but with zero prior experience in image editing software, i've found GIMP UI much more approachable than Photoshop. With PS i felt that the UI was much more tailored to experts or at least to people that knew what they were doing, whereas with GIMP i found the UI to be more beginner-friendly and discoverable.

So yeah, YMMV. What a shocker! :)

> Downvote all you want--I know open source can't handle criticism, but I really don't understand why they don't try to make it usable.

I'm intrigued by this. Do you genuinely think that the GIMP developers don't want or don't try to make it usable or to improve it as much as they can? What do you imagine? That they decide to spend their time contributing to a FOSS project and think "hey, today i'll try to make this thing that i love a bit more obscure and unusable!"?

I'm genuinely curious. I seems totally bizarre to me to think that way :S

> Do you genuinely think that the GIMP developers don't want or don't try to make it usable or to improve it as much as they can?

Ten years ago they made a call to artists to find out what they could improve, then didn't like the feedback they got and told the artists they were wrong. I guess that's how they got such a user hostile reputation.

"Ten years ago they made a call to artists to find out what they could improve, then didn't like the feedback they got and told the artists they were wrong."

You won't be able to prove this claim, because you made that up :)

Thanks. I was really disappointed about the replies to my message. Because just claiming that "yes, they do not care, it's a fact", doesn't make it a fact. No links provided. Nothing.

(In case someone wonders what's the evidence for claiming that the GIMP devs do actually care about the project: the evidence is the release itself. People don't volunteer to working on FOSS software and not care about the software or its users ;) )

Can you prove he made that up..?

Of course I can. We did two rounds of interviews with pro users, all done by UX/UI experts. Who then wrote a number of functional specs (see gui.gimp.org). We implemented all specs that were completed, some specs weren't completed, unfortunately, and there's always more work to do in that regard.

I think most of the feedback they got was "copy Photoshop's interface", but I have to agree with some of the other users in this thread that Photoshop's interface can be shockingly non-intuitive in places.

There are 20 years of corporate-backed work behind Photoshop's UI.

GIMP has nothing but to learn from it. There would be nothing negative about copying it outright.

Yeah, but it's 20 years of Adobe, which is not a company that I highly respect. IMHO there is a good chunk of Photoshop's interface that is the way it is mostly for legacy reasons. Some random programmer thought the feature would be good in buried down in this dialog box off of a vaguely related menu option and it has lived their ever since.

Adobe is a pretty great company I would think..?

Regardless, I can actually scale objects easily by dragging in Photoshop, at least.

Adobe the company that seems incapable of keeping up with Apple's API toolkits? How long did it take for Photoshop to go Cocoa?

> I'm intrigued by this. Do you genuinely think that the GIMP developers don't want or don't try to make it usable or to improve it as much as they can

Yes. They focus on features _they_ care about, not what users care about. The features announced in this release are good proof of that, but if you look in a comment below there's a first-hand experience of how GIMP's developers are annoyed by usability and the fact that users would want a more usable software.

I far from think that GIMP's developers owe me or anyone else anything. I just think it's a shame that GIMP is recommended so often to people that just moved to Linux (or actually in general), because there are good programs--like Pinta for editing and Krita for drawing--that are at par with Photoshop and are totally usable without installing Photoshop or going back to Windows.

"Yes. They focus on features _they_ care about, not what users care about. The features announced in this release are good proof of that"

I feel almost sorry about wasting my time replying you, because you can't even read the first two paragraphs in the release notes.

2.10 rc1 is not about new fancy features, it's about fixing a shit ton of bugs and adding stuff that improves reporting bugs and making GIMP more stable and responsive. Try wrapping your head around that.

"but if you look in a comment below there's a first-hand experience of how GIMP's developers are annoyed by usability and the fact that users would want a more usable software."

It looks made up :)

Edit: formatting

> I feel almost sorry about wasting my time replying you, because you can't even read the first two paragraphs in the release notes.

That's not very nice, uh? I don't think I offended anyone here.

However, I don't have to wrap my head around anything, because my point is that I don't think GIMP's developer's priority are in line with its users. I have hardly seen anyone complain about GIMP's bugs and stability problems (actually on that front it's been working great since I remember), and lots of people installing Wine because they can't figure out the interface.

> "but if you look in a comment below there's a first-hand experience of how GIMP's developers are annoyed by usability and the fact that users would want a more usable software." It looks made up :)

Since you've gone around the thread saying everything people post is a lie, can you actually state facts since you love facts so much? Can you link to a conversation the devs had about usability, where they were saying that it's important to them, their users, and a priority for the project?

> However, I don't have to wrap my head around anything, because my point is that I don't think GIMP's developer's priority are in line with its users.

Let's see.

Did users ask for 16-/32-bit per channel editing? Yes. Done in 2.10.

Did users ask for a tool that would combine rotation, scaling etc.? By gods, they did! Done in 2.10.

Did users ask for canvas rotation/flipping? My, didn't they just! Done in 2.10.

Did users complain about unusable iWarp filter? Oh yes! Fixed in 2.10, with a new tool that works directly on the canvas.

I can go on like that forever. At least half of https://wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Release:2.10_changelog was implemented from bug reports, and that list isn't even entirely up-to-date, partly because I'm a lazy ass, and partly because I keep stumbling on people like you and can't fight the urge to reply.

> Since you've gone around the thread saying everything people post is a lie, can you actually state facts since you love facts so much? Can you link to a conversation the devs had about usability, where they were saying that it's important to them, their users, and a priority for the project?

I can point you to a whole website we created to handle UI problems and a whole mailing list for the same purpose.

I can point you to specs there that were implemented.

If I manage to find old mailing lists archives, I can even point you to a post by a former lead dev who literally said that GIMP's usability sucks and then implemented single-window mode (much requested by users whose interests we ignore as you seem to believe).

Good enough?

> I can even point you to a post by a former lead dev who literally said that GIMP's usability sucks and then implemented single-window mode

It's ancient and of academic interest only, but here[1]'s a bug report where people ask for a single-window mode and are told it's impossible and undesirable. It stayed open for seven years before being WONTFIXed in 2008. I guess this might be before your time on the project, and of course things have changed since then, but I think this might the sort of thing that led to the GIMP team's reputation for user-indifference.

[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7379

"Do you genuinely think that the GIMP developers don't want or don't try to make it usable or to improve it as much as they can?"

Their actions and statements really lead us to conclude as much, yes.

"Their actions and statements really lead us to conclude as much, yes."

Facts, please.

I agree with you, and it's disappointing people are downvoting you. I ended up having beers with several core GIMP developers a few years ago, and they outright stated that improving usability was not a goal for them, in fact they would rather not have the burden of users who expected it to be easier to use. Speaking for myself, I've found other graphics programs were very intuitive and helped me be very creative, yet I've tried to stick with GIMP over the years and have never felt comfortable with it. I think it's a shame it has been promoted as the go-to graphics package for the free software world (it's the one that's always mentioned). There are now better alternatives that should be promoted.

When was this? I remember getting a similar impression like a decade or so ago but I think now GIMP definitely has devs that are interested in usability. And usability has certainly improved in the last few years, although it still has some serious annoyances (for my workflow / taste).

Close to a decade ago. But I haven't noticed any usability improvements. I feel like the time spent with GIMP was time wasted compared to other software where I could easily get what I needed done yet progressively gained aptitude for productivity and creativity. vim for example supports this. This is not to completely slam GIMP, it can be fine for software to demand users learn it deeply before doing simple things (draw a filled shape, draw over layers, consistently remove backgrounds, all typical things a user wants to do that are far from straightforward in GIMP), and to be appreciated by some people for its scripting ability and filters, but it's not a good go-to graphics software and more user friendly software should be promoted. Its name should be the first clue to this status.

Yeah, I think GIMP has this "open source best in class" status that it maybe deserved ~20 years ago but now it's kind of punching above its weight in terms of popularity.

That said, I actually think the current devs are doing good work, usability has totally improved and I'm somewhat optimistic that once this big, important, multi-year development branch is out of the door we'll see continued improvements.

Can't reply to your other comment about WONTFIX for MDI, because the thread went too deep.

I get your point about having to wait for 7 years, but let's just scroll down to the bottom:

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7379#c118

"...we should finally close this report as WONTFIX. This has been discussed to dead and there are plans for a user interface that will solve the problems that the MDI approach is supposed to solve."

and then:

"We are currently working on changes to the user interface that will solve the problems that the MDI approach is supposed to address. Window-in-window is definitely not part of this plan. It's not going to happen."

So it wasn't just closed as WONTFIX, it was closed as WONTFIX, because users requested MDI, and instead tabbed interface was introduced.

Fair enough, although I'll counter that GIMP didn't actually get single-window mode until 2011 (a full 10 years after that bug report), and it seems like the GIMP devs spent a lot of the intervening period trying to claim lack of single-window mode as a feature.

Like I say, ancient history now. But some of us are good at holding onto grudges :-)

"Close to a decade ago."

We started working with Peter Sikking, professional UX architect, around 2006. He departed three years ago or so.

That puts your claim roughly in the time when Pete was extremely active and wrote several functional specs that were implemented to make UI better.

Now tell me, do you feel like you remember 10 years old stuff correctly after several beers?

Yes, I remember it very well, and it's been reinforced nicely by other comments. It does seem GIMP developers have their own idea of reality. Congratulations on having the most heralded open source graphics editor, by the way.

I too found The GIMP easier than Photoshop to pick up, but that was well over a decade ago. The problem for devs with established UI is when there are significant changes you risk alienating your current user base who have got used to the UI. Like MS Word getting rid of the ribbon UI.

I tend to use Inkscape for creating, GIMP for modifying (eg photoshopping).

What are the other better FOSS alternatives to The GIMP?

Is GimpShop still actively maintained to keep up with the latest Gimp (the Gimpshot site is a little vague on these details)?

Didn't that provide a decent migration path for PhotoShop users to GIMP?

Looks like it's not maintained anymore, and gimpshop.com is a scam website from someone else (looks like, I might be wrong).

Yep, it _is_ a scam website now. The previous owner lost it and then failed to get it back.

Aren't most of GimpShop modifications actually easily achievable now in the vanilla GIMP?

Eh, not that I disagree with any specific point, but I've certainly been able to use it many times to do real work. Plus the Python-fu was awesome when I needed it.

Thanks for release!

I don't know, I must be slow but many, many times I _forced_ myself to learn it, and there's just no way.

I've finally come to the conclusion that it isn't me, but it's the usability that is completely flawed.

Unfortunately, when one tries to say anything the response is "you go fix it then, asshole!" but I don't know how to develop desktop apps, so...

> Unfortunately, when one tries to say anything the response is "you go fix it then, asshole!" but I don't know how to develop desktop apps, so...

There are other ways you can help!

As someone with experience using graphics applications, you could look into making UI mockups of the changes / improvements you have in mind. Seeing the mockups might get someone interested enough to start work on user-testing, prototyping, implementing, ..., them.

People already did that for years only to be completely ignored (or worse) by the GIMP developers.

I think this reputation for intransigence was probably merited by ~noughties GIMP team, but it doesn't seem to me to be deserved at present. I think the UX issues that remain are more due to lack of development resources than intransigence.

Edit: Despite my defence of the current devs, I continue to be annoyed by the GIMP cheerleaders who continue to unhelpfully blame the program's shortcomings on its users.

The thing is Adobe users will tend to want to copy that UI, which is easier because they're familiar with it. But if you're familiar with nothing, or familiar with The GIMP then that's likely to be an impediment.

Squaring that particular circle isn't easy IMO.

There are people who still prefer the separate window system, I've always liked the unified one. Simple differences like this can become divisive and split your developer and user groups.

You should try Blender! Some applications are just complicated and need time to learn.

Tried, and failed miserably.

They don't care.

My guess is the reason they haven’t overhauled the UI is they build GIMP for themselves and their own mental model. Having used Photoshop forever, I can’t make the transition to GIMP because it feels unintuitive. Unless Linux is your desktop OS, there are plenty of other cheaper options (than Photoshop), for example Pixelmator (OS X) or Paint.NET (Windows) that feel way more familiar.

Paint.NET is by far the best the best picture editor I've seen. Not nearly as feature-reach as GIMP or Photoshop so not an option for graphics professionals but for casual usage - it's bloody amazing, extremely intuitive in particular. I use Pinta on Linux and Mac - it's not as great as the original Paint.NET but still very handy while GIMP is like vim - you have to study it before you can use it (and you are going to forget what you have learnt if you don't use it regularly).

Paint.Net didn't even have customizable keyboard shortcuts last time I used it. I would consider it far behind GIMP in feature completeness.

In feature completeness - obviously. In usability - hardly.

> Paint.NET is by far the best the best picture editor I've seen.

That's quite a statement. I would only say it with the following qualifiers:

Paint.NET is by far the best free picture editor I've seen for Windows.

I've seen plenty of non-free (some very affordable, some less so) editors for Mac and Windows that are way better than Paint.NET.

I have never seen any picture editor, free or non-free that I (not a graphics professional, just a webmaster) would enjoy using nearly as much as I enjoy using Paint.NET. Photoshop looks notably more stylish (Paint.NET looks great too, GIMP looks mediocre from the aesthetical point of view) and feels a little bit more intuitive than GIMP yet still very hard to use until you spend days-weeks-months studying it and gaining experience. Paint.NET is 100% intuitive, no need to study, you just use it, looks great, feels convenient and does almost (for some things I actually use GIMP occasionally) everything I ever need quick-and-easy. The fact it is free is an amazing bonus to such a great product.

I am not a graphics professional either, and in the past couple of years, I've started to dislike Paint.NET a lot (I was a huge fan in the early days).

These are, off the top of my head, what I consider to better than Paint.NET:

Mac - Acorn, Pixelmator, Affinity Photo

Windows - Affinity Photo

If you're just doing simple edits en masse to images (crops and simple adjustments), then I would bypass an app like Paint.NET altogether and say these are better/easier:

Mac - iPhoto, Photos, Aperture, Any Lightroom Clone (there are many)

Windows - PhotoDirector, ACDSee, Any Lightroom Clone (there are many)

Thank you for the recommendations, I'll evaluate these.

"To resize and move a layer takes 4 times the steps compared to Pinta"

It does? Let's check.

1. Select a layer in Layers dock. 2. Shift+T for Scale tool 3. Drag to scale, press Enter to confirm 4. M for Move tool 5. Move

Please educate me how to make that 4 times faster with Pinta.

Note: you are likely being downvoted not for what you said, but for saying you will get downvoted. It's a frequent enough thing that it gets mentioned in the HN guidelines, last I checked.

Ah, cool--I didn't know that.

In this case however I think it's more open source fanboys no-matter-what downvoting, because I dared criticize an open source project made by poor volunteers that work on it on their free time, and if you say they are not getting something you're entitled and you should go fork it and do it yourself.

That's my impression, anyway.

I don't think this is accurate. If you look at other comments here, you will see some of them criticizing free and open source software and being highly upvoted.

Maybe because its hard. Maybe because the core developers can be counted on one hand.

My knee jerk reaction to your knee jerk reaction is: If its so easy, go fix it!

It's hard to develop the effects, not move buttons around.

As for the "go fix it", that's exactly the reaction I was expecting. Open source projects can't handle criticism because it's volonteers working on it, so "go fix it if you don't like it". Not very productive, uh?

Personally, I use Pinta or Photoshop via Wine. Pinta is very good though.

It's hard to develop the effects, not move buttons around.

Speak for yourself. As someone who's tried to write a simple image editor on a few occasions, writing the image effect was by far the easiest (and most fun) part. Almost all the core algorithms are published and well understood and beyond that it's mostly simple linear algebra. There are also plenty of objective measures to judge how good your implementation is.

Deciding where to "move the buttons" to took up almost all of my development time, was incredibly hard, dreadfully boring and what kept killing my interest in the project.

Given the choice between spending 20 hours trying to make the sharpening filters 5% faster or 20 hours trying to make the sharpening filters more intuitive and easy to use I'd choose the former every time and, unfortunately, it seems far too many developers feel the same.

I'm sorry? There's a difference between constructive criticism and

> I really do want to love GIMP, but it's completely unusable.

And you speak of being productive...

That's just my opinion of GIMP.

I can sugarcoat it, but we're all grown ups here I thought..? I didn't offend anyone.

You can install Photoshop's keyboard shortcuts into Gimp, takes like five minutes. And Photoshop doesn't have an intuitive UI either, no way for a newcomer to start using it on the spot, takes time to learn it. So, no, UI is not the problem, Gimp is roughly on the same level as Photoshop when it comes to UI. And spreading this silly myth doesn't help anyone.

Gimp's biggest problem is performance. Then features.

My problem isn't that the UI isn't "intuitive", it's that it's bad - eg. the annoying "layer boundary" thing and the tendency for shortcuts to do different things depending on where you focused last.

I don't know if UX people have a name for it, but I get particularly infuriated by the feeling that I'm being punished for learning shortcuts. Youtube is the other thing that continually annoys me like this.

Edit: In the interest of balance, GIMP's UI has got much better in recent years (single window mode being a particularly massive improvement).

Edit2: I note that fixing the layer boundary issue is on their roadmap so, although it continues to be annoying for now, they can't be reasonably be accused of being dogmatic or intransigent about it.

> the tendency for shortcuts to do different things depending on where you focused last.

I haven't heard this one before. Could you please provide examples? Thanks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com