First Pictures Of Single Window Gimp
omgubuntu.co.uk
omgubuntu.co.uk
http://darwingimp.sourceforge.net/guides/install_leopard/
(scroll to the bottom)
And Ctrl is used instead of Cmd.
It's a weird app for us on Mac.
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Image:Screen-ohmega-tab-gnome...
It looks fine... but maybe the linux dudes have standards lowered a bit?
The url is:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FJH0hYZmVtc/SsuTeVas_WI/AAAAAAAADl...
I actually fought with the linux UI for ages to make it look visually appealing. Invariably I always ended up using MS Window fonts, and Mac-style UI.
If you look closely at the screenshot you'll notice that it'll only take a few minor adjustments to make it actually look appealing: - Appropriate fonts (rather than those overly rounded ones) - Slimming down of grotesquely large UI text boxes. - Slimming down of grotesquely large dropdown controls. - NOT using rounded corners everywhere.
You'd be amazed how radically the UI can be improved from just these minor changes.
Ironic that they chose this screenshot, given that GIMP is a project mainly concerned with graphics and visuals.
BUT I think you are correct, some UI elements, especially in the palettes are too large.
How about "it looks REASONABLY GOOD" or "it looks ABOUT LIKE YOU MIGHT EXPECT"?
But relief and anticipation aside I have to agree with you that as far as aesthetics and design it is rather mediocre.
Edit: Did all of my downvote arrows disappear? I don't want to downvote anyone in particular here but that seems odd.
I can't say any of that, it's rude - but it's what I'm thinking.
Look at the right hand side - count the scrollbars, the dropdowns, the counters. What's that hideous layer control thing that's like a treeview/gridview with nested scrollbars sized to suggest it should be huge, crammed into a tiny little space? Grim.
Yes, its 100px wider, but still, imho Photoshop makes a lot better use of precious screen space. Compare the buttons under layer palettes. GIMP has 32px icons, while Photoshop has over 10px smaller ones. Or the slider, in Photoshop under "Navigator" and in GIMP in the Layers palette. Actually just compare Layers palettes in each. GIMP uses lots of superfluous labels and huge font size compared to Photoshop In my screenshot Photoshop also has 2 more palettes on screen.
Photoshops UI is also quite flexible, allowing to move and resize palettes freely, dock and undock, and group palettes to tab-groups. And layouts can be saved and then selected with just few mouse clicks. This allows it to scale across monitor size and count relatively easily.
edit: Sorry for inflammatory Photoshop vs. GIMP post
I can't conceive of a particular reason to have some completely unrelated program showing up in the same visual space as the one I'm currently working with.
The multi-window aspects of Macs makes them more usable imo, especially because of the deep support for drag-and-drop interoperation. In the physical world, I mix and match media as suits the task, and the Mac mimics that. I don't fill my desk up with a notepad, then hide it and take out a calculator, then hide it and set up my easel.
Rather than taking out/hiding away your various tools and implements in your desk, I believe the idiomatic Linux strategy is to have nine desks, each with a single tool on it.
I have the following set up: Firefox and entertainment apps on Space 1, IRC on Space 2, XCode and MacVim on Space 3. I don't bind anything to the remaining 3 spaces. The combination of Spaces and Exposé makes for great window management.
And yes, I love the multi-window aspect of OS X. Document-based applications are not only easier to use, they are easier to write, too.
So if the main image window is focused and I want to click on a button in the other window that is the toolbar I have to click once on the toolbar window to focus it and then again to click the button.
Now its back to the image window. Click once to focus, click again to start using the tool.
It is a disaster and one of the primary reasons that most of us are glad to have a single window GIMP.
GTK == "Gimp Toolkit"
It is correct that the toolkit was originally created for the GIMP, but it's not at all tied to the GIMP now.
The GIMP developers often push issues into GTK+ whenever possible, they treat it as just another library.
It's a good thing that GTK is a semi-independent project -- as obnoxious as the Gnome maintainers are, the Gimp asshats would have strangled it with their usual besieged malcompetence.
One of the nice things (again, IMHO) of the Windows concept (and Linux, and BeOS and <insert any other modern OS> for the most part) is that just because you happen to have a window in focus doesn't mean that the principle OS menus need to completely reconfigure themselves for that one app. The functions of the thing you are working on are supposed to carry around with that object.
Under any other possible metaphor, what the Macintosh operating systems have done is madness.
>In the physical world, I mix and match media as suits the task, and the Mac mimics that. I don't fill my desk up with a notepad, then hide it and take out a calculator, then hide it and set up my easel.
This is the wrong metaphor. The metaphor Apple is using is like separating the pedals, gear shifter and steering wheel from your car, the doorknobs from your house and your office, and all the buttons from your calculator and throwing them into a toolchest that you have to carry around with you everywhere. Whenever you encounter something you need to operate, you open the appropriate drawer in the chest and operate it from there. Need to go get some beer at the convenience store? Open the 3rd drawer and drive your car from inside the drawer. Need to get in your house? Open the doorknob drawer and turn the right one clockwise so your door pops open. Need to use your calculator that you have out? That's the fifth drawer down on the right. Try not to make a mistake while bending down hitting keys, and then bending back up to see if the display on the calc is showing you something you want. Of course it's an Apple toolbox so it's all aqua-ish and shiny with rounded corners and a permanent lens-flair, and it's context sensitive so the right drawer "just opens" at the right time so it all appears to "just work". But it's annoying as all hell.
The interfaces to the device you are intending to operate should be part of the device you are operating.
The Macintosh Operating systems have always operated under the assumption of single app focus reconfiguring the toolbars, with clutter from unfocused apps taking up the visual space. I can't even count on all my fingers and toes the number of times I've closed a window in an Apple operating system, but not the App, and thought I was working with an app that was in the background that just happened to have a very similar toolbar - and got supremely frustrated that I couldn't bring that app in focus or do some operation from within the toolbar for the app I very clearly was looking at (and the only one I could see with windows on the screen. The disassociation of tools (methods) from the thing that you are working on (objects) is not only a poor abstraction, it's a usability nightmare.
Right now for example, I have my browser open in one part of my screen, a word processor in another, and two file browsers on another monitor. Nothing in the design of my OS is preventing me from copying and pasting from one to the other, or even dragging and dropping items or selections from one program to another. But my OS isn't trying to reconfigure itself to support whatever app happens to be in focus at the moment. But if I want to avoid distractions from the other apps, I can full screen any one of those things and it really is full screen, I won't see anything else on that monitor but that app. On Apple Operating systems it just sorta kinda fits it as best it can, but if the aspect ratio is not quite right or something I'll see other apps hanging out over the edges of my window.
1. Mac apps don't have toolbars (save the odd cross-platform exception). App windows can have toolbars, but they remain with the window, so it's impossible for you to close a window and still work with its toolbar as you describe. Likewise:
2. "The Macintosh Operating systems have always operated under the assumption of single app focus reconfiguring the toolbar" can't be true, because there aren't any. The only thing that changes from app to app is the menubar, and floating palettes if there are any. They of course, disappear, so:
3. "with clutter from unfocused apps taking up the visual space." can't be true either. When an app's in the background, only its document or other main windows remain -- and you've already conceded it's important that they be there. All floating palettes and other "clutter" disappears (so you certainly can't be confused that it's the active app and try to use its invisible toolbars, either). If the main windows disappeared too, how would you support drag-and-drop etc?
4. "But my OS isn't trying to reconfigure itself to support whatever app happens to be in focus at the moment." ... and neither is Mac OS. There's no reconfiguration going on. The menubar titles change to accord with the active application, and ancillary palettes -- windows that only make sense when their application is active -- disappear. That's all that happens when an app focus changes.
4b. Which makes "and got supremely frustrated that I couldn't bring that app in focus" bizarre. You clicked on an app's window and it didn't come into focus? Why not?
5. "The disassociation of tools (methods) from the thing that you are working on (objects) is not only a poor abstraction, it's a usability nightmare." ... well, except that this is how we've worked every since our ancestors got tools? The hammer doesn't stick to the nail, or the saw to the piece of wood. Tools aren't associated with the things they're working on.
6. ... well, except in computing, where they are associated, necessarily. If you're working on an image, you're in an image editing app, and the appropriate tools need to be available. When you switch to a text document, they need to go away (as they do on the Mac), and document-editing tools need to be available.
7. All of this adds up to make your toolchest metaphor totally nonsensical. In what way and by what behaviours does Apple's metaphor mix up the buttons from your calculator with the pedals from your car? The only way I can make sense of it is to think that because the calculator is still visible on the screen while you're in another app, you're somehow confused about what you're doing. It's as if you want the OS to only allow you to do one thing at a time.
8. Which would be the full-screen thing. Except that breaks the metaphor again. It's a desktop. You're allowed to have more than one thing on it at a time. You don't push everything off your desk and only have one piece of paper allowed on it at any one time, do you? So why should your computer behave the same way? Especially if you've got a 24" or 30" screen. But, even then, you can just "hide others" and hide the dock, and your window can fill the screen with no other nasty apps insulting your field of view.
I'm sorry if we've got here from what you meant to be a throwaway line about the "multi-window aspect" of Macs, but really, unless you're making an argument for having nothing but old-school Windows MDI, it was a daft position to take, unless you've got a huge misconception about how Mac OS window handling works. It's certainly not "almost unusable" because it lets you see other windows -- and you've already conceded it's important to be able to see them, so I'm struggling to get where the "madness" you talk about comes in.
1) Apple's Toolbar is the universal toolbar across the top of the screen. Turn on a Mac built since 1984 and there it is. I think Apple calls it a menubar, but meh, whatever. Just because Apple chooses to call it something different than everybody else doesn't make it different.
2) There are plenty of multi-doc apps where you can close the window, but the app remains "open", toolbar dutifully filling up the top of the screen just asking you to hit command+n or whatever to start a new document. It's as old as time.
3) I conceded no such point. I was claiming that if drag and drop between apps was something I wished to accomplish, I was able to do that just fine in <insert any modern windowed operating system>. But in most windowed systems, you can also maximize/full-screen the app, particularly using an MDI metaphor, to focus your work on just that app when you want and not have your online poker game or movie, or some other similarly designed and looking app showing up in the background driving the user to distraction because it's cluttering up their visual space with irrelevant garbage.
4) Thanks for describing my point exactly. The singular menu bar, the place where all the application functions exist is completely decoupled from the object (the window) that the functions are operating on. If I place two apps side-by-side, I can only see the menubar from one app at a time.
4b) You tell me. The Apple line of operating systems has proven to be so unusable for me due to this reason that to this day I can't explain why it happens nor train myself to avoid it. Call me slow, or whatnot. But when I close a window, I mean to close the app, not have it hang around. This is one of many areas where Apple products don't "just work" as the adherents tirelessly proclaim - at least for me. Call me odd, but I haven't had this problem in any other Windowed OS I've ever used, not BeOS, Amiga OS, Risc OS, any version of Windows, Plan 9, etc. etc. etc.
5) So you walk around with the controls to operate your car decoupled from the vehicle? It must be awesome to drive facing backwards from the backseat. I also keep appropriate tools near where I'm working. If I'm doing woodwork, I go to my woodwork shop and bam there's all my woodworking tools. When I go to paint something, I go to my studio, and boom there's my paintbrushes. You do in fact keep the tools you are using in context with the work you are doing.
I've never had a case where I was needing to bang a nail into something, reached over and accidentally grabbed a paintbrush or gasp a steering wheel. Yet I do that almost every time I have to use an Apple OS product, since 1984.
6) I think we agree on this (see above), but what I'm saying is that the lack of clarity that decoupling the menubar (or toolbar or whatever we'll decide to call it "the thing with the functional buttons on it") from the document/workarea/drawing pad/whatever is maddening un-usability.
7) "It's as if you want the OS to only allow you to do one thing at a time". Pretty much. When I'm typing a comment on HN, I really really really don't need to see my sales figures spreadsheet floating around in the background, or my engineering proposal or my image editing tool, or my IDE, or whatever. I (and most people I know) only have one brain and one set of hands. It's physically impossible to operate more than one app at a time. We all also like to full-screen whatever app we're working on at that moment and not see any remnant of another app poking through the lousy interface.
I also want to be able to use more than one app at a time if I so choose. So I want to see them both side-by side, or one atop ta' other or whatever works for that moment, and I'd like to have the associated toolbars with the app in that part of the window, not along the top bringing ambiguity of app focus into play. Particularly among most document related apps, the menubar is practically identical.
8) "It's a desktop". Bzzzz, we call it that, but strict desktop metaphors have proven to be a failure since even before the days of Microsoft Bob.
"You don't push everything off your desk and only have one piece of paper allowed on it at any one time, do you?"
Yes, as a matter of fact I do. I don't need too see or deal with unrelated task assets floating around in my physical work area. When I'm reading a magazine, I put it away someplace when I'm done with it, then turn to writing a proposal or something on a different piece of paper. I take the magazine, and remove it as far as I'm conveniently able to so I don't have to deal with the visual or physic clutter of having the magazine under the proposal I'm writing on. When you work, you don't just continuously stack out of focus piles of paper under the thing you are currently doing do you? Please don't say yes, because all I can picture is some poor guy standing on his desk in front of a stack of loose papers, up up up on his tippiest toes, furiously writing something on the top sheet trying like hell not to knock over the stack.
"unless you're making an argument for having nothing but old-school Windows MDI"
I'm not saying that old-school MDI is the only way to go. There are plenty of apps where the MDI interface makes no sense (a calculator for example), and plenty where it does, but neither does the Apple way (my calculator takes up 1/8th of my screen, do I really have to have some freaking menubar reconfigure itself along the top as in an Apple world).
The MDI metaphor for window/document/app handling is sorely lacking on the Apple line of OSs, and has been copied in most other OSs, but the Apple way of doing things with a sticky decoupled menubar has found absolutely no other followers outside of the Apple world. It offers absolutely nothing as a "way of doing business" and as I'm saying, can also lead to user confusion even among a user with decades of experience using all manner of computers. The Gods of usability have spoken and the Apple menubar is the "wrong way to do it" (TM)
I can't be bothered to find the source right now, but GIMP was originally written to specifically mimic the non-MDI nature of the Apple OSs. This is great if you are targeting some fraction of the 10% of the computer using population that thinks this is a good idea, but for everyone else who doesn't think it's a good idea, and thinks it's an unnecessarily distracting way to do business.
I have, in decades of dealing with computers, found almost no reason to go the Apple way for daily business -- purchases to the contrary were at the insistence of a few people crying "but it's really good now!". Everything from servicing the machines to finding decent software to getting things at a reasonable price is a maddening experience 2nd only to trying to get Audio working properly on a Linux box.
Here are Apple's reasons to go Apple http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/ - Doesn't get PC viruses (great, I don't get Apple viruses) - Instantly Wireless (so is my $300 netbook) - High performance (Apple hardware is consistently behind the power/price curve) - Always up-to-date (so is my Ubuntu box, and my Windows box, except I don't have to pay a $99 recurring fee every year when Apple brings out some minor revision to the OS...) - Born Ready, and some vague statement about driver configuration. (Dunno, I haven't had to install a driver in 5 years outside of configuring to print on a fussy network printer one time. But I've suffered grievously at getting printers and external drives and other such odds and ends working on my old MacBook. Again, not as bad as getting sound to work properly in Linux, but it's pretty bad.
Basically, Apple has conceived of one or two ways to do things, and if that's how you work, then awesome. But if you wish to deviate even slightly from that golden path you are screwed. Major deviations just require an operating system swap-out. This is why Apple's computing products will rarely get a higher market share than low double digits and will usually spend most of it's time in the single digits.
My question is, has Apple bothered to use the competitions offerings?
Menubar-at-top vs in-window is a well-rehearsed religious bit, and I'm sure everyone else here knows the score. I don't think we'll get anywhere productive hashing it out further. Enough to say that it has advantages I think you overlook (including Fitt's Law), and the Gods of Usability are, like many Gods, on nobody's side but their own. I'm sorry Apple offended you.
(Oh: You haven't been making the mistake since 1984, btw: MultiFinder didn't come out until 1998, and wasn't default until System 7, so there weren't any other open apps. And AmigaOS uses the same menu-at-top system, for apps that run inside Workbench).
FTA "In the end, the main thing that I've noticed in the last few days is that it is much easier for me to concentrate on a single task when I can quickly hide all unrelated applications and show just the one or two that I need right now. I'm finding that this method works better for me than Spaces, and I am a big fan of Spaces."
Everybody seems to assume that "oh, Apple is the usability expert" that everything they do is some kind of gospel. But they screw up sometimes also. In my case it was a deal breaker, in your case you take it as God's own truth.
I stand corrected regarding dates and Workbench. :)
The edges of the screen are infinitely big targets in one dimension, and the corners in both dimensions -- you can't overshoot them, unlike local context menus.
Besides, you really want to mouse across monitors to use the basic UI?
Now I do NOT want the single-window interface, I want another video card and a second monitor.
I have a feeling I stand alone in the Geekiverse on this one.
The user scenarios would be written down in advance. These scenarios should not be changed afterwards because it would lead to too much discussion. The goal is to cut down all this discussion. The product vision is to be used as a filter. For example: If someone comes with the request that the UI of GIMP should be like Photoshop, we can simply state: We are not trying to be like Photoshop, because we have a different product vision.
http://developer.gimp.org/gimpcon/2006/index.html
I think defining their software in terms of "not being Photoshop" hurts their software. Photoshop is free to add any features which they think will help users edit images, while the Gimp limits itself to the features that Photoshop has not already chosen.
However, since transitioning to StumpWM the multi-window approach just doesn't cut it. Now it's a trade-off between logging in with Metacity and doing gimpwork, or keeping StumpWM running and avoiding gimpwork. If Gimp 2.8 has this, then I can start spending more time with that peculiar but beloved graphics suite again.
thanks folks, I'll be here all week!
But I like the tabs for images though - that's a big plus.
FTFY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_Counterfeit_Deterr...
The news also revealed an interesting but previously rather anonymous group of people: multi-window zealots despising the idea of a single-window mode in their beloved multi-window application. I suspect they don't realize that single-window mode is going to be optional...
It's gotten a long way since, and yes it does allow you to work in a single window (MDI) mode - but only in Windows.