No problem ! 
As you understood perhaps I have nothing against the structure of Filters Editor and for my use at designing filters I feel it personally very convenient. But I think room must be kept for other innovative initiatives. For a long time now I compare Vector drawing programs to 3D software because of the complexity and diversity of the tasks they must manage. I think Inkscape lacks of a true object manager inspired from 3D programs and which put together Layers, Groups, Objects, Clones, Filters and all other non destructive things and for example allows to drag and drop objects from a group or a layer to another, a filter from an object to another or to a group, or to a layer. Focusing on that is perhaps more important than anything else concerning the UI. However the 3D programs I used in the past allowed for example the use of third party rendering engines and these engines had often very different GUI.
Otherwise I second all your proposals but I personally I would also insist on :
As you understood perhaps I have nothing against the structure of Filters Editor and for my use at designing filters I feel it personally very convenient. But I think room must be kept for other innovative initiatives. For a long time now I compare Vector drawing programs to 3D software because of the complexity and diversity of the tasks they must manage. I think Inkscape lacks of a true object manager inspired from 3D programs and which put together Layers, Groups, Objects, Clones, Filters and all other non destructive things and for example allows to drag and drop objects from a group or a layer to another, a filter from an object to another or to a group, or to a layer. Focusing on that is perhaps more important than anything else concerning the UI. However the 3D programs I used in the past allowed for example the use of third party rendering engines and these engines had often very different GUI.
Otherwise I second all your proposals but I personally I would also insist on :
- completing the implementation of filters (Image and Tile filters are not complete nor Convolve matrix which lacks Resolution independance)
- increasing color channels up to 16 bits
- fixing bugs and inconsistencies of the Filters Editor
- adding somewhere a filter resizing / rotating / skewing utility
De : Bryan Hoyt | Brush Technology <bryan@...2310...>
À : Ivan Louette <ivan_louette@...48...>
Cc : Teto <teto45@...2519...>; inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Envoyé le : Dim 19 décembre 2010, 20h 58min 13s
Objet : Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re : A proposal for the filter tool (and the others)
However, some years ago I worked with 3D software like Lightwawe and C4D and despite the two programs have a GUI like yours, they also keep a tree like alternative very similar to Inkscape Filters editor. I think it's very important to give the user the choice of his tool in function of his mind ; this isn't only a matter of learning but it's also a question of personal ability. Aren't we in free software world ?
Forgive me if this is just flamebait, but I think multiple options for the same function is usually a bad idea. Sure, OSS is all about choice, but more often than not (without having done extensive research on the subject), one very-well-designed option that everyone stood behind would have served the community better than 2 or 3 choices that cause endless disagreements.
With two tools that achieve the same functionality (under the hood), you just have to maintain more stuff. You have to have two sets of developers. New features have to have two sets of UI elements developed to interact with them. New code has to be tested in two places. Documentation for new users becomes hard to write without making it confusing.
I believe the underlying filter framework is great, and the UI is mostly workable. I believe to bring Inkscape's filters to be as good as the potential provided by the underlying filter framework, the changes don't need to be as all-encompassing as some of the things being discussed in this thread. I think the following list would remove almost all of the barriers to using the current filter system:
- Super quick onscreen performance. While it may not be possible for them to feel *instant*, the further from instant they are, the more frustrating they are to work with, and the less likely anyone is to use them, and the less likely anyone is to experiment with creating their own awesome filters
- A set of (better) predefined matrices, with user-defined variables, for color & convolve matrix effects.
- Easier to change matrix values. Eg, currently editing matrixes involves a lot of "click-delay-click-edit" because of the UI widget -- you can't do it fast, because it interprets two clicks as a double-click which does nothing.
- Variables with easy-to-use UI in the predefined filters (like you get when you select a predefined filter, but still available when you edit it later on). For example: if I select the drop shadow filter, I only get one chance to set the offset in terms I understand. To edit it thereafter, without deleting the filter and starting over again. I have to edit some pretty technical stuff.
- Automatically turn on enable-background=new when necessary
- 100% reliability.
I know some of these things are what everyone's working towards anyway (eg reliabilty & performance), and of course it's not always possible to achieve perfection here! But I just though a list might be helpful.
- Bryan