I haven't fully tested the functionality yet, but here are some comments on the UI. Sorry for the terseness - I do find the tool valuable, but the UI really needs some work.
* The tool icon is horrible and very out of the line with the default tool icons. The Tweak icon is not stellar either. Can some talented artist suggest a replacement?
* "Population" is unclear. Its tooltip does not really help. "This setting adjusts" is superfluous, just delete it, but then what remains is still confusing: "the number of items sprayed" - total number? Per click? Per mile? Per what? What does the percentage represent? Please rethink this.
* "The mean of the spray action" is impossible to understand. Mean what?
* "SD" is very techy, and while the tooltip expands it as "standard deviation", it is still confusing. Standard deviation of what value? Can you explain it in terms understandable to someone who has no math training and has no idea of what SD is.
* The button "Some options for the spray" is a bad idea, as is the dialog it opens. We don't have separate dialogs for tool options. Each tool may have some often-used controls on the controls bar, plus some rarely-used settings on its page in Inkscape Preferences. Please try to redistribute the dialog controls between these two locations. E.g. I don't think many people will ever change the distribution from Gaussian to uniform - this choice can be moved to Preferences. The controls bar can accommodate more than you have there now - if something does not fit it will be placed in an automatic menu, so just move the least used controls to the right (but preserving some logical grouping, of course). You may also try to combine some of the options into higher-level, coarser but more user-friendly preset-like options, such as a single "Scale randomization" slider instead of min/max values. (And for cursor, the Width value seems a duplicate of the controls bar's Width slider.)
Code-wise, the file spray-option.cpp contains some leftover bits from Alignment dialog (e.g. "remove overlaps" undo comment - and why do you need to make undo commit at all in this dialog?!) and some French comments that need to be translated.
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 02:20 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
I haven't fully tested the functionality yet, but here are some comments on the UI. Sorry for the terseness - I do find the tool valuable, but the UI really needs some work.
- The tool icon is horrible and very out of the line with the default
tool icons. The Tweak icon is not stellar either. Can some talented artist suggest a replacement?
I tried already and realized I'm not an icon guy. :)
- The button "Some options for the spray" is a bad idea, as is the
dialog it opens. We don't have separate dialogs for tool options. Each tool may have some often-used controls on the controls bar, plus some rarely-used settings on its page in Inkscape Preferences. Please try to redistribute the dialog controls between these two locations. E.g. I don't think many people will ever change the distribution from Gaussian to uniform - this choice can be moved to Preferences. The controls bar can accommodate more than you have there now - if something does not fit it will be placed in an automatic menu, so just move the least used controls to the right (but preserving some logical grouping, of course). You may also try to combine some of the options into higher-level, coarser but more user-friendly preset-like options, such as a single "Scale randomization" slider instead of min/max values. (And for cursor, the Width value seems a duplicate of the controls bar's Width slider.)
I have the same complaints. Perhaps Gaussian & Uniform could be a toggle button on the Controls bar? Otherwise, I will see what I can do to get those options moved to the Tool Controls bar if non of the original authors are willing or available.
Cheers, Josh
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:20 AM, bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> wrote:
- The button "Some options for the spray" is a bad idea, as is the
dialog it opens. We don't have separate dialogs for tool options.
In fact Pierre-Antoine and his team followed the written specifications. ( http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/SpecSprayTool ) They couldn't implement everything described, this can explain why the "More option" dialog may seam poor. Do not hesitate to read this specification to better understand how the tool was thought.
However, I agree that in the actual state of the tool, the "More Option" dialog is not very justified.
Steren
I tested the spray tool and here is my UI enhancement proposal. If Pierre-Antoine is not available to work on this, I can find time the this week to do it. Please, tell me if someone already worked on this.
The Spay Toolbar would be : Mode [] [] [] | [Distribution] | Width ----- [Pressure] | Amount ---- | Variation : Rotation [xx] Scale [xx] | Ring Radius ---- | Dispersion -----
Mode : (Buttons) "Copies", "Clones" or "Single Path" Distributions : (DropDown list) "Uniform" or "Scattered Ring" Width : (slider) 0 -- 100 Amount : (slider) 0 -- 100 Rotation variation : (numeric field) 0 --100 Scale variation : (numeric field) 0 --100 Ring Radius : (slider) 0 -- 100 (available only with "Scattered Ring" distribution) default to 0 Dispertion : (slider) 0 -- 100 (available only with "Scattered Ring" distribution) default to 75.
And here are the explanations : * "More Options" panel removed because not necessary. * "Uniform" distribution is simpler to understand and will be sufficient in many cases (OK I've no proof, but I think). But I think the "gaussian" one couldbe use to acheive some nice and more tuned effects. So choice should be accessible easily. * rename "Gaussian" distribution into "Scattered" * rename "Population" into "Amount" * "Scale Variation" and "Rotation Variation" are very important parameters. Instead of asking for a min value and max value, just ask for one percentage value : 0% means no variation, 50% means a variation between 0.5 and 1.5, 100% means a variation between 0 and 2. * After some testing, I'm not sure the "Ratio" and "Angle" parameters could be useful. I would remove them. * rename "Mean" and "SD" into "Ring radius" and "Dispersion"
I'm sorry if this seams to cut down some efforts made by the students (especially for the "ratio" and "angle" parameters).
Tell me what you think, I will be able to work on this but I want to be efficient and avoid duplicated efforts.
Steren
On Fri, 2009-12-25 at 20:28 +0100, Steren wrote:
- After some testing, I'm not sure the "Ratio" and "Angle" parameters
could be useful. I would remove them.
- rename "Mean" and "SD" into "Ring radius" and "Dispersion"
I struggle with Ratio and Angle... I can see a lot of benefit to them, especially if Angle was like the calligraphy tool and responded to the Tilt of a tablet pen. However, whether or not other users would find the same value in these is a different story. Plus, toolbar space is valuable.
Ring Radius and Dispersion still seem a little on the technical side to me, however, it is a step forward. I don't have a suggestion for Ring Radius, but maybe Scatter instead of Dispersion? Now thinking back on it (and not that it's great), Ring Focus instead of Ring Radius? I guess it's also dependent on if the Ratio attribute stays as to whether the use of "ring" makes sense. Just a couple thoughts.
Cheers, Josh
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Steren <steren.giannini@...400...> wrote:
Distributions : (DropDown list) "Uniform" or "Scattered Ring"
I don't think these two are contracted meaningfully enough. I don't see why Scattered is not Uniform and vice versa. Perhaps it's better to use "Bell-shaped" or "Concentrated" to reflect the non-uniformity of the second option.
Ring Radius : (slider) 0 -- 100 (available only with "Scattered Ring"
This sounds confusing: how "Radius" is different from "Width"? What other terms can be used here? Maybe "Concentration"?
Dispertion : (slider) 0 -- 100 (available only with "Scattered Ring" distribution) default to 75.
What is this? Can you also suggest tooltips for your widgets?
Other than that, it's a step in a good direction. Thanks!
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:05 AM, bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Steren <steren.giannini@...400...> wrote:
Distributions : (DropDown list) "Uniform" or "Scattered Ring"
I don't think these two are contracted meaningfully enough. I don't see why Scattered is not Uniform and vice versa. Perhaps it's better to use "Bell-shaped" or "Concentrated" to reflect the non-uniformity of the second option.
In fact I don't know if you took time to test it deeply, but in "Gaussian" repartition, on a diameter, the Bell shape is not necesseraly centered, it is only if the "Mean" is set to 0. Indeed if you put it at 50, you have a ring shape when you spray. At 0, the spray shape is a spot.
Ring Radius : (slider) 0 -- 100 (available only with "Scattered Ring"
This sounds confusing: how "Radius" is different from "Width"? What other terms can be used here? Maybe "Concentration"?
Yes this is the more ambiguous parameter. Because of the way the gaussian works. Width is the global width of the sprayed pattern. This parameters visiallu seam to control the radius of the ring. Again, at 0 it is a spot. "Ring Focus" could be good too.
Dispertion : (slider) 0 -- 100 (available only with "Scattered Ring" distribution) default to 75.
What is this? Can you also suggest tooltips for your widgets?
This will determine if the sprayed objects are more or less bound to stay close to the ring. As Josh proposed, maybe Scatter is more suitable.
Other than that, it's a step in a good direction. Thanks!
I will tackle this soon, and we will adjust some terms after. Thanks for your comments Cheers Steren
Let's take another approach. Instead of trying to assign meaningful names to existing controls, let's try to figure out what the intuitive controls could be (without thinking about any of their implementation details for now) and then try to adapt the existing controls to this.
I have not seen the spray tool yet. Here are the controls I would expect to find. - Size: controls how big is the spray, like brush size. This tool could actually use vector brushes to determine the shape of the spray area, for example a Pick Brush button that would allow one to pick a shape from the drawing, but this is probably not how it was implemented. - Spray rate or Flow or Thickness: how fast the objects appear or how many of them there is. This should be relative to the area of the original object, so spraying two different objects with different areas should fill the same fraction of the spray area. - Focus: how concentrated in the middle of the spray's area the objects are. High means most objects appear near the center, zero means that objects appear uniformly over the entire area, negative means that objects are more likely to appear near the edges than the center.
Those options would be useful in single path mode: - Rotation variation: 0% means every object is sprayed exactly as it is, 100% means that every rotation is equally likely. At 50% the distribution of rotations looks like a sin^2(x): the probability is highest at 0°, then drops to reach zero at 180°, the rises again to reach the peak again at 360°. At 100% it is uniform. It affects the distribution of rotations very much like Focus affects the distribution of objects from the center. - Maximum scale: 1.0 means no no scaling, 2.0 means objects can be up to twice as big or small as the original, 4.0 means four times bigger or four times smaller, etc. - Scale variation: like rotation variation.
Color options are unnecessary, because a variation in coloring can be easily obtained using the Tweak tool. Graphical editing of the distribution might be unnecessary, because the user is going to drag the spray over the canvas and I doubt complex radial distributions would be much different from a simple Gaussian in that situation.
Regards, Krzysztof
Hi, I commited a first iteration of the spray toolbar refactoring. There is not yet the dropdown list to choose the distribution type. I will do it when I find time in the next weeks. Could you test it and make some feedback ?
I also started to clean up the code. Steren
2009/12/27 Krzysztof Kosiński <tweenk.pl@...400...>
Let's take another approach. Instead of trying to assign meaningful names to existing controls, let's try to figure out what the intuitive controls could be (without thinking about any of their implementation details for now) and then try to adapt the existing controls to this.
I have not seen the spray tool yet. Here are the controls I would expect to find.
- Size: controls how big is the spray, like brush size. This tool
could actually use vector brushes to determine the shape of the spray area, for example a Pick Brush button that would allow one to pick a shape from the drawing, but this is probably not how it was implemented.
- Spray rate or Flow or Thickness: how fast the objects appear or how
many of them there is. This should be relative to the area of the original object, so spraying two different objects with different areas should fill the same fraction of the spray area.
- Focus: how concentrated in the middle of the spray's area the
objects are. High means most objects appear near the center, zero means that objects appear uniformly over the entire area, negative means that objects are more likely to appear near the edges than the center.
Those options would be useful in single path mode:
- Rotation variation: 0% means every object is sprayed exactly as it
is, 100% means that every rotation is equally likely. At 50% the distribution of rotations looks like a sin^2(x): the probability is highest at 0°, then drops to reach zero at 180°, the rises again to reach the peak again at 360°. At 100% it is uniform. It affects the distribution of rotations very much like Focus affects the distribution of objects from the center.
- Maximum scale: 1.0 means no no scaling, 2.0 means objects can be up
to twice as big or small as the original, 4.0 means four times bigger or four times smaller, etc.
- Scale variation: like rotation variation.
Color options are unnecessary, because a variation in coloring can be easily obtained using the Tweak tool. Graphical editing of the distribution might be unnecessary, because the user is going to drag the spray over the canvas and I doubt complex radial distributions would be much different from a simple Gaussian in that situation.
Regards, Krzysztof
2009/12/30 Steren <steren.giannini@...400...>:
Hi, I commited a first iteration of the spray toolbar refactoring. There is not yet the dropdown list to choose the distribution type. I will do it when I find time in the next weeks. Could you test it and make some feedback ?
Thank you! Here are my thoughts:
- Shouldn't Amount, Rotation, and Scale be made sliders as well, not spinboxes? They all range from 0 to 100, which suggests approximateness, with sliders more convenient for fast changes.
- The section with Rotation and Scale needs some visible label indicating variation. Perhaps we should add a bold "Random:" before them as a label for the whole section.
- I still do not understand "Scatter". In my experiments, when Focus=0, varying Scatter from 0 to 100 just expands the trace (but not to the full width of the brush), but with Focus=100, Scatter=0 gives a strange result of throwing objects mostly at the edge of the brush, and Scatter=100 is a bit more uniform. This is rather counterintuitive. What I suggest is having a single Focus slider, with the following behavior:
-- Focus=100: no scattering, everything is at the centerline
-- Focus=0: uniformly distributed across the entire brush, no concentration
-- Focus at midvalue: a bell-shaped distribution focused at the centerline, of smoothly varying concentration
What do others think?
Hello, I committed iteration 2 of the refactored Spray Tool UI (And did more clean up to the code) : * The "Scatter" slider should now act as expected. (0 : concentrated, 50 : bell shape, 100 : almost uniform)
* It has been proposed to remove the current "Focus" slider. I personally find it interesting (artistically speaking). Its name is not very explicit and should be changed. I would like some people to test this parameter and then decide if we keep it or if we rename it.
The attached image illustrates these two parameters. Thank you for your feedback.
Happy new year ! Steren
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Steren <steren.giannini@...400...> wrote:
Hello, I committed iteration 2 of the refactored Spray Tool UI (And did more clean up to the code) :
Thanks! Looks much better now.
Still, I'm not sure the "Focus" is worth keeping. Why would one need the scattering toward the edge of the brush?
hi steren
could you send a screenshot of tool UI. I see no Scatteron my today's build
pygmee
Le lundi 04 janvier 2010 à 01:51 +0100, Steren a écrit :
Hello, I committed iteration 2 of the refactored Spray Tool UI (And did more clean up to the code) :
- The "Scatter" slider should now act as expected. (0 : concentrated,
50 : bell shape, 100 : almost uniform)
- It has been proposed to remove the current "Focus" slider. I
personally find it interesting (artistically speaking). Its name is not very explicit and should be changed. I would like some people to test this parameter and then decide if we keep it or if we rename it.
The attached image illustrates these two parameters. Thank you for your feedback.
Happy new year ! Steren
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 22:48 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Steren <steren.giannini@...400...> wrote:
Hello, I committed iteration 2 of the refactored Spray Tool UI (And did more clean up to the code) :
Thanks! Looks much better now.
Still, I'm not sure the "Focus" is worth keeping. Why would one need the scattering toward the edge of the brush?
Why not keep Focus? I'm sure users will like the ability to modify the behavior in any way possible. I guess if you have ideas for ways to improve the tool otherwise, we may as well ditch focus while we can. I am just not a really big fan of overly basic or simple tools (like the Eraser tool), especially when there is already code to make it more versatile.
Cheers, Josh
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Joshua A. Andler <scislac@...400...> wrote:
Why not keep Focus? I'm sure users will like the ability to modify the behavior in any way possible.
A modifier must be sufficiently fundamental and versatile to be worth having. This one looks to me more arbitrary than fundamental.
participants (5)
-
bulia byak -
Cédric Gémy -
Joshua A. Andler -
Krzysztof Kosiński -
Steren