Hi there
I am currently filling the release notes for the spray, so it may help to use it...
To answer Bulia's questions (thanks for feeding back by the way !) :
- Mean and SD are the parameters of the gaussian function here. We did not call them otherwise... The "mean" parameter sets the center of the gaussian. If it is set to 0, then it will be the center of the cursor. If you increase the value, the spraying will look more like a circle... The SD sets the width of the gaussian. It is not that techy if you know what a gaussian is. - Population is more like a probability parameter. As it is written in the code, if it is set to 50%, then the item has 50% chance to appear... If anyone has an idea to improve it, please do ! We did not spend much time to think of it. - I don't think the Spray options are that bad. We did not want to overload the toolbar with options, so it seemed natural to us to make it that way.
Again, hope the notes will help !
Cheers,
Pierre-Antoine
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 22:37 +0100, Pierre-Antoine MARC wrote:
The SD sets the width of the gaussian. It is not that techy if you know what a gaussian is.
Unfortunately, a significant portion of our userbase is not familiar with that type of terminology. Thank you for the explanation though, it will be easier to come up with more user friendly labels now.
- Population is more like a probability parameter. As it is written in
the code, if it is set to 50%, then the item has 50% chance to appear... If anyone has an idea to improve it, please do ! We did not spend much time to think of it.
So that's how it works! I guess my proposed label for "Amount" needs some rethinking.
- I don't think the Spray options are that bad. We did not want to
overload the toolbar with options, so it seemed natural to us to make it that way.
I have already got the ratio & tilt fields moved to the toolbar... My proposed label changes are ratio=flatness, tilt=angle. Working on how to handle the other parameters.
Thanks for explaining some of this!
Cheers, Josh
On 12/22/09, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 22:37 +0100, Pierre-Antoine MARC wrote:
The SD sets the width of the gaussian. It is not that techy if you know what a gaussian is.
Unfortunately, a significant portion of our userbase is not familiar with that type of terminology. Thank you for the explanation though, it will be easier to come up with more user friendly labels now.
In late October I was demoing 0.47 and to-be-0.48 features at an exhibition. When it came to the Spray tool, I put my hand on my heart and said: "I'm sorry, guys, but I don't know what the hell half of those options mean". "No worries," - said a guy in the front row - "I'm chemist by contract. You don't scare me with Gaussian distribution."
Alexandre
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
In late October I was demoing 0.47 and to-be-0.48 features at an exhibition. When it came to the Spray tool, I put my hand on my heart and said: "I'm sorry, guys, but I don't know what the hell half of those options mean". "No worries," - said a guy in the front row - "I'm chemist by contract. You don't scare me with Gaussian distribution."
That's not my point. You can use any terms and any math, if it is indeed critical for understanding and using a tool. But you shouldn't use them in inconsistent, poorly defined, approximate, or otherwise confusing ways. You should really put effort into explaining your terms if they are not in widespread use. When the same concept can be presented in a less technical way, as seems to be the case here, there's no reason to use scientific terminology at all.
On 12/22/09, bulia byak wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
In late October I was demoing 0.47 and to-be-0.48 features at an exhibition. When it came to the Spray tool, I put my hand on my heart and said: "I'm sorry, guys, but I don't know what the hell half of those options mean". "No worries," - said a guy in the front row - "I'm chemist by contract. You don't scare me with Gaussian distribution."
That's not my point.
But I wasn't arguing :) I completely agree with you :)
Alexandre
Why has the spray tool icon been positioned so "high" in the vertical toolbar?
My suggestion is to group "basic" tools (selection, node tool, zoom, rectangle, ellipse and so on) in the higher part of the toolbar and more complex tools (eraser, connectors, tweak, spray and so on) in the lower, so the "complexity" of tools increases along the toolbar. I refer to the complexity of a tool not on a "number of parameters" basis, but on the way it modifies the drawing: adding an ellipse or a text is a basic operation, erasing part of a path with the eraser tool or tweaking objects is not.
I understand that this is quite a subjective matter, but I think that many people should agree at least in that the spray tool is "more complex" than select, zoom, rectangle, ellipse, text, and beizer tools.
The toolbar seems quite scrambled also when referring to F1-F8 quick select keys.
Regards. Luca
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 01:12 -0800, LucaDC wrote:
Why has the spray tool icon been positioned so "high" in the vertical toolbar?
That's where it was in the patch from the students, however, it can be moved. It's well paired with the tweak tool though honestly. Actually, I hadn't used the tweak tool too much before (the operations that modify a path aren't predictable enough outside of the "circle" for me), but now with the spray tool it's been wonderful for modifying those sprayed objects.
My suggestion is to group "basic" tools (selection, node tool, zoom, rectangle, ellipse and so on) in the higher part of the toolbar and more complex tools (eraser, connectors, tweak, spray and so on) in the lower, so the "complexity" of tools increases along the toolbar. I refer to the complexity of a tool not on a "number of parameters" basis, but on the way it modifies the drawing: adding an ellipse or a text is a basic operation, erasing part of a path with the eraser tool or tweaking objects is not.
Fair enough points, however, modifying a core part of the UI like that would probably need a good amount of testing with our users. IMHO, not a 0.48 task... 0.49 is a refactoring cycle though, so it might be the right time to get some UI/UX people to contribute ideas prior to it. Additionally, there is a lot of existing documentation which might become less useful for WYSIWYG (picture shows the UI like so) users.
I understand that this is quite a subjective matter, but I think that many people should agree at least in that the spray tool is "more complex" than select, zoom, rectangle, ellipse, text, and beizer tools.
Definitely subjective. Personally, I use a zoom tool in any graphics app far less frequently when good shortcuts exist (such as inkscape has). I can honestly say that I have only used it in Inkscape when double-checking documentation about inkscape. Ctrl+Mousewheel (and the number keys) are totally sufficient for me. So I would personally say that since it doesn't actually affect anything (other than view), it should be the absolute last tool in the toolbar (again, subjective and just my opinion).
The toolbar seems quite scrambled also when referring to F1-F8 quick select keys.
Probably not when it was initially implemented. :) I do agree though. I don't use the F-keys for primarily that reason.
Thanks for bringing up the Toolbox organization. I do think that this subject is worth discussing... provided it doesn't turn into a tango icons discussion. ;)
Cheers, Josh
That's where it was in the patch from the students, however, it can be moved. It's well paired with the tweak tool though honestly.
In fact I would move both ;)
Fair enough points, however, modifying a core part of the UI like that would probably need a good amount of testing with our users. IMHO, not a 0.48 task... 0.49 is a refactoring cycle though, so it might be the right time to get some UI/UX people to contribute ideas prior to it. Additionally, there is a lot of existing documentation which might become less useful for WYSIWYG (picture shows the UI like so) users.
I understand that. The question is: has the current ordering been chosen after some sort of evaluation, or is it simply the result of adding tools during development where each developer felt it should be? I wouldn't feel too constrained to a semi-randomly generated order, if this is the case of course. I noticed the spray position just because it wasn't present in latest 0.47 revisions, and I had to readjust my template (which is not maximized and has the minimum size to have all the GUI visible) after it's been reintroduced.
Definitely subjective. Personally, I use a zoom tool in any graphics app far less frequently when good shortcuts exist (such as inkscape has). I can honestly say that I have only used it in Inkscape when double-checking documentation about inkscape. Ctrl+Mousewheel (and the number keys) are totally sufficient for me. So I would personally say that since it doesn't actually affect anything (other than view), it should be the absolute last tool in the toolbar (again, subjective and just my opinion).
In fact I wouldn't use the "frequency of use" as ordering basis because it's too subjective. It depends too much on the use you do of Inkscape that can be both a pure graphical and a technical tool, and of course you use very different tools in the two scenarios. I suggested the "complexity" of each tool just to have a maybe shared starting point, but I completely agree that it's a matter of taste. Again, the point is: has some sort of evaluation been done in choosing the current order? About the zoom tool, I never use it: the mouse wheel is too superior. But, I remember some complaints in small PC screens where not all tools where visible. I think that the zoom tool is so essential (think about a laptop where the wheel is not available) that should always be visible. That's what I mean with "basic tools".
The toolbar seems quite scrambled also when referring to F1-F8 quick select keys.
Probably not when it was initially implemented. :) I do agree though. I don't use the F-keys for primarily that reason.
I use F-keys a lot but I simply remember them: there's no way to guess them looking at the toolbar. :)
Thanks for bringing up the Toolbox organization. I do think that this subject is worth discussing... provided it doesn't turn into a tango icons discussion. ;)
Definitely! Forget me and everything I wrote if this happens... :)
Luca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:12 AM, LucaDC <dicappello@...2144...> wrote:
Why has the spray tool icon been positioned so "high" in the vertical toolbar?
I guess it's due to similarity between this tool and Tweak. Which is one way to look at it, although there are just as many reasons to move it elsewhere as well.
I think what we desperately need for 0.48 is a way to specify in preferences which tools to show on the main toolbar. Should not be too difficult - it's already specified via XML, we just need to read this XML from prefs and add a column of checkboxes to the Tools page in Inkscape Preferences.
A tool not "checked" by default will never be used, from my own experience.
2009/12/22 bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:12 AM, LucaDC <dicappello@...2144...> wrote:
Why has the spray tool icon been positioned so "high" in the vertical toolbar?
I guess it's due to similarity between this tool and Tweak. Which is one way to look at it, although there are just as many reasons to move it elsewhere as well.
I think what we desperately need for 0.48 is a way to specify in preferences which tools to show on the main toolbar. Should not be too difficult - it's already specified via XML, we just need to read this XML from prefs and add a column of checkboxes to the Tools page in Inkscape Preferences.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
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 Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Yann Papouin <yann.papouin@...400...> wrote:
A tool not "checked" by default will never be used, from my own experience.
Yes, and we will by default enable everything. But we must give users a way to reduce clutter.
Would it be much harder to implement toolbar ordering as well?
JF
On 12/22/2009 09:04 AM, bulia byak wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:12 AM, LucaDC<dicappello@...2144...> wrote:
Why has the spray tool icon been positioned so "high" in the vertical toolbar?
I guess it's due to similarity between this tool and Tweak. Which is one way to look at it, although there are just as many reasons to move it elsewhere as well.
I think what we desperately need for 0.48 is a way to specify in preferences which tools to show on the main toolbar. Should not be too difficult - it's already specified via XML, we just need to read this XML from prefs and add a column of checkboxes to the Tools page in Inkscape Preferences.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Joshua Facemyer <jfacemyer@...400...> wrote:
Would it be much harder to implement toolbar ordering as well?
I think that would be overkill.
On Dec 22, 2009, at 6:34 AM, bulia byak wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Joshua Facemyer <jfacemyer@...400...> wrote:
Would it be much harder to implement toolbar ordering as well?
I think that would be overkill.
To follow-up on Bulia's comment, I believe that it might be technically simple but from a usability standpoint it will take quite a bit to fix. And there might be several other things that can be done to gain more for the same or less effort.
On Dec 22, 2009, at 6:04 AM, bulia byak wrote:
I think what we desperately need for 0.48 is a way to specify in preferences which tools to show on the main toolbar. Should not be too difficult - it's already specified via XML, we just need to read this XML from prefs and add a column of checkboxes to the Tools page in Inkscape Preferences.
Bulia is exactly right. And I'm working on that literally at the moment.
So as long as nobody goes in and breaks the toolbar, I should have visible improvements within the next week or so.
Jon Cruz wrote:
Bulia is exactly right. And I'm working on that literally at the moment.
So as long as nobody goes in and breaks the toolbar, I should have visible improvements within the next week or so.
Awesome!
Literally? I don't believe that writing an email *about* a feature can be called the same as working *on* the feature ;)
JF
On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Joshua Facemyer wrote:
Jon Cruz wrote:
Bulia is exactly right. And I'm working on that literally at the moment.
So as long as nobody goes in and breaks the toolbar, I should have visible improvements within the next week or so.
Awesome!
Literally? I don't believe that writing an email *about* a feature can be called the same as working *on* the feature ;)
I was in the middle of a compile of code I'm working on. :-P
Multitasking rocks!
bulia byak a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
In late October I was demoing 0.47 and to-be-0.48 features at an exhibition. When it came to the Spray tool, I put my hand on my heart and said: "I'm sorry, guys, but I don't know what the hell half of those options mean". "No worries," - said a guy in the front row - "I'm chemist by contract. You don't scare me with Gaussian distribution."
That's not my point. You can use any terms and any math, if it is indeed critical for understanding and using a tool. But you shouldn't use them in inconsistent, poorly defined, approximate, or otherwise confusing ways. You should really put effort into explaining your terms if they are not in widespread use. When the same concept can be presented in a less technical way, as seems to be the case here, there's no reason to use scientific terminology at all.
Is Gaussian a scientific terminology ?
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Pierre-Antoine MARC <pierre-antoine.marc@...2101...> wrote:
Is Gaussian a scientific terminology ?
Pretty much. Unless it's "Gaussian blur" which is a fixed expression widely used and understood by most people in graphics (but don't expect them to understand the difference between Gaussian and non-Gaussian blurring).
participants (8)
-
Alexandre Prokoudine -
bulia byak -
Jon Cruz -
Joshua A. Andler -
Joshua Facemyer -
LucaDC -
Pierre-Antoine MARC -
Yann Papouin