Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: 'dialogs' menu (screenshot inside)
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Nestor Diaz Valencia wrote:
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:38:57 +0000 From: Nestor Diaz Valencia <nestordiaz@...207...> To: Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: 'dialogs' menu (screenshot inside)
You are right, gimp stock icons, plus openoffice stock icons. The theme is not perfect but it looks integrated.
I had a look.
Rather than simply embed the new icons I would ideally like to see the icon theme specifications followed so that users can switch themes rather than being stuck with just one. I've been meaning for a long time to get the original vector graphics for the High Contrast theme and make a low (~16) theme out of it.
The (gfig) star and spiral icons are pretty bad, but they were drawn too small originally because of the cramped gfig user interface and I think jimmac didn't change them much when he redrew them.
If you are going to use the stock icons from OpenOffice I think it would be far better if you used the ellipse icon that doesn't have a segment sliced out of it (because the ellipse tool in inkscape cannot draw shapes like that yet). (I really hope I remember this right because I've deleted the mail with the attachment and although I tried to find it in the mailing list archives there is a signficant delay before Sourceforge updates the mailing list archives http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=36054 )
All the icons are on Jimmacs website http://jimmac.musichall.cz/i.php3?ikony=77 Stock Draw circle http://jimmac.musichall.cz/ikony/i77/stock_draw-circle.png Stock Draw square http://jimmac.musichall.cz/ikony/i77/stock_draw-square.png
I should admit that I'm not a huge fan of Jimmacs Gnome 2 icons and I actually prefer clearer sharper icons however it is a great bit of work you have done and it great that someone tried this, just the other day on GnomeDesktop.org a user was asking for Inkscape to use the stock icons. http://gnomedesktop.org/article.php?sid=1653
I also considered taking the icons Inkscape was already using and colouring in the Square Circle and Star to the colours they are now using by default to make them more easily distinguishable at a glance.
Hope that makes sense
Sincerely
Alan Horkan
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Alan Horkan wrote:
I also considered taking the icons Inkscape was already using and colouring in the Square Circle and Star to the colours they are now using by default to make them more easily distinguishable at a glance.
Hmm, that's not a bad idea. Patch it in and let's see how it looks.
Bryce
Hi; oops, I didn't realise that inkscape cannot make pies and arcs, on the other hand, I don't find it a priority :) I will change that icon and make an spiral and star/poligon icon following the same style. What do you think about making them have different colors? I am working in the align and distribute icons right now. I do like jimmac icons, even if I didn't I would make the theme because the "graphics suite" reason proffessionals are used to. Themeing is really easy, you have two choices: editing a file named icons.svg at /usr/share/inkscape (I don't like this method at all, is hard to work with) the second one is substitution of the pngs and xpms placed in that folder. By the by, developers, they should all should be in a theme or icon folder. Be careful, some icons are not used by inkscape, some icons are used only in xpm format and also: there are other icons that are only in the icons.svg file, you have to write down their names and create a png file with that very name. Example, dropper.png. If you would like to, I can send you my sources :), they are not completely though. yours: Néstor Díaz.
El Domingo 22 Febrero 2004 17:37, Alan Horkan escribió:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Nestor Diaz Valencia wrote:
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:38:57 +0000 From: Nestor Diaz Valencia <nestordiaz@...207...> To: Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: 'dialogs' menu (screenshot inside)
You are right, gimp stock icons, plus openoffice stock icons. The theme is not perfect but it looks integrated.
I had a look.
Rather than simply embed the new icons I would ideally like to see the icon theme specifications followed so that users can switch themes rather than being stuck with just one. I've been meaning for a long time to get the original vector graphics for the High Contrast theme and make a low (~16) theme out of it.
The (gfig) star and spiral icons are pretty bad, but they were drawn too small originally because of the cramped gfig user interface and I think jimmac didn't change them much when he redrew them.
If you are going to use the stock icons from OpenOffice I think it would be far better if you used the ellipse icon that doesn't have a segment sliced out of it (because the ellipse tool in inkscape cannot draw shapes like that yet). (I really hope I remember this right because I've deleted the mail with the attachment and although I tried to find it in the mailing list archives there is a signficant delay before Sourceforge updates the mailing list archives http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=36054 )
All the icons are on Jimmacs website http://jimmac.musichall.cz/i.php3?ikony=77 Stock Draw circle http://jimmac.musichall.cz/ikony/i77/stock_draw-circle.png Stock Draw square http://jimmac.musichall.cz/ikony/i77/stock_draw-square.png
I should admit that I'm not a huge fan of Jimmacs Gnome 2 icons and I actually prefer clearer sharper icons however it is a great bit of work you have done and it great that someone tried this, just the other day on GnomeDesktop.org a user was asking for Inkscape to use the stock icons. http://gnomedesktop.org/article.php?sid=1653
I also considered taking the icons Inkscape was already using and colouring in the Square Circle and Star to the colours they are now using by default to make them more easily distinguishable at a glance.
Hope that makes sense
Sincerely
Alan Horkan
On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 14:20, Nestor Diaz Valencia wrote:
Hi; oops, I didn't realise that inkscape cannot make pies and arcs, on the other hand, I don't find it a priority :)
Er, we can actually. The ellipses created by the ellipse tool are basically just full pies/arcs; you can subsequently use the node tool adjust them.
-mental
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Nathan Hurst wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:03:06 +1100 From: Nathan Hurst <njh@...5...> To: Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> Cc: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: 'dialogs' menu (screenshot inside)
Alan Horkan wrote:
...be far better if you used the ellipse icon that doesn't have a segment sliced out of it (because the ellipse tool in inkscape cannot draw shapes like that yet).
Bollocks. Do the tutorial.
I was only half joking when I said users dont read manuals.
Users only read manuals as a last resort. Most users hate being forced to read the manual. Users despise being told to RTFM (which is exactly what you just did albeit in a slightly amusing way) and are fairly likely to give up and use something else.
Programmers learn to read manuals because if the manual is any good (like FreeBSD man pages) it saves them trouble in the long run but even then it is a gamble that you will be able to find the information you want in the manual. The Inkscape tutorial is not searchable, nor does it have a hyperlinked table of contents (yet) so even if you have read it but cannot quite recall what it said it would take a while to check the details, not much time but time users would rather not have to spend.
Insisting that users of a Graphical Application must read the manuals is simply wrong. Even with a Command Line Application if they were smart enough to make their application consistant with most of the GNU tools and provide a short and sweet usage message then it will mean that most users wont be forced to read the manual.
Clever use of status messages and tooltips (and in rare cases error messages) should ensure that the manual is a useful extra resource not a necessity.
I think the 'Pac-man' shaped icon is misleading and shouldn't be used as the default icon for the ellipse tool. With Icon theming it is very easy for us to agree to disagree on this and have what we want for our own personal theme but I would urge to the developers to ask the gnome usability list (usabilty at gnome dot org) before accepting the 'pac-man' icon as the default.
- Alan
From an artist/designer point of view, making an arc is not the same as making
an ellipse. Sometimes developers look into mathematics not into actual usage. I suggest making another button for arc and another for poligons, though you can make them from stars. Considering the arc a derivative from ellipses, you can use a widget similar to the one that was used in Sodipodi (and other graphics programs) to choose between ellipses and squares. In this case it would be ellipse and arc. Also, this will lead to a different method for creating arcs, that could be: first clic start point, second clic end point. Similar to the drawing tool. Yours: Néstor Díaz
El Lunes 23 Febrero 2004 13:02, Alan Horkan escribió:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Nathan Hurst wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:03:06 +1100 From: Nathan Hurst <njh@...5...> To: Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> Cc: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: 'dialogs' menu (screenshot inside)
Alan Horkan wrote:
...be far better if you used the ellipse icon that doesn't have a segment sliced out of it (because the ellipse tool in inkscape cannot draw shapes like that yet).
Bollocks. Do the tutorial.
I was only half joking when I said users dont read manuals.
Users only read manuals as a last resort. Most users hate being forced to read the manual. Users despise being told to RTFM (which is exactly what you just did albeit in a slightly amusing way) and are fairly likely to give up and use something else.
Programmers learn to read manuals because if the manual is any good (like FreeBSD man pages) it saves them trouble in the long run but even then it is a gamble that you will be able to find the information you want in the manual. The Inkscape tutorial is not searchable, nor does it have a hyperlinked table of contents (yet) so even if you have read it but cannot quite recall what it said it would take a while to check the details, not much time but time users would rather not have to spend.
Insisting that users of a Graphical Application must read the manuals is simply wrong. Even with a Command Line Application if they were smart enough to make their application consistant with most of the GNU tools and provide a short and sweet usage message then it will mean that most users wont be forced to read the manual.
Clever use of status messages and tooltips (and in rare cases error messages) should ensure that the manual is a useful extra resource not a necessity.
I think the 'Pac-man' shaped icon is misleading and shouldn't be used as the default icon for the ellipse tool. With Icon theming it is very easy for us to agree to disagree on this and have what we want for our own personal theme but I would urge to the developers to ask the gnome usability list (usabilty at gnome dot org) before accepting the 'pac-man' icon as the default.
- Alan
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Nestor Diaz Valencia dichiarò:
From an artist/designer point of view, making an arc is not the same as making an ellipse.
IIRC CorelDRAW behaves exactly the same way as inkscape...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Alan Horkan wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Nathan Hurst wrote:
Alan Horkan wrote:
...be far better if you used the ellipse icon that doesn't have a segment sliced out of it (because the ellipse tool in inkscape cannot draw shapes like that yet).
Bollocks. Do the tutorial.
I was only half joking when I said users dont read manuals. Users despise being told to RTFM.
Here is the manner in which I'd suggest handling user questions that are covered by documentation:
First, always be polite. It's just a good idea in general - when one of us is perceived as being rude it can give the project a bad rep in general. Plus, rudeness begets rudeness pretty quickly so extra politeness today can prevent flamewars in the future. ;-)
Second, if you find the questions irritating, let someone else give the answer. If you find user questions especially irritating, then make sure you're not on inkscape-user@...233... ;-)
Third, gently recommend the tutorial or other docs. Perhaps give some specifics of where to look. E.g., "I think this is mentioned about two-thirds of the way down on the tutorial page, in the section on Foo."
Finally, let's try to encourage user questions on inkscape-user@ instead of inkscape-devel@ by making it a good, friendly place for users to get the info they need, even if it's in the tutorial.
Bryce
Alan Horkan wrote:
I was only half joking when I said users dont read manuals.
Users only read manuals as a last resort. Most users hate being forced to read the manual. Users despise being told to RTFM (which is exactly what you just did albeit in a slightly amusing way) and are fairly likely to give up and use something else.
A graphical interface cannot be *perfect* for everyone.
You'll always find al least one user that doesn't understand your GUI.
But a *good* GUI is a GUI that, once you've learnt how it works, you don't forget it.
If an interface needs to be teached twice to the same person, it is probably not so well thought...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Emanuele Aina wrote:
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:06:43 +0100 From: Emanuele Aina <faina.mail@...92...> To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: 'dialogs' menu (screenshot inside)
Alan Horkan wrote:
I was only half joking when I said users dont read manuals.
Users only read manuals as a last resort. Most users hate being forced to read the manual. Users despise being told to RTFM (which is exactly what you just did albeit in a slightly amusing way) and are fairly likely to give up and use something else.
A graphical interface cannot be *perfect* for everyone.
You'll always find al least one user that doesn't understand your GUI.
But a *good* GUI is a GUI that, once you've learnt how it works, you don't forget it.
If an interface needs to be teached twice to the same person, it is probably not so well thought...
So what is your point?
My point is that it is better to emulate Adobe Illustrator, Macromedia Freehand or CorelDraw that actually get used by proffesional graphics designers than an open source program that although widely used and well known has never put much thought into usability and user interface design.
- Alan.
Alan Horkan precisò:
A graphical interface cannot be *perfect* for everyone.
You'll always find al least one user that doesn't understand your GUI.
But a *good* GUI is a GUI that, once you've learnt how it works, you don't forget it.
If an interface needs to be teached twice to the same person, it is probably not so well thought...
So what is your point?
My point is that it is not possible to expose every feature for the first glance, but you can group them reasonably: once the user discover the feature he was looking for, if your GUI is well done, he should remember how to use it for the next time.
Keeping the arc functionality grouped with ellipse does make percet sense to me, while separating the two may lead to a overcrowded interface...
My point is that it is better to emulate Adobe Illustrator, Macromedia Freehand or CorelDraw that actually get used by proffesional graphics designers than an open source program that although widely used and well known has never put much thought into usability and user interface design.
Yes, but these product differ very much: for example CorelDRAW behaves exactly the same way as Inkscape.
Please please, none of those commercial programs has a revolutionary interface. And they haven't spent that much time/money in usability as you think. They are proffesional applications in the graphic design area. This works like this: I use photoshop why? because is the best for prepress --- I use corel photopaint why? because is the best for web --- I use X why? because Y. --- Nobody will ever mention how nice designed are those photoshop icons or handy is to have a really really small properties palette flotating in the quarkXpress interface. You are used to something. The usability tests in proffesional apps is a myth. They might do it for consumer apps, but there is not usability test behind maya or the nightmare at 3dstudio, you just need a lot of tools and parameters and the try to fit all of them. Show me a Usability test and will shut up.
On the other hand, all those companies have a graphics suite, why they call it suite? because the try to make the use of the different apps similar (menu order, dialogs, icons) Is a marketing approach, because in fact vectors are different from raster manipulation no matter how similar you make the tools. However, proffs are used to it, and as in LInux there are not many choices for graphics design, why not having a coherent or at least a bit coordinated graphics suite? Yours: Néstor Díaz
El Jueves 26 Febrero 2004 13:05, Alan Horkan escribió:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Emanuele Aina wrote:
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:06:43 +0100 From: Emanuele Aina <faina.mail@...92...> To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: 'dialogs' menu (screenshot inside)
Alan Horkan wrote:
I was only half joking when I said users dont read manuals.
Users only read manuals as a last resort. Most users hate being forced to read the manual. Users despise being told to RTFM (which is exactly what you just did albeit in a slightly amusing way) and are fairly likely to give up and use something else.
A graphical interface cannot be *perfect* for everyone.
You'll always find al least one user that doesn't understand your GUI.
But a *good* GUI is a GUI that, once you've learnt how it works, you don't forget it.
If an interface needs to be teached twice to the same person, it is probably not so well thought...
So what is your point?
My point is that it is better to emulate Adobe Illustrator, Macromedia Freehand or CorelDraw that actually get used by proffesional graphics designers than an open source program that although widely used and well known has never put much thought into usability and user interface design.
- Alan.
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Nestor Diaz Valencia wrote:
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:26:32 +0000 From: Nestor Diaz Valencia <nestordiaz@...207...> To: Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...>, Emanuele Aina <faina.mail@...92...> Cc: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: 'dialogs' menu (screenshot inside)
Please please, none of those commercial programs has a revolutionary interface. And they haven't spent that much time/money in usability as you think. They are proffesional applications in the graphic design area. This works like this:
Consistancy is no substitute for real usability testing, but consistancy is better than nothing.
Unless you have a clearly better idea then consistancy at least makes it easier to adopt Inkscape for those familiar with the Commercial vector graphics applications than some entirely new or unusual interface.
Although I'm paraphrasing myself Bryce previously agreed with the sentiment that unless you have a better idea then copying software like Adobe Illustrator would be a sensible starting point.
Some of my favourite applications, Abiword and Gnumeric, take the interface of the leading application in that area and embrace and extend it. Jody Goldberg has said many times that Gnumeric does not clone Microsoft Excel it copies and improves upon it and provides a powerful application that is easier for users to adopt.
Nobody will ever mention how nice designed are those photoshop icons or handy is to have a really really small properties palette flotating in the quarkXpress interface.
The beauty is that with any luck by copying you will get these little details right without necessarily realiseing and you can still improve on the bits you know how to do better and get the best of both worlds.
The advantage is less about clear cut usability and more about having a long established userbase, many incremenatal improvements and polished details, third party materials such as plugins/tutorials/books.
By being consistant (unless there is a particular good reason to do otherwise or do better!) we can leverage that existing knowledge base and hopefully attract their userbase too.
On the other hand, all those companies have a graphics suite, why they call it suite? because the try to make the use of the different apps similar (menu order, dialogs, icons)
Is a marketing approach, because in fact vectors are different from raster manipulation no matter how similar you make the tools.
Marketing is without a doubt a factor, if you can sell two programs instead of just one so much the better. But it is also easier to learn a vector graphics program if it similiar to the Raster graphics software you are familiar with.
I know many people are familiar with the GIMP and many want Inkscape to be similiar to the GIMP but Sodipodi tried that (unsucessfully in my opinion) and I dont see much point in Inkscape doing the same and instead I would like to see Inkscape be more ambitious and target what I believe to be a bigger userspace (and definately bigger mindshare among normal users) of Adobe Illustrator/Macromedia Freehand/CorelDraw.
However, proffs are used to it, and as in LInux there are not many choices for graphics design, why not having a coherent or at least a bit coordinated graphics suite?
I would love to see more choice. I think by choosing not to copy the GIMP as Sodipodi has done that Inkscape does provide more choice.
I would like to see a Graphics Suite and a consistant approach but Inkscape seems far more willing to follow the Gnome Guidelines than the GIMP and for the short to medium term i think things like 'cut and paste', 'drag and drop' and fast switching from Inkscape to other applications are more practical and less contentious goals.
I promise you all that I wouldn't keep making this point if i didn't think it was extremely important, thank you for your patience (and thanks for the software).
Sincerely
Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Alan Horkan wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Nestor Diaz Valencia wrote:
Please please, none of those commercial programs has a revolutionary interface. And they haven't spent that much time/money in usability as you think. They are proffesional applications in the graphic design area. This works like this:
Consistancy is no substitute for real usability testing, but consistancy is better than nothing.
Unless you have a clearly better idea then consistancy at least makes it easier to adopt Inkscape for those familiar with the Commercial vector graphics applications than some entirely new or unusual interface.
Although I'm paraphrasing myself Bryce previously agreed with the sentiment that unless you have a better idea then copying software like Adobe Illustrator would be a sensible starting point.
Yes, the team had discussed at length regarding emulation of one app or another, or doing it a unique way. After much head scratching we arrived at a concensus for the statement, "Where a better solution cannot be found, default to the way Illustrator does it."
http://www.inkscape.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?InkscapeInvariants
Note that our target audience is not to win over every last Illustrator user, but rather to accumulate a development-oriented userbase that will help ensure the software will improve continuously. So we want to leave room for developers to experiment with new ideas.
The advantage is less about clear cut usability and more about having a long established userbase, many incremenatal improvements and polished details, third party materials such as plugins/tutorials/books.
I totally agree. I think this is also what we want to shoot for in Inkscape. Build a good community with users and developers, seek to continually improve the codebase, and enable people to contribute in the form of extensions, tutorials, clipart, templates, etc. A great software application is more than just the compilation of its code files.
By being consistant (unless there is a particular good reason to do otherwise or do better!) we can leverage that existing knowledge base and hopefully attract their userbase too.
One thing we've been missing is organized, neutral input regarding how things are done in Illustrator. What I mean by organized is that time is spent writing up an explanation (with screenshots perhaps) showing how it's done, so that those of us that do not own Illustrator can still learn from it. What I mean by neutral is that the information is provided as information, not as advocacy; we may or may not adopt a similar approach, but the intent of providing the info is simply to bring awareness to that approach.
Bryce
One thing we've been missing is organized, neutral input regarding how things are done in Illustrator. What I mean by organized is that time is spent writing up an explanation (with screenshots perhaps) showing how it's done, so that those of us that do not own Illustrator can still learn from it. What I mean by neutral is that the information is provided as information, not as advocacy; we may or may not adopt a similar approach, but the intent of providing the info is simply to bring awareness to that approach.
I actually have taken extensive screenshots of adobe illustrator 10, but have them trapped on my mother's computer. I think I will spend some time today/tomorrow getting these screenshots (or reshooting them). As for an analysis, how should this be done? Are you saying that we need some form of feature analysis by a third-party?
Jon
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Jonathan Phillips wrote:
One thing we've been missing is organized, neutral input regarding how things are done in Illustrator. What I mean by organized is that time is spent writing up an explanation (with screenshots perhaps) showing how it's done, so that those of us that do not own Illustrator can still learn from it. What I mean by neutral is that the information is provided as information, not as advocacy; we may or may not adopt a similar approach, but the intent of providing the info is simply to bring awareness to that approach.
I actually have taken extensive screenshots of adobe illustrator 10, but have them trapped on my mother's computer. I think I will spend some time today/tomorrow getting these screenshots (or reshooting them). As for an analysis, how should this be done? Are you saying that we need some form of feature analysis by a third-party?
No, I guess what I mean is more of a "Neutral Point of View" (borrowing some Wikipedia lingo). I.e., try to describe the nature of the feature without trying to 'diss' it or 'sell' it particularly. Or think of it as "just the facts, ma'am".
I might be stressing the neutrality a bit too much, but my point is that if we can make decisions based off of objectively collected facts, the decisions will 'just fall out' and be clear and evident, and won't require someone making a judgement call or relying on gut feel. Decisions based on objective data are also to review and update as new data comes to light (to account for the inevitable 'but did you consider that...')
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
is provided as information, not as advocacy; we may or may not adopt a similar approach, but the intent of providing the info is simply to bring awareness to that approach.
No, I guess what I mean is more of a "Neutral Point of View" (borrowing some Wikipedia lingo). I.e., try to describe the nature of the feature without trying to 'diss' it or 'sell' it particularly. Or think of it as "just the facts, ma'am".
I just want to add my 2 euros cents thinking. Well in fact i work with a infographiste very used to photoshop, illustrator and Xpress.
I want from her to work (for the files i need) with gimp, inkscape and scribus (real production work). there is no problems except with gimp : she really don't like (it i'll try with gimp2.)
About interfaces, dialogs, menu etc... People using application on a 8 hours a day basis use.... shortcuts, sometimes, they don't remember where to find the action ctrl+shit+H in the menus.
she is very excited with the new Super-Bulia-shortcut-world, as soon as i will have time to compile it. Inkscape is really really a great piece of software for vector drawing. and.. He is the only one i use.. and i have.
hervé
Bryce Harrington wrote:
Note that our target audience is not to win over every last Illustrator user, but rather to accumulate a development-oriented userbase that will help ensure the software will improve continuously. So we want to leave room for developers to experiment with new ideas.
Exactly. We should be learning from the experience of others, so that we can produce a better program. The task is not to slavishly mimic someone else's work, for fear that (God forbid!) some user might find things in the program to be unfamiliar.
Designing things to operate the way a Windows or Mac program works just because that is what people are familiar with it, is not a good reason. A good reason to do such a thing, would be because it is a -better- way. Open source gives developers an opportunity to try NEW things.
Because, after all, we do not contribute to open source software because we feel a social debt or responsibility to users. The driving force is the pleasure we gain from practicing our craft. Software usable by others is a happy by-product.
Those silly "I refuse to use your software unless it does X, Y, and Z" arguments are wasted on me.
</soapbox>
Surprisingly, I -love- Illustrator. :-)
Bob
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Bryce Harrington wrote:
<snip>
By being consistant (unless there is a particular good reason to do otherwise or do better!) we can leverage that existing knowledge base and hopefully attract their userbase too.
One thing we've been missing is organized, neutral input regarding how things are done in Illustrator. What I mean by organized is that
Expect write ups on Adobe Illustrator CS soon, particularly the Gradient Mesh feature (which i think is briliant and just what I want). I have about another 20 days of the evaluation period left. I cant promise to be very objective though.
I encourage all the inkscape users and developers to install any other Vector graphics software, see what you like and make suggestions.
Having just (Sodipodi or) Inkscape on your machine limits your inspiration!
Go on, install 6 or seven different vector graphics applictions and see what you like or even more importantly what you dont like.
Sincerely
Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 13:13, Alan Horkan wrote:
Expect write ups on Adobe Illustrator CS soon, particularly the Gradient Mesh feature (which i think is briliant and just what I want).
The first thing we need to investigate there is how Illustrator emulates that feature in Postscript, which I do not believe supports such gradients directly -- we'll have a similar problem in SVG.
-mental
Nestor Diaz Valencia wrote:
Nobody will ever mention how nice designed are those photoshop icons or handy is to have a really really small properties palette flotating in the quarkXpress interface. You are used to something. The usability tests in proffesional apps is a myth. They might do it for consumer apps, but there is not usability test behind maya or the nightmare at 3dstudio, you just need a lot of tools and parameters and the try to fit all of them. Show me a Usability test and will shut up.
Indeed, Michael Wybrow found that in a certain respected app one of the features they sold as improving usability turned out to be a hinderance in his usability testing! Read his conference paper (where is it again?).
njh
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Nathan Hurst wrote:
Nestor Diaz Valencia wrote:
Nobody will ever mention how nice designed are those photoshop icons or handy is to have a really really small properties palette flotating in the quarkXpress interface. You are used to something. The usability tests in proffesional apps is a myth. They might do it for consumer apps, but there is not usability test behind maya or the nightmare at 3dstudio, you just need a lot of tools and parameters and the try to fit all of them. Show me a Usability test and I will shut up.
Indeed, Michael Wybrow found that in a certain respected app one of the features they sold as improving usability turned out to be a hinderance in his usability testing! Read his conference paper (where is it again?).
That would be here: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~mjwybrow/ozchi2003-final.pdf
In terms of this discussion I would say the absence of user testing for some of the large popular commercial products is a very good reason to careful about mimicking their interfaces and tools. We should really look to the people who use these products heavily on a day-to-day basis to determine which are the good metaphors and interfaces in particular products.
Cheers, Michael
participants (10)
-
Alan Horkan -
Bob Jamison -
Bryce Harrington -
Emanuele Aina -
herve couvelard -
Jonathan Phillips -
MenTaLguY -
Michael Wybrow -
Nathan Hurst -
Nestor Diaz Valencia