[Bf-committers] blender UI state
magick.crow at gmail.com
Sun Jan 29 13:21:34 CET 2012
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Nathan Vegdahl <cessen at cessen.com> wrote:
>> Yet, I'm Told Matt Ebb wanted the check-boxes to be preferred.
> And with good reason, IMO. Check boxes' visual appearance directly
> communicates that they are a boolean true/false thing. Toggles do not
> do this nearly as effectively, and can be confused with normal
> But if I can take a moment to be a bit meta: if anyone is under the
> illusion that we can design a problem-free UI, they really ought to
> exit this discussion immediately. There is no such thing as an ideal
> solution for Blender's UI (or any other complex problem, for that
> matter). There will always be _valid_ complaints about any proposal
> that anyone makes.
> This is not a matter of eliminating problems. This is a matter of
> choosing _which_ set of problems we're going to adopt and accept in
> Blender's UI. It's like UV unwrapping: we can minimize distortion to
> a certain extent, but ultimately it's a matter of choosing which
> distortions we consider least harmful.
> I think framing this discussion in those terms might help things be
> more productive. An easy pattern to fall into otherwise is one where
> someone makes a proposal, and someone else points out a problem with
> it, and instead of that leading to a discussion of, "Well, do we
> consider that problem less bad than the problems that other
> possibilities have?" it leads to deadlock. (There's also the matter
> of subjectivity, different use-cases, etc., of course...)
> There's always room for improvement, of course. But let's please move
> forward with the realization that you can't make a distortion-free
> unwrap even of a simple sphere. Even with infinite resources. It's
> all about trade-offs.
> Personally, I think Matt and William did a good job in striking a
> reasonable balance of decent trade-offs. I suggest that we stick to
> their choices except in cases where there is a clearly better
> trade-off to make.
I think what you are saying is true and in the end we may need a final
deciding person; perhaps Ton?
We also have a number of problems that are quite easy to see that the
current way is wrong. For example when you switch to a material and
the whole panel is blank because it needs to be scrolled down. Or the
fact that loading a series of pictures is different in the VSE than in
the node editor; they should be the same. I don't care which we pick
but they should be the same (I like the VSE way personally). Or in the
VSE or the node editor when you add a strip or node it plops down
where the mouse is, great if you are short cutting it but who wants a
node under the add button? Lets get these big obvious problems fixed
and then fight about the finer points!
Douglas E Knapp
Creative Commons Film Group, Helping people make open source movies
with open source software!
Massage in Gelsenkirchen-Buer:
Please link to me and trade links with me!
Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project.
More information about the Bf-committers