[Bf-funboard] (Peter) Re: layers vs. groups, and "no render".

[Thorsten Wilms]

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 11:59:33AM +0100, ph wrote:

> >As far as the reason why goes, I think the name "layer" isn't an accurate
> >one. In every single program I know of that has layers, objects only exist
> >in one layer. But it is fairly logical that an object can be a member of
> >many groups.
> >In many places, Blender reinforces the idea that objects can only exist in
> >one layer... in the lamps buttons a button is called "Layer" and the
> tooltip
> >is "...in the same layer only". And the object menu has the item "Move to
> >layer..." The user has to shift-click to select more than one layer, but
> >they mightn't even try that since the term "layer" and Blender's text
> >implies that objects are only allowed to be in one layer.
> >If it was named "groups" (and "move to groups") it would be intuitive that
> >an object can be a member of many groups.
> 
> This is unfair argumentation. Your main points are:
> 
> the usability of layers is crippled in other applications.
> we use 'layer' instead of the plural.
 
> ok, include better tooltips like 'move to layer(s)' and you are done.

Well, I didn't intend to talk about naming here, because of 
posts going in the direction of this one.

But calling soemones argumentation unfair while interpreting it in 
a very strange way, only to have a wannabe argument for the 
own, preset opinion is what I call unfair.

I respect the argument about renaming, documentation and habits.
It should be taken into account, but it has not highest priority 
for me.

The usability of layers in other apps is not necessarily crippled.
It's rather that Blender uses a not well matching metaphor, because it 
implies restrictions that don't exist. And it's associated with 
different mechanisms in other apps.


---
Thorsten