[Bf-funboard] Re: Large Blender UI improvement proposal

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi,

> Yes, we need consistancy within the program, I agree.
> But isn't that saying that you agree with dropping
> "Grabber"? Because "Grabber" is just that, an
> inconsistant word (for example the fact that it is a
> noun in contrary with all other actions). I think it
> is OK to have names that are different from other
> programs as long as they seem logic (<-important).

Don't mix 'consistant' with 'convention'. When it's the noun topic you  
could also propose to name it 'grab' tool. Fits with 'rotate' and  
'scale'.

> Names that are both illogical AND different from other
> programs should be changed. The main reasoning for
> changing the IPO Editor to "Animation Editor", was
> that it would be (very) much easier for new users to
> figure out what the window is for(It's impossible to
> guess that IPO stands for "interpolation" anyway - an
> important point I forgot to mention in the proposal).
> It's all about making the interface as obvious as
> possible.

There are other reasons as well, and that's not alienating our current  
user base. We can find balance in that. Making Blender easier to learn  
can also be done in many ways. And its certainly not the only target we  
strive for.

Also; the Blender Ipo system offers a unique method of mixing animation  
curves with traditional keyframing. It's worth giving a special name to  
that as well.

Find evidence in other programs for naming conventions. I'd like to see  
some intelligence here. If you can find conventions accepted by Maya,  
3DS, Lightwave and XSI you get an argument. Not even to mention  
Houdini, Hash Animator, etc. Or the other 3d open source initiatives,  
OpenGL standards...

-Ton-

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton@blender.org  
http://www.blender.org