[Bf-funboard] Toolbox Design 3

[Thorsten Wilms]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 01:35:53AM +1000, Luke Wenke wrote:

> > Although those 2 should fit together somehow, the Toolbox is to be used
> slightly different. It's not

So you say it's not. Now I'm totaly convinced.

> > about providing an overview of all the commands.
> It could at least be all the available commands in edit mode or pose mode,
> etc...

I meant overview not in the sense of what is available, but the mere function 
of presenting an overview. I mean making things accessible vs providing an 
actual overview of what is accessible.

> 
> > Fast access is more important.
> > So maybe the final Toolbox will be justs parts of the menusystem moved to
> a context-
> > menu. But I like to provide some alternatives first.
> Well I like ton's latest idea now
> http://www.blender.org/bf/toolbox.jpg
> It is based on one of yours. It allows you to easily see where you came
> from, and how to go backwards, etc. I mostly like how broken's seems better
> organised though the cross idea, etc, (particular ton's variation) may be a
> better menu system for the toolbox.

There is nothing of brokens menu-organization to be seen in combination with 
the cross-idea. Not on my page, not on Ton's mockup. So what do you mean 
with " I mostly like how broken's seems better organised though the cross idea 
(...)"?
 
> > My sentence about ordering is a bit misleading. In want to have the
> commands logicaly
> > grouped, but in that groups and the groups themselves ordered according to
> frequency
> > of usage. I think it would be stupid with the mousecursor starting from
> the center to
> > not have more important items close to the center!
> If some commands have approximately the same frequency they could be
> arranged alphabetically or something since they might as well have a logical
> ordering.

Sure. Alphabetical ordering as last resort. Thanks for stating the obvious.

> > Initialy it might feel a bit strange
> > because of reading-order, but higher efficiency will outweigh that.
> BTW, you've got to take into account that most users would use the
> hotkeys... so if the command is used a lot and the hotkey is simple (e.g.
> "b" or "x") then most users mightn't even use the toolbox for that command.
> So I think it would be a bad idea to put those things (e.g. border select
> and delete) where they are very easy to access with the toolbox since it
> would make it harder to access the other commands. (I'm guessing that "b"
> and "x" are examples of this kind of thing) So the things that are used the
> most in the toolbox mightn't actually be the most common commands... their
> hotkeys just might be a bit hard to remember or they mightn't even have
> hotkeys (like adding meshes/lamps/etc).

Well, you have truly made a point here (allthough I was already thinkink 
about it).
But this might lead to ordering items like this:
1. Commands used frequently, but not frequently enough to remember shortcuts.
Often needed commands with hard to use/remenber shortcuts are a problem to be 
solved otherwise ...
2. Truly often accessed commands, but everybody tends to use the shortcuts 
anyway.
3. Seldom used things

It will look like total chaos. And just reversing the order with seldom used 
in front won't be that good, too.

> ...
> > The Multibox is better for quickly getting to some speed with it, but has
> > lower limits of efficiency. The largest drawback is it's size.
> I'm leaning towards ton's suggestion now... partly since it would be much
> easier to stick the hotkeys in there. (Which reminds people how to do their
> commands even faster - by using the corresponding hotkey - if it exists)

Year. He has lot's of "Item" in there, a short word leaving enough space 
for the hotkeys. But Thorsten's menuboxes can't be made a bit wider for 
allowing that too ...

Allthough I enyoed Ton' mockup and honor it's value, I find it strange 
how you only start to like anthing about my work, after somebody else 
did something on it's basis.


---
Thorsten