Windows setup influences... Re: [Bf-funboard] Manager update 2

[Luke Wenke]

Hi,
I've got a suggestion concerning Thorsten's object manager proposals....
http://wrstud.urz.uni-wuppertal.de/~ka0394/en/blender_ui/layers/index.html

It is based on something I noticed when installing some Microsoft software
such as Office.

If you do a custom installation, it takes you to a screen like this: (*
means a fully ticked (black tick) box, + means a lightly ticked (gray tick)
box, and - means an unticked box)

* InstallOptionA
+ InstallOptionB
- InstallOptionC

So the selected items are:
all of the items in group A, at least one (but not all) of the items in
group B and none of the items in group C.

If you expanded the groups, it might look like this:
* InstallOptionA
     * InstallOptionA1
     * InstallOptionA2
+ InstallOptionB
     * InstallOptionB1
     - InstallOptionB2
- InstallOptionC
     - InstallOptionC1
     - InstallOptionC2

That's assuming that the groups didn't have subgroups. If they did have
subgroups, then InstallOptionB1 and/or InstallOptionB2 might have a lightly
ticked box, but ultimately, as you got to the "leaves" of the tree, you'd
find either fully ticked or unticked checkboxes.

-------------------

Now, getting back to the object manager....
I think there currently is an ambiguity about group members' properties
(visibility, etc) and this problem could be fixed using that idea I've just
talked about.
For example, in the "Head" group in the first picture (from the link), it
seems that the entire group is visible - particularly if that group hadn't
been expanded to show its members. But you can see that actually one of the
members ("Headmesh") is not visible. I suggest that the "Head" row not have
a full circle for visibility - I think it should be something else - perhaps
a gray circle or a circle that isn't filled in the centre. Or black and gray
ticks could replace circles and the dashes could be replaced with blank
space (like in Windows' checkboxes - but without the box).
The "Background" group also has the same problem. If the group hadn't been
expanded, people might assume that every single member is visible and has
that picture frame (rendered?) property.
The "Mystery" group might also have that problem. But you wouldn't know if
one of its members isn't visible unless you expand the group and look
through them all (there may be a lot of members).

The diagram with objects A to D in "The Hierarchy" section and the paragraph
below it don't really apply to what I'm talking about. Basically the group
property (being visible or not visible) has to be consistent with its
members. So Group A is semi-visible and Group B is fully visible. (By
"visible" I mean that the 3D objects are visible or not visible)
In Windows XP setup, if you clicked on a semi-ticked box (i.e. Group A's) it
becomes unticked, and so do its children (Objects A and B). Also, Group B
would now become partially visible (have a semi-checked box) since one of
its members (Object A) is no longer visible. In Windows XP, if you click an
unticked checkbox then it goes to fully ticked. (And its members would all
have ticked checkboxed too - they'd all become visible). In some earlier
Microsoft setup programs, clicking partially ticked checkboxes toggles them
between being unticked and partially ticked. (To fully tick them you have to
manually select all the children in the group). But perhaps blender could
allow you to easily toggle between all three states. (make all children
visible, make all children not visible, go back to previous time when some
children were visible).

- Luke.