<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Vincent Akkermans <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vincent@ack-err.net" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=vincent@ack-err.net&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">vincent@ack-err.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><a href="http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Ack-err/GSoC_2013/Toolbar_Evaluation" target="_blank">http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Ack-err/GSoC_2013/Toolbar_Evaluation</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12px">Because that evaluation report is quite lengthy I'll be short here. Comments and thoughts are most welcome.</span></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">IMO, the biggest opportunity for improvement is that the report ordering is upside-down. This report should be written as "a. What should we do? THIS!" -> "b. Background on why? This is why." .. It would be nice to read your thoughts and conclusions without reading lengthy terms and observations about software packages (some/all) of us already know. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I recommend starting with "what is the toolbar used for" "goals for the toolbar" and "key opportunities and comparisons" (from the review of tools). This way we will immediately know what your goal is, and what tangible thoughts and recommendations you have so far. Only after that you can append Background and Glossary.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">1) Who is the audience for the report? What is the purpose of the report? State it up front.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
2) I don't see the clear orthogonality you imply exists between "object-based" and "tool-based". </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">3) In "modifier stacks" you twice use the word "application" as if applications are either 100% or 0% modifier stacks. I recommend changing this to "parts of applications" or "modes of interaction"</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">4) I think many of the opening "definitions" sections would make more sense if put in the context of "goals of the toolbar", rather than listing abstract toolbar characteristics</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">5) I'm no expert on Apple Motion, but your description of the object-properties system there sounds more like Blender property-sidebar-transform and Blender properties-editortype object-transform and modifiers -- than the Blender Toolbar/Operator panel. The net-result is that I don't follow your observation about how Motion's property system leads to fewer tools -- or how it might apply to blender. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">6) The narrative description of Modo's choice to use "edit and confirm" semantics for operators, and your trouble with them, are a bit unnecessary except maybe in a rarely read appendix. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">7) "scrolling is evil" is not a factual or appropriate statement in a report like this. You mean something like "scrolling creates challenges". However, your next words are flawed because we can not talk about challenges of scrolling without talking about an alternative solution to the problems it addresses. <br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">hope that helps..</div></div>