[Bf-committers] Interface issues (Was: Proposed Tuhopuu stuff in 2.26)

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi Matt,

Sounds like a good plan! But you'll be quite busy with that... we  
should try to reduce and simplify such a job to make it feasible to  
apply in the short term as well.

I could think of something like this:
-> description of current interface design, what is supposed to be the  
"consistency" behind it?

That can lead to:
-> guidelines for adding buttons/tools/features in Blender to match  
consistency
-> a list-to-do for fixing inconsistant features or interface elements

All of that to be included in the short term plans, e.g. the 2.2x  
releases.\

Once we've got that level of understanding, a proposal can be worked  
out for (feasible) improvements of the interface, e.g. the infamous 2.5  
release we should present at siggraph 2003! Yay!

-Ton-


On Thursday, Jan 30, 2003, at 01:15 Europe/Amsterdam, Matt Ebb wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
>> I've been mulling this over a bit ... I would never
>> be able to implement the modifications to the
>> features you recommend in time for the feature
>> freeze so the choice is then: a) accept them
>> 'as is' but acknowledge that from a UI perspective
>> they aren't great, or b) work on them more first,
>> for a future version.
>
> Actually after giving this a bit of thought, I think I agree that it  
> should
> be left in 'as is', and put on a todo list of things to improve.  
> Although it
> is disappointing to see UI considerations glossed over, in this  
> situation
> it's probably the best idea.
>
> Right now, there aren't really any guidelines or plans for Blender's  
> UI that
> have been *thoroughly thought through and tested*. Because of this,  
> things
> get really messy - it makes it very difficult to try and evaluate how  
> each
> feature, each UI control, etc. fits in to a consistent scheme; you  
> have to
> think about each element piecemeal. Just as it's not a good idea to
> implement features' interfaces semi-arbitrarily that don't fit in to  
> any
> sort of consistent plan, it's also not a good idea for people like me  
> to be
> suggesting changes (regardless if they're better UI-wise or not) if  
> they're
> also done without respect to some sort of consistent guiding plan.
>
> For the time being, I don't think any major problems will be caused by  
> not
> having optimal interfaces, since Blender in it's current form is  
> already
> plagued by inconsistent, inefficient and confusing interface  
> implementation
> details which need to be fixed up too. I think what needs to be done  
> as soon
> as possible is to devise an overall structure/roadmap/set of  
> guidelines for
> Blender's UI that's internally consistent and that can then be  
> referred to
> when adding new features and fixing up interfaces of old ones. The  
> research
> and testing of such a plan would be the right place to come to some  
> sort of
> consensus on conventions and to tackle the sorts of issues like 'visual
> clarity or efficient use of space?' (or can you have both? or  
> alternatives?
> etc..) I'd be happy to help work on or get such an effort off the  
> ground
> since my areas of expertise and interest are in visual communication  
> design
> and information design.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers@blender.org
> http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton@blender.org