[Bf-committers] Tool Shelf Toggling On/Off Tab Mockup

Luke Frisken l.frisken at gmail.com
Tue Jun 14 03:17:15 CEST 2011 

Oops, sorry Jim, I meant the compose mail interface rather than the
inbox. Either way, I might have a shot at implementing ideas suggested
here, as I have more time this holidays.

On 6/13/11, Jim Williams <sphere1952 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've nothing against icons as an option that can be toggled on/off (or
> at least minimized) in order to get more real estate.  I just object
> to them as the initial, only, or default interface.
>
> (BTW -- My Gmail is all buttons and text.)
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Luke Frisken <l.frisken at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think you are right in one sense. But, I look up here at a toolbar in my
>> gmail and see icons that I have never clicked on and I'm pretty sure I
>> know
>> what they do. I'd call that self explanatory... I guess it takes a
>> knowledge
>> before hand of the function, or a previous encounter with a similar
>> looking
>> icon to be able to guess what it means. So, for a tool shelf you could use
>> something that looks like a tool... Either way it can be hard to guess
>> exactly what it is, even after clicking on it, or finding it in a menu and
>> clicking on it; like you suggest. This is where tooltips are fantastic at
>> filling in the gap between proper wiki documentation, and none at all. It
>> allows people who know vaguely what they are doing to have a better guess
>> at
>> what the function is supposed to do.
>>
>> The sense in which I think you are certainly right is that the current
>> menu hierarchy is the standard way of finding this functionality, and is
>> something we shouldn't change, because many users rely on this to find
>> what
>> they need, and this is also standard behaviour in any software. This is a
>> good thing I think. Buuut, the thing is, that T and the N panel are
>> toggled
>> on and off very frequently in my workflow (and I would guess others,
>> because
>> otherwise this issue wouldn't have been raised), so having as
>> a separate icon in the corner, (like where the plus sign was), would help
>> greatly for people who prefer to use the mouse (less clicks and mouse
>> movement required), and be an even bigger improvement for people who use
>> the
>> tablet. Or, do we want to take the direction of favouring keyboard
>> support?
>> I'm not personally against that, but I know people who are better at
>> remembering positions of icons than random letters on a keyboard. I think
>> I
>> can guess T, but what does N even stand for!? For Non-English, or English
>> as
>> a second language users I reckon this would be even harder, because they
>> would have a harder time guessing what T stood for and associating it with
>> the functionality in blender.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Jim Williams <sphere1952 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have never found any icon scheme self-explanatory.  I think
>>> absolutely everything should be available through a menu hierarchy so
>>> everyone, even beginners, knows that there is at least one way to find
>>> anything.  (I do mean everything, including text fields, checkboxes,
>>> and dropdowns.  It doesn't have to be a shallow hierarchy.)  If you
>>> have that then you can provide the hotkeys in the menu and do
>>> everything with hotkeys and pop-ups too. People will look up the
>>> hotkeys in the menu and learn them for anything they use a lot.  If
>>> you don't have everything on a menu then there will be a constant
>>> stream of questions asking where and how for simple stuff.  With
>>> everything somewhere on a menu people will groan and hunt it down.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Felix Schlitter
>>> <felixschlitter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I couldn't agree more with Michael. Hotkeys for restoring headers, or
>>> > locking them would be wonderful!
>>> >
>>> > And on topic: I also never use the toolshelf for anything during
>>> modelling
>>> > other than getting access to the operator panel. F6 is awesome but it
>>> would
>>> > be more convenient to have it sitting in a compact shelf (especially
>>> > for
>>> > complex operators like the tree generator and stuff).
>>> >
>>> > I like the proposal, however it would mean that the user has to learn
>>> > yet
>>> > another hotkey or move the mouse all the way over. Atm, I kinda like
>>> > the
>>> > whole N/T hotkey scenario where I press the T, which lays on the left
>>> side
>>> > of the keyboard (for english keyboards anyway) to hide the left sidebar
>>> and
>>> > vice versa.
>>> >
>>> > Maybe a "Maya toolshelf" could be taken into consideration, which sits
>>> > on
>>> > top of the screen and can also be hidden like a header. Then we could
>>> > use
>>> > icons instead of text in order to save space. We would just need to
>>> > make
>>> > sure that the icons are a bit more self explanatory than those used in
>>> Maya.
>>> > Then the operator would sit in the left sidebar by itself, or could get
>>> > company some of the items from the right toolbar.
>>> >
>>> > Just an idea
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:44 PM, michael williamson <
>>> > michaelw at cowtoolsmedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Sadly there's no key to restore a minimised header! (they're all to
>>> >> easy
>>> >> to close when using a tablet with no way to restore in the cycles
>>> >> branch! (for headers I'd like to see the old 2.49 way and disable
>>> >> minimising them....)
>>> >>
>>> >> ON TOPIC,
>>> >> I'd prefer tool props to be its own panel.... it's too small when at
>>> >> the
>>> >> bottom of the toolshelf  I always use F6 in preference....
>>> >>
>>> >> The toolshelf itself is invaluable in paint, sculpt etc but something
>>> >> I
>>> >> don't use ever when modelling... the operator panel on the other hand
>>> >> is
>>> >> something I'd very much like to have on screen all the time when
>>> >> modelling but hardly ever when painting!
>>> >>
>>> >>  I only mention to illustrate that people are different and like
>>> >> different things and a flexible UI should accommodate ;-)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 13/06/11 10:01, M.G. Kishalmi wrote:
>>> >> > I like how Brecht solved this in the cycles branch:
>>> >> >   he removed the (+) icons all together.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > there are keys for props [N] and tools [T]
>>> >> >   and menu entries (in view) for all 3.
>>> >> > maybe we can simply add a key for tool-props? suggestion: [ALT]+[N]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > or maybe.. don't allow the tool-props to be hidden at all?
>>> >> >   just find a way to have it sit there at the top/bottom of the
>>> >> > tools
>>> >> nicely.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > cheers,
>>> >> >   mario
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Jonathan Smith<j.jaydez at gmail.com>
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >> >> You are probably right, using a lot of space doesn't seem to be the
>>> best
>>> >> >> answer.. back to drawing board.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Jim
>>> >> >> Williams<sphere1952 at gmail.com>
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> I'd agree.  Find ways to use less real estate, not more.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Aurel W.<aurel.w at gmail.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>> >> >>>> Hi,
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> I think that this would be rather unpractical, it takes way to
>>> >> >>>> much
>>> >> >>>> visual space for what it represents. If i want to collapse those
>>> >> >>>> panels, i want them gone, not taking a lot of space on the screen
>>> like
>>> >> >>>> those huge buttons.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> Blenders gui already got way too unefficient in 2.5, especially
>>> when
>>> >> >>>> it comes to, space needed for certain gui elements and panels.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> aurel
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> On 12 June 2011 13:28, Jonathan Smith<j.jaydez at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> >> >>>>> I have written up a mockup/proposal on a different way to do the
>>> >> closing
>>> >> >>> and
>>> >> >>>>> opening of the Tool Shelf and Properties Shelf UI, other than
>>> using
>>> >> the
>>> >> >>>>> little plus icons, on my talk page.
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php?title=User_talk:JayDez
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> I am, unfortunately, not a good enough coder to actually
>>> >> >>>>> implement
>>> >> this,
>>> >> >>> so
>>> >> >>>>> I'm just putting it out there as an idea, either for another
>>> >> >>>>> coder
>>> to
>>> >> >>>>> implement, or just to promote discussion about the way this
>>> >> >>>>> works,
>>> >> since
>>> >> >>> I
>>> >> >>>>> don't think that it is done very well in the current version of
>>> >> Blender.
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> Any comments on or critiques of the mock up would be welcome.
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> Cheers,
>>> >> >>>>> Jonathan
>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> >> >>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> >> >>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> >> >>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> >> >>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> --
>>> >> >>> No essence.  No permanence.  No perfection.  Only action.
>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> >> >>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> >> >>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> >> >> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> >> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> >> >>
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > Bf-committers mailing list
>>> >> > Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> >> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> >> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> >>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Bf-committers mailing list
>>> > Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No essence.  No permanence.  No perfection.  Only action.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> >From Luke
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>
>
>
> --
> No essence.  No permanence.  No perfection.  Only action.
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

>From Luke

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list