[Bf-committers] blender UI state

[angjminer at gulftel.com]

just fix whats there, dont reinvent the wheel ....again,
sure there are complaints, but really the learning curve is much better 
this go around. 
blender is so much more customizable than anything else out there,
I say keep on going gents, you have it right, just fix the small stuff. 
(agree with the mat pane needing to scroll up can be confusing the 
first time or two)
also agree with check boxes:)

Quoting Nathan Vegdahl <cessen at cessen.com>:
> > Yet, I'm Told Matt Ebb wanted the check-boxes to be preferred. 
>
> And with good reason, IMO.  Check boxes' visual appearance directly
> communicates that they are a boolean true/false thing.  Toggles do not
> do this nearly as effectively, and can be confused with normal
> buttons. 
>
> But if I can take a moment to be a bit meta: if anyone is under the
> illusion that we can design a problem-free UI, they really ought to
> exit this discussion immediately.  There is no such thing as an ideal
> solution for Blender's UI (or any other complex problem, for that
> matter).  There will always be _valid_ complaints about any proposal
> that anyone makes. 
>
> This is not a matter of eliminating problems.  This is a matter of
> choosing _which_ set of problems we're going to adopt and accept in
> Blender's UI.  It's like UV unwrapping: we can minimize distortion to
> a certain extent, but ultimately it's a matter of choosing which
> distortions we consider least harmful. 
>
> I think framing this discussion in those terms might help things be
> more productive.  An easy pattern to fall into otherwise is one where
> someone makes a proposal, and someone else points out a problem with
> it, and instead of that leading to a discussion of, "Well, do we
> consider that problem less bad than the problems that other
> possibilities have?" it leads to deadlock.  (There's also the matter
> of subjectivity, different use-cases, etc., of course...)
>
> There's always room for improvement, of course.  But let's please move
> forward with the realization that you can't make a distortion-free
> unwrap even of a simple sphere.  Even with infinite resources.  It's
> all about trade-offs. 
>
> Personally, I think Matt and William did a good job in striking a
> reasonable balance of decent trade-offs.  I suggest that we stick to
> their choices except in cases where there is a clearly better
> trade-off to make. 
>
> --Nathan
>
>