Usability Eye for The GIMP Guy 353
TuringTest writes "The GIMP has recently signed up for
evaluation by OpenUsability.org. 'Many user interface decisions are being made by developers who often have little experience in user interface design. In order to improve this, we need the help of experts. To find them, GIMP has joined
the OpenUsability project. Here's a platform where Open Source developers and usability experts get together.' They also report their first experiences with the paper prototyping of a new Import PDF dialog."
Question (Score:3, Insightful)
When the report comes back saying that it should have a proper window instead of floating toolbars, will they say "they weren't using it right, they are just used to Photoshop!" like they usually do?
Seriously, people have been complaining about the interface since day one, and the GIMP developers don't pay any attention. That's their prerogative of course, but if they aren't willing to listen, why are they signed up for this?
Let's talk about the elephant in the room. (Score:5, Insightful)
PROVIDE AN OPTION FOR AN MDI GUI ALL IN ONE WINDOW.
With dockable tool palettes.
Every time I bring this up to anyone who knows gimp, they tell me to run it in its own virtual desktop. I don't use virtual desktops, and I don't want an app to have a ton of toolbars floating around anyway.
i like how the gimp works. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowadays, if i go back to a windows system with photoshop or paintshop pro, it feels really cluttered and i get 'clausterphobic'.
Of course, i'm speaking as a casual user who does pretty basic operations. Maybe it's different if you work with it professionally?
Oh, wonderful (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about MDI schemes is that they make it impossible to efficiently use multi-monitor setups. Even if the tool palettes can be undocked, it makes it so you can't have different "document" windows on different heads.
Usability (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bravo! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, you're not a professional software developer otherwise you would see the utter stupidity of making such a statement.
To be able to make even minor modifications to a major software project could possibly takes MONTHS of prep work. Its not like opening up a book and fixing a spelling mistake, you need to understand the ins and outs of the module you're working on and the modules that depend on it. And thats assuming that the code is well documented and there is other supporting documentation
What he is talking about is most likely a major undertaking, not something some guy off the street can fix over the weekend off the latest CVS trunk.
In short, please stop repeating that tired old argument, its not feasible for 99% of the user community for any particular application and it makes you sound like an arrogant prick.
Don't just to something, stand there! (Score:5, Insightful)
Gimp is the epitome of wrong UI in OSS, I can barely use it without online howtos, and I'm experienced. Now, imagine Av. Joe
First non-cowchip post. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, it's probably a lot better than any of the other comments, the dead openusability website, or whatever that site may or may not have posted about this. Simply put, it looks like the gimp is merely a project that has been registered by one of the developers to see what or if any good can from from those guys. That's all. No massive throw-in from the collective force of Gimp users and developers.
I've got a ton or respect for the dude (I've fixed far fewer bugs in GNOME bugzilla
Feel free to call me the stop-motion energy guy... I'm just skeptical.
Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt that's possible - unless they add "Spacial layers" so that you have to edit each one in a separate window
I use Linux on my desktop at work, and have Gimp installed, and I've found it the least usable program I've ever seen. Admittedly it's rare that I need to work with images at work (I use Fireworks and PS at home) but even operations such as resizing and adding a background to an image are ridiculously long-winded. For instance, I had to Google to find out why the option to change the stacking order of layers is greyed out by default - there's no sane reason for it...
Every time I've attempted to use it I've found it so frustrating; it feels as though you're fighting the program rather than using it; that I've ended up giving up in disgust and found a spare Windows machine to do the job. I'm sure it have some great features, but it's viciously protective of them and doesn't want anyone to use them!
Re:Usability (Score:3, Insightful)
It's brilliant with virtual desktops. It's great with multiple monitors. The interface works really well with KDE's window manager; it works really well with X11.app on my iBook.
Of course, I then recently installed in on Windows, having until then never used it on that platform. Setup was gloriously smooth - but actually using The GIMP alongside other programs proved distinctly awkward, thanks to the horrible window management in, erm, Windows.
I'm really not sure what a correct, elegant solution would be. I loathe the usual Windows container-window MDI, and I do realise that GTK has very little, if any support for writing applications in such a manner, but I do wonder how the situation could be improved for Windows users. A default setup with all the tools and palettes in one tall window on the left of the screen, and some code to grab the 'Maximise' button on image windows so that they expand to fit the space not occupied by the tools window?
Likewise, the 'Minimise' button on the tools window could minimise all windows belonging to The GIMP - perhaps a bit of a hack, but it could help. The GIMP's definitely not a Windows program, and many aspects of the interface's design make perfect sense when you realise it's the same interface for all platforms, but Windows is (unfortunately) an important platform, so some concessions may have to be made...
Re:Oh, wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of a GUI is to have a graphical interface. If I want to slip into 'point-n-drool' mode for a while, why should I have to wade through some arcane XML or registry syntax just to set some simple option that the developers don't think a "normal" user would need. How would they know? Maybe normal users don't use that particular option for no other reason than it's been hidden away.
KDE is moving in the right direction. Keep the commonly used options in plain view, and have the not as commonly used ones be in the same place, but under the "Advanced" section. Configuration shouldn't be divided between two different tools.
Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course I agree that the GIMP needs some improvement in the UI department, but the floating toolbars are good, at least in the Mac version.
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
The developers probably want a professional, concise, consistient report. Not the random mess of thousands of emails and message board posts about some nit-pick that one user has that anther user loves. There is a lot to be said for having a clear direction to work towards.
Re:Question (Score:1, Insightful)
On the other hand, people who want a windows-photoshop interface have, mostly, two reasons:
- Most of them don't use a decent window manager, but a crappy thing like metacity (of Windows' window manager), that doesn't have edge resistance, docking, tabs, or anything usefull except a "maximise" button.
- Some of them find confusing the fact that their Gimp windows are mixed with other windows. This would be solved simply by using a different desktop for Gimp windows.
I understand these reasons, and this is why Gimp sucks on Windows: the WM is bad, and managing many windows is hard. But Gimp's main target is not Windows users, it's X users. Those can use a decent WM, and enjoy Gimp's wonderful interface.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
If the openusability thing actually makes changes which are demonstrably an improvement then I have no problem with it.
However, if all that happens is that they turn the interface into a clone of PhotoShop's then the developers will be doing the Gimp (and us) a disservice. Personally, I find the "classic" Gimp UI perfectly approachable (and I actually use it on a daily basis).
Incidentally, IIRC I heard (probably on /.) that there is some sort of extension or whatever that is supposed to emulate PS's UI already in existence, but a quick google just now failed to find it...
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when they started designing GIMP, assuming it was designed and didn't just congeal, that would have been how the majority of Mac applications worked.
Part of the reason the palette system works in MacOS Classic is that when you bring an application to the front in Classic, you bring *all* its windows to the front, not just the one you clicked on. Applications were in "layers." This means you'd never have a situation where you could see your image, but not see your toolbar. That's changed in OS X, and it never existed in Linux or Windows.
So, at best, GIMP is trying to be like a MacOS Classic application and failing because none of the newest window managers treat application windows as "layers." (You can get this effect in OS X by clicking the icon on the Dock instead of the window to bring things forward, though.)
Re:Oh, wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)
Usability means the program performs the tasks the users need it to in an efficient and easy to learn manner, with minimal interference. Ideally, it should perform the tasks in the manner a wide range of users want it to.
Gnome's new UI is a classic example of a bad UI: It is inefficient, does not perform the necessary tasks (look at the horrendous file dialogue - it's quite literally the worst I've ever seen), is difficult to learn since many basic options are hidden and require undocumented keyboard shortcuts, and the users are forced to do tasks in a particular, usually inefficient way.
Almost as bad, it's buggy as hell and slow. Why does opening a menu from the panel take 2 seconds on my 1.4Ghz Athlon? It should open in less than 1/4 of a second for seamless operation. It should open in milliseconds to not be an embarrassment.
All of this is made the more aggravating by the fact that in many cases, the very last point release actually worked better. Case in point: the file dialogue. All of a sudden I need to type control-L to type in a filename? And tab complete, which used to be supported, is removed? What sort of low-grade crack were the "usability experts" smoking?
Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of the griping probably comes from people who just are expecting Photoshop. OTOH, there are some things you can do in Photoshop that you just can't do in the GIMP, and some of the interface decisions are a result of needing to accomodate additional features.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:i like how the gimp works. (Score:1, Insightful)
For photo editing however...
Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room. (Score:3, Insightful)
So he can spend six months fixing it himself, pay some software develper 6 months salary to fix it, or spend a few hundred dollars and get Photoshop.
This is why OSS isn't going to kill commercial software for a loooooooooong time.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree -- SO WRONG! (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously there were differences enough respective to each program -- the tools for Illustrator are quite different from the tools for GoLive, for example. But the palettes and use of each program was exceedingly similar, after years of being just different enough to be annoying.
Still, Paint Shop Pro uses an interface very similar to Photoshop, and I'm relatively certain that it's how it holds on to its relatively small marketshare. It's an alternative that's similar enough so people can use it as either a "home alternative" or a "stepping stone" if they're already familiar with Photoshop.
While naysayers will say that just because Photoshop is popular isn't reason enough to start using a similar interface, there are a lot of things that Photoshop just does right. Putting tools that are semantically similar yet different enough that they won't be used simultaneously on different tabs of one window keeps them visible without getting in the way or "losing" them. And all the tabs can be pulled off if you need to use them a lot. All of the windows recognize one another, and if you start moving them around they'll auto-align with one another and so on. Similar tools are grouped together and are easily accessible.
It's not a perfect interface, but it's one that's easy to pick up on right away and create or edit materials. It's had a long history of user testing, and it shows. An interface should be easy to use for a beginner -- it shouldn't require its userbase to "just spend time getting used to it." Similar to how someone familiar with Office can pick up Open Office with relative ease, so should it be true of most similar applications -- good user interface design will ultimately end up with some similarities, but should be obvious and usable enough for most beginners.
Re:I applaud the GIMP initiative. Try using Photos (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look carefully, I think you'll find that most of the comparisons are with Photoshop; in other words, they have tried it, and apparently it is worth $500 (or $1200 here in
Obviously there are these artistic types that went through years of conditioning who claim the contrary.
Again, considering the fact that Adobe have used user feedback to refine their product, is it a question of the "artistic types" being conditioned to Photoshop, or Photoshop being conditioned to the "artistic types"? If I was designing a graphic manipulation program the first people I'd ask about UI layout is graphic artists, and I'd take their comments seriously because they set the (de-facto) standard that everyone else follows.
And bearing in mind that graphic design is a specialized discipline with a technical language of its own, how intuitive do you expect a user interface to be for "hacker types"? Do you also expect to be able to use Blender without understanding coordinate geometry? Neither GIMP or Photoshop promises a novice complete usability from the start, that's the price of a comprehensive feature set. But the fact that anyone is still prepared to pay hundreds of dollars for one, when they can both do (almost) the same job according to the specifications should be a bit of a clue stick: apparently it is possible to make a UI suck so badly you can't give it away, regardless of the underlying features.
Frankly, I recommend GIMP to everyone I know who thinks they need a pirated copy of Photoshop. I've handed out over thirty copies for various platforms on CD; the only person who persisted for any length of time was my 71 year old father, and he gave up using it when he found Graphic Converter had a clone stamp tool. Think about it: "does everything you'd need from Photoshop, its free, has no license issues", yet not a single taker, even from those who have never used Photoshop. Care to explain that?
Re:Let's talk about the elephant in the room. (Score:2, Insightful)
Even Microsoft has realised that MDIs suck. MS Word doesn't use an MDI, and its new Photoshop competitor Acrylic doesn't either.