GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
one time I recommended Krita to a graphic designer friend and I had to swear to her that I wasn’t trying to trick her into “trying that gimp bullshit again”I was not in fact the one who got her to try gimp in the first place, that’s just how bad her experience with gimp was
it’s not me the FOSS fan who’s wrong, it’s:
- the trained graphic designers who tried gimp and hated it
- wikipedia
- people who prefer “corporate fascist slop” or uhhhh checks notes, other FOSS apps like krita that give a shit about design and didn’t name their app after the rape scene in pulp fiction“nothing we can do about our reputation for being hard to use” says the only major FOSS graphic design app with a reputation for being hard to use
e: corrected alt text and pronouns, apologies, slight mistaken identity
reshared this
JWcph, Radicalized By Decency and alcinnz reshared this.
Chao-c'
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •I learned the old GIMP UI after some years, and then they changed it and made even more confusing...
It was programmer-oriented from the beginning.
JWcph, Radicalized By Decency
in reply to Chao-c' • • •Chao-c'
in reply to JWcph, Radicalized By Decency • • •JWcph, Radicalized By Decency
in reply to Chao-c' • • •Skjeggtroll
in reply to Chao-c' • • •@xChaos @jwcph
The problem with GIMP's user interface is that it doesn't appear to be focused on any other group of users' needs either, though.
GIMP's UI just sort of exists. It doesn't appear to have been designed with any particular target group of users in mind.
JWcph, Radicalized By Decency reshared this.
Chao-c'
in reply to Skjeggtroll • • •the original GIMP user interface was not THAT bad, but it seems, that people who were adding new features where kind of confused with the original tool box and didn't find a way to integrate it with original "paintbrush" paradigm.
Also, the original trick of menu being invisible and available only on right-click was weird, but maybe consistent with UX of original X11 apps. At least, toolbox was available all the time.
In the current version, menu can be found, where you would expect it 20 years ago (funny thing: in browser UX, menu is now not where you would expect it 20 years ago and works little like GIMP worked back then), but you have to open toolbox as new Window.
This is what I mean that "original GIMP UI was not that bad". I can use GIMP probably only because I started 20 years ago, and I now the features are there, only the new way to find these features is perhaps even more confusing, than the old way.
Speaking about "target group": well, programmers and coders in 1990s had to understand stuff like color channels, indexed colors, and so, even layer
... Show more...the original GIMP user interface was not THAT bad, but it seems, that people who were adding new features where kind of confused with the original tool box and didn't find a way to integrate it with original "paintbrush" paradigm.
Also, the original trick of menu being invisible and available only on right-click was weird, but maybe consistent with UX of original X11 apps. At least, toolbox was available all the time.
In the current version, menu can be found, where you would expect it 20 years ago (funny thing: in browser UX, menu is now not where you would expect it 20 years ago and works little like GIMP worked back then), but you have to open toolbox as new Window.
This is what I mean that "original GIMP UI was not that bad". I can use GIMP probably only because I started 20 years ago, and I now the features are there, only the new way to find these features is perhaps even more confusing, than the old way.
Speaking about "target group": well, programmers and coders in 1990s had to understand stuff like color channels, indexed colors, and so, even layers. Perhaps, GIMP would be powerful tool for making animated GIFs on Amiga ecosystem (before being adopted by web, GIF format was used by Amiga hobbyists and by BBS scene...)
GIMP is at least very powerful conversion, resizing and cropping tool for many classical image exchange formats. It is not so practical for creative work, perhaps because it was designed by people, who needed other specific tasks to be done.
There are some features, which nobody really wants or uses, but which were relatively easy to implement and other tools of the era had them too.
Speaking about UI... I still prefer Gtk over other toolkits. I use MATE desktop (GNOME 2 fork).
@jwcph @baldur
Skjeggtroll
in reply to Chao-c' • • •@xChaos @jwcph
To be a little uncharitable, the original GIMP user interface felt like an afterthought, as was common for OSS projects in that era. It was clunky and a little ugly and a bit greedy for screen real estate. I don't think anyone would call it 'elegant'.
The new user interface feels like the result of conscious, deliberate design -- but conscious, deliberate design that fails to be _for_ anyone.
JWcph, Radicalized By Decency reshared this.
Chao-c'
in reply to Skjeggtroll • • •Perhaps. Not opening the toolbox by default is definitely deliberate. And it can't be called user friendly for anyone.
(And BTW, right-click menus were screen-efficient, it is current traditional menu bar, which is wasting screen screen resources. UX paradigm of cell-phone apps reminds me more of these early right-click menus.... also could have been something like "right click to change the properties of the displayed object")
But honestly, I don't really know, what to do with GIMP. I would stick with current layout, just auto-open toolbar window.. perhaps docked, but maybe Adobe Photoshop patented such layout, who knows...
@jwcph @baldur
gemelen
in reply to Chao-c' • • •I tried it few times in the past and I just couldn't, it was (and I guess) still horrendous, to programmers as well.
Ever since I prefer any other tool.
@baldur
CmykStudent
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •We're trying to change that - we now have a UX design site where we track UX issues, request user feedback, and try to make more thoughtful design decisions after discussion and testing.
If you're interested in contributing your thoughts (or just want to see the reported issues thus far), more information is here: gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/GIMP/De…
We're also starting to document design decisions for future review: testing.developer.gimp.org/cor…
Work items · Teams / GIMP / Design / GIMP UX · GitLab
GitLabreshared this
Henri Verymetaldev and Baldur Bjarnason reshared this.
Baldur Bjarnason
in reply to CmykStudent • • •CmykStudent
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •I believe it already has - we have some active design volunteers who have really contributed to implementing better UX going forward and pointing out existing improvements.
There's some "bigger" design work going on too which we hope to implement as it is finalized, but a lot of papercut UX issues (and larger) are being corrected already. 😀
Baldur Bjarnason
in reply to CmykStudent • • •Henri Verymetaldev
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •CmykStudent
in reply to Henri Verymetaldev • • •Since the original maintainers of GIMP went on to create software called "CockroachDB", I don't think marketability was ever a top concern. 😀
Henri Verymetaldev
in reply to CmykStudent • • •Wish the sun to stand still 🌞
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •My acid test is usually "can I do a white-balance by just pointing at an area I know is white / neutral grey" and my recollection of gimp is it failed miserably.
IIRC, none of the open source image editors do this properly. Even a video camera (dedicated kind) will let you point the cam at a white reference object and press a "WB" button and that's it. Not really interested in a WB that is only "automatic" since the program probably won't understand the composition properly.
Topaz 🐇
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •Baldur Bjarnason
in reply to Topaz 🐇 • • •some kind of orange shape
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •if you need something less Illustrator...ive, I can recommend Pinta
pinta-project.com/
Pinta: Painting Made Simple
PintaBaldur Bjarnason
in reply to some kind of orange shape • • •Dr Emma Kate Ward
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •Azuaron
in reply to Dr Emma Kate Ward • • •Dr Emma Kate Ward
in reply to Azuaron • • •@Azuaron
Thank you for using that name! Edited 😀
Jonathan Doughty
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •Gosh, my non-computer savvy wife, who I introduced to GIMP at least a decade ago, was explaining to me proudly just yesterday how she manipulated images to produce facsimiles of those on fabric that she then added to her art. I, on the other hand, not being particularly graphic editor-minded, do find its UI non-intuitive.
And as one who has limped for decades from a bad knee, getting worse with age,I always thought the name gave those of us with disabilities a bit more visibility.
Le Big Mac
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •Paolo Redaelli
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •winden^capsule^batman.group
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •Jay Grant 🏳️⚧️
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •Krita's pretty good. No AI policy, sane UX. A few gripes after switching from commercial software but they're largely minor (like why is erase and draw the same button?)
Major bonus: it's not lead and followed by tiresome people who think rape jokes and slurs against disabled people are funny.
DFX4509B (Joshua Mason)
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • •moopet
in reply to Baldur Bjarnason • • •I used to use PS, from version 2 or 3 up until about the days of CS2 I think. I didn't understand GIMP at all. One day someone in my office took ten minutes to show me around and explain the language of the thing and I switched.
Sometimes in modern times my partner asks me to help with something in PS, and I end up having to search the web because I can't intuit things in its UI.
The evangelists can be abrasive, but I don't think the gist is wrong. It's down to what you're used to.