top | item 42273203

(no title)

rkharsan64 | 1 year ago

Does this change include any UX improvements? The article only mentions updated visuals and theming. From the discussions I've read, it's the UX of GIMP that holds it back.

discuss

order

pessimizer|1 year ago

It's just Photoshop addicts needing the UI to be identical to Photoshop because when they use GIMP their muscle memory is broken.

To be fair, though, all industry professionals are forced to be Photoshop addicts. But Photoshop's UI is objectively awful; it's the 10,000 hours you spent in it that makes it seem sane. You could have learned Thai in 10,000 hours, too.

The real weaknesses in GIMP have been in its lack of some necessary functionality, especially some that is necessary for print. The great thing about being GPL is that when the stuff is eventually added, you own it forever.

cameronh90|1 year ago

Photoshop's UX is poor, but everyone is used to it. GIMP's UX is even worse, and nobody is used to it. And based on those screenshots in the article, it has, if anything, got even weirder and less intuitive.

I'd probably try and power through if there was even close to feature parity, but it's only just now catching up with where Photoshop was in 1994.

inferiorhuman|1 year ago

  It's just Photoshop addicts needing the UI to be identical to
  Photoshop because when they use GIMP their muscle memory is
  broken.
Nah. Sometimes I just want to edit something without having to do the export song and dance.

cmyk_student|1 year ago

I'd say so. Non-destructive editing means you don't have to Ctrl-Z over and over again when you want to change a filter, which is a better user experience. Same with built-in text outline features, which makes that process much easier than in GIMP 2.10. Multi-selection instead of the chain tools is another nice UX improvement.

Not to say that there isn't more work to be done, but I think there's a lot of good work done by volunteers already.