GIMP 3.0

Isn't that the classic problem of software engineers also being responsible for UX? There's a reason UX is a whole field of its own.

The one thing I absolutely loved about Ubuntu's original unity desktop was the HUD. Specifically for big complex applications like gimp, libreoffice, kwrite and such. Things that I use infrequently and have no way of knowing all the menu items.

It probably matters for backward compatibility with existing workflows that depend on destructive editing.

Breaking users’ macros is bad design full stop.

You mean, there is no omnisearch yet? Well I guess GIMP hackers are more accustomed to emacs and Vim than say, Brainjet IDEs, but by now I would expect that kind of quick access to be in any software which have that many tools on its belt.

Also, yes, definitely users shouldn't be bothered with in your face nomenclature which is irrelevant to the action. This is nothing specific to software engineering though, compare abelian algebra and commutative algebra, cubism and orphism, etc.

Naming things after the most pondering phenomenal trait of what's designated is often in competition with many other perspectives.

There is PhotoGIMP https://github.com/Diolinux/PhotoGIMP patch intended to make GIMP UX mimic Photoshop's.

With script-fu or python-fu you can make menus sub-menus and similar UX adjustments. I also make a command, and just run it using slash: /command. Better than clicking around but not live-tweakable, you have to refresh scripts first. In case of some plugin errors, sometimes Gimp just dies, which is a problem when trying to develop the plugin.

Script-fu plugin experience is definitely not great, but it has the potential to customize stuff.

Script-fu however it totally limited, it cannot access files, it cannot do anything outside of Gimp in contrast to Elisp. I wonder why that is, security reasons, as a protection from malicious plugins?

Python-fu is another option, I haven't used it but i want try it at some point. When i find some simple examples of python-fu code to learn from, I want dive into it a little bit.

I like your first idea (new UX layer over unchanged core) more than the second (fully customisable), although they're not mutually exclusive.

An understated benefit of a consistent UI is if the user gets stuck and searches how to do XYZ, often an LLM or search engine will give an accurate answer as it's been answered before in forums etc. But if the UI changes every few months, there's often no answer.

That was first tried in 1998, at the Linux Kongress, in the KImp presentation. All links to that seem to have died in the 27 years since then.

Just start from scratch at that point, is there much of value in the core of GIMP?

It’s all pretty antiquated and very 90s-00s level in terms of capabilities. Not even talking AI more talking text editing and non-destructive processes and GPU acceleration.

I know 3.0 aims to address some of this but it’s too little too late and you wouldn’t get much benefit being downstream from a low output team.

It was tried before (gimpshop)

Something for gimp like organic maps does for osmand would be great.

Youtube content is driven heavily by children and sheltered people who are easily engaged with animalistic displays of expression and bright colors. I wish I was joking

Though I haven't seen stats to back it up - I've heard from multiple sources that thumbnails which include a gigantic bobblehead of the author with a particularly exaggerated stupid looking expression on their face induce more people to click through.

Even if it's for the sake of feeding the algorithm, I do my best to skip them.

I also internally prioritize videos which:

- avoid usage of superlatives "TOP X", "BEST OF Y"

- have more than 5k views and less than 250k views.

After a while, my YT recommendations have become mostly solid.

You know how YouTubers are always talking about how "the algorithm" didn't like this video, or loves that video. Or that "the algorithm" is a huge black block which nobody knows how it works.

Youtube's "the algorithm" will make or break both videos and channels.

But "the algorithm" isn't really a mystery. At a basic level, it just shows a bunch of video recommendations to viewers, and measures if they click it or not (watch time, comments, likes also factor into the algorithm, but none of that matters if they don't click first). The higher the click-through rate, the more the video is pushed in recommendations.

And the only things a viewer sees is the thumbnail, channel name, and video title. They have to decide which video they are going to watch based on just that.

So really, a large chunk of "the algorithm" is just how appealing your thumbnail is to potential views.

Think of it like a book cover. Regardless of a book's title or summary, an attractive (attracting? attention grabbing?) cover will get more people to click it. Also depending on where the thumbnail is displayed, you may not see the full video title, such as the grid after a video finishes playing.

It's a smart question. It wouldn't seem to make much difference since you'd assume people would have channels they're subscribed to or search for something specific. Much of YouTube watch time is based on discovering new videos. And a big part of that is the thumbnail people see when they're looking at suggested content, related content, or search results. Colors, whether there are faces, fonts, images, etc all make a difference. And it varies over time and genre. YouTube has tools built in so you can A/B test different thumbnails and automatically select the better performing one.

Note that I haven't done any of this myself except for making a couple thumbnails for personal videos. I was curious and watched a YouTube video about thumbnails and why they're important.

At the end of a video, youtube shows thumbnails for several "suggested next videos".

The thumbnail, video name and channel name are the only bits of information potential viewers see - if your thumbnail isn't good, they aren't even going to _start_ your video, let alone keep watching it.

I think there's a minor confusion going on here with respect to what constitutes a good YouTube thumbnail as well as what are good YouTube contents.

Very few of channels I subscribe and watch, such as Forgotten Weapons, Technology Connections, Scott Manley, USCSB, CuriousMarc, media.ccc.de, etc. uses that open mouth YouTube face for their thumbnails, if they display a human face in a thumbnail at all. I would consider Doug Demuro videos to be embarrassingly deep into "typical YouTube stupidity" realm to admit watching, but even he tend to leave his mouth less than fully open.

Do they not engineer their thumbnails to "appease the algorithm" - they do, by showing accurate and intriguing previews of what is to be presented, that for those channels often happens not to be an adult male human face with all orifices articulated to near or past mechanical limits, which, by the way, is an another one of optima.

The statement "one can(not) judge a book by its cover" is not functionally equal to "books dipped longest in fluorescent yellow dye sell the most", at all. Apples and oranges both have their place.

Mr Beast says he designs the thumbnail before making the video, then plans how to make a video to fit it.

IMO it feels quite entitled of Mac users to expect open source software to cater to the (rather weird) UI conventions of their proprietary operating system.

Seems pretty trivial to bind a settings screen to, eh, however you even make that symbol on US international keyboard, insert that here. Why not submit a pull request to create that bind? Or have you at least mentioned that this bothers you, maybe they'll even do the work for you?

Yeah, It's not about what's easy (especially in a community like this). These tools aren't for people who necessarily desire easy solutions. It's just about hat pays and what you grew up with. Microsoft used a similar approach decades ago, and it paid off in spades. But navigating Windows also isn't as easy as we'd think as people who grew up on it.

Example: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/teaching...

Theirs is the prevailing opinion the world over, so I'd be inclined to take it with more than a grain of salt. Bad UX exists and is a valid problem.

By that logic they should rename GNOME too.

There's no problem with the name other than with people looking for cultural issues that don't exist to bang on about and fill their "do good" bank.

Doesn't matter what the name is, as long as people remember it. Trust me, the name "GIMP" is not what's holding their project up. It's competition with Adobe and the likes.

However it's great that they're making gradual progress. I've used Gimp for years.

If shampoo was introduced today, the product would be laughed out of the room: who would put some sham poo on their heads? Nevertheless, people are fine with this weird word once it's become traditional.

If "gimp" is an ableist slur, is "lisp" an ableis slur, too? And does that Unix manual-viewing command seem to assume masculine superiority? While at it, that Unik signal-sending command would definitely be banned in Boston for indiscriminate cruelty.

I mean, come on. Humans are able to differentiate between meanings of a word, and even possess a sense of humor, to a degree.

That said, I'm totally not a fan of naming projects in a playfully stupid, disgusting, or, worse, obscene way. Sadly, people get their kicks out of that more often than I would like. But I think that the hooliganish joy of doing so critically depends on the rest of us reacting to such a name in an inflamed way, like above. There's something to be said about feeding trolls as a self-defeating behavior.

I would rather celebrate the major release.

What r-word even is for? Is it Romanian?

I think the problem is a lot of people need very occasional image manipulation. Back when I was a photographer, I could have easily paid 5x more for my Photoshop subscription and it would have been worth it.

Now that I’m not, the $10 a month is a harder pill to swallow, even though I use it quite a bit. A subscription pricing model isn’t great for those that need something once a week or month or whatever.

So great, that they can't make their tools for Linux to this day.

I hear complaints from its users who describe using Adobe software like they're in an abusive relationship[1][2]. Personally, the software license is the problem for me. I don't want to make a piece of proprietary software a major part of my life or workflow. I've got GIMP, Krita, and InkScape for when I need to whip up a diagram or something. Luckily I do not need to use software like this too often.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJBEAZFP0aA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm51xZHZI6g

If Adobe can't compete with GIMP-and-avocado, perhaps the product isn't that great.

Adobe is infuriatingly intrusive. So much so that at some point I wanted to uninstall it and never deal with anything adobe ever again, only to find out they demand that I log in to uninstall their crap.

Nothing Adobe will ever again be installed on my PCs.

> Don't eat avocado toast for 2 days, idk.

I didn't eat avocado toast for 2 days and am buying adobe outright later today.

People hate adobe for their anti-consumer practices, purposefully obsfucating the PSD format, and shoving AI down everyones throat.

I suspect many who make software would never do what adobe does (deliberately make it difficult for customers to leave). Entirely subjective, of course, but I consider Adobe's retention strategies very sleazy (although not uncommon).

That said, can also see the utility in making deals with the devil: if it means getting your own software done faster and better, then it might be worth it, even if it feels gross.

I get it's a painting program first and foremost, but Krita's text tool is shameful. Glad to hear.

[dead]

Full agree. Tried it for a while as a general image editor replacement but there were too many annoyances. Ex, this update introducing editing text after you place it in is pretty ridiculous. That's been a thing for 15 years at least with commercial editors.

Sometimes when I have the need to do something with images, I wonder whether I could use GIMP. I go look at a Youtube tutorial showing me how I can do what I need to do, using GIMP, and that usually cures me of any desire to use it.

Here's a funny one from my history, 12 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G13TXE9agYM

The reward for learning free and open source software is great value long term, while people addicted to Adobe ....

It's genuinely not that bad

I agree with yah

I don't know if this is an artifact of what I grew up on (paint shop pro), but personally I found Krita vastly more intuitive than GIMP, to the extent that I no longer use GIMP, and instead use Krita even for tasks that are objectively more appropriate for GIMP.

Krita and GIMP are not in the same category.

One is for digital painting and the other is, as it name says, an image manipulation program.

Again with the competitions, haha. But I mean, yeah - in a scenario where you only have one shot to recommend a piece of free software to someone, and are trying to avoid their startled retreat back into the walled garden, I'd also give 'em Krita.

Nevertheless, both are wonderful pieces of software! I'm not a graphics pro but do find myself editing images quite regularly, and I usually reach for GIMP as it's more familiar to me. Krita on the other hand has a great brush engine, so if I feel like drawing something, I go for that.

Also, of course, whichever one has GMIC on that particular day! Some of the stuff in that plugin is absolutely wild. Usually that means Krita again, though iirc at some point it was broken there for some time, but I found it for GIMP...

Btw, anyone know if there's a Rebelle Mixbox-style color mixing feature for either of the two?

I tried Krita, but as difficult to use as Gimp can be, Gimp is still easier to use for me and has all the image tools I need.

For photo editing Gimp is way ahead. It also has a lot more plugins. Krita is superior when it comes to drawing or painting.

Does it have the same freature set as gimp? Genuine question because I have heard people saying Krita err much more to artistic creation side than photo editing capabilities that gimp does.

For many things Inkscape is better even though it is a vector drawing program, like making photo collages, and clipping photos against frame designs, etc.

It is much easier to make a photo collage in Inkscape than Gimp.

I use both and I think they both have areas where they are better than the other

What would you prefer it do? That "new layer" is how it asks whether you meant to paste the contents of your clipboard into an actual new layer or merge it into an existing one (anchor).

The relevant docs for the temporary floating layer that's created on paste are here: https://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-selection-float.html

From the release note:

> Copying and pasting now creates a new layer by default rather than a “floating selection”, which many users found confusing. Floating layers can still be created with the “Paste as Floating Data” option for those who prefer that workflow.

so it's solved now.

C-v C-h

I was actually a regular user of GIMP for years before I learned that the word had any other definition. While working at a summer camp as a teenager, I happened to install it on an office computer. One day I'm doing some work in the office, when all of a sudden I hear one of the camp directors in the other room laugh and ask why some perverted program called "gimp" was in the list of applications.

Call it GNU IMP if it bothers you

Or maybe they could all sit down for 5 minutes and think of a better name

But of course that won't happen

Yeah, I don't buy this "we just hid the nice way behind an option" explaination, I've been stung by that too many times to ignore it..

It means "this gonna get dead" and the argument will be "oh, nobody uses it" yeah, because, you can only want a nice thing back if you knew it existed to begin with, eventually, most users either never knew it was there, or assumed it went away, and eventually, forget it entirely, and then it's gone.

That is a fantastic analogy with modern UI design.

It’s a race to the bottom to simplify the most common use case for the most incompetent computer user.

To compound things, because everything is “engagement” driven, it means you have product managers place entirely unwanted features in prime real estate locations, often in jarring ways like with full colour animations, just to get people to use it. (Eg pretty much every AI feature in productivity tools).

I don't mind black and white icons in most places, but in GIMP and Inkscape I turn on colour icons - there are lots of icons together in a palette and it's hard to tell which is which.

Monochrome icons is from GNOME, it's a shame Sun has gone, they used to do usability testing on GNOME and publish the results .

Read this further, yeah there won't have been a big difference in UI, I think its been such a push to get this out.

We'll see how it goes from here, while it should be easier under Gtk3, there's still a bunch of UI to make sane around d GEGL ops etc.

I wonder if we will see a push to Gt4, that should be less painful than 2 to 3.

We should see improvements gradually accelerate now this is out.

Just FYI, changing icons/themes/tool groups is even simpler in 3.0. In the Welcome Dialogue that pops up on start, you can change all those settings in the Personalize tab.

You can also access that dialogue under Help.

They are there own damn icons! And they should be! They always were. It's now an option that you need to enable.

Photoshop was basically done at CS6 (which was less than 15 years ago), so why not? I know the copy I'm keeping around to avoid Adobe rent-seeking is eventually goong to stop working on new OS versions.