You're viewing a single thread.
Next. They should drop everything and solely focus on improving ux & ui . Every time I open gimp to try and get acclimated to it, I close it back out of frustration. Nothing is intuitive in that software. Not even the naming of the tools settings.
To be honest, nothing is intuitive in any complex software. Every time I open Photoshop I want to cry in pain. But it isn't because Photoshop is bad (that I don't know actually), but because I am not familiar with it at all
i mean its pretty good if you get used to it.. i remember the shortcuts for all the major tools i use and it's very quick and easy to use for me.
This is exactly the problem they face. I use GIMP since ~15years. Any change they make will annoy me to a degree. But I also understand that getting into the UI is not that easy. They somehow have to manage these two completly opposing interests.
Nothing is intuitive in that software.
UI/UX is a very very difficult job. I've only ever known a few UI/UX artists that were any good, and OMFG, are they expensive.
You can't just drop everything and focus on something where you don't have domain experts. Not to presume too much about you, but that would be like saying you need to drop everything you're doing and focus on brain surgery next year. UI/UX is art. It's a very specific type of art that, unfortunately, doesn't come easy for people. There are companies for hire that work professionally on UX/UI, but they're not cheap either. Anyone can spot bad UX, but knowing how to fix it in a way that works for everyone, that's nearly a unicorn.
I've been using gimp since it was released for daily driver projects.
I've been using Photoshop for about a decade when required for gigs.
I can get around either app pretty decently at this point.
If you drop any new user into either, they'll be absolutely lost.
If you drop a seasoned Photoshop user into GIMP, they'll not only be lost but be unable to use their vast array of plugins and macros and aren't quite (but non-technically are) impossible for the average user to work on.
We can't make Gimp Photoshop-like. We can make strides to improve Gimp, but it's beyond reach for the current team. Maybe we can start a crowdfund to get a UX company to take a stab at it, but even at that we'd need buy in from the developers and it would likely be an incredibly large rework, not unlike the current one that took quite a long time.
@rumba @mtchristo To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art, and in fact, this painting of the profession as some artsy fairy-dust non-technical creative magic is a big part of the reason why FLOSS projects have trouble attracting designers—they don't respect their work.
UI/UX makes broad use of scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them. Conducting studies is literally part of the job at large companies, and those who do not have the budget rely on resources like reports from the Nielsen Norman Group to get up to date information on topics such as how people's eyes scan a page, how content influences this, effectiveness / interaction rates of different design patterns, et cetera.
Unfortunately for the odd designer who does wind up in a discussion on a merge request on GitLab, their expertise is often treated as a difference of creative opinion by developers who know nothing about basic design principles such as gestalt psychology.
The problem of poor UX in FLOSS can't be attributed to a lack of talent; the fact is that FLOSS projects are not hospitable environments for designers, both technically and culturally. For a start discussions happen on GitLab et al, platforms which are confusing to people who aren't developers. And then, whereas if a non-technical user started arguing with devs on matters they don't understand they'd be booted from the discussion, devs who clearly don't have even basic design knowledge get carte blanche to debate against designers (on design, not technical feasibility), and their positions are treated as equally valid because they see design expertise as art—a subjective matter of mere opinion.
If FLOSS devs want usable interfaces (and I'm not convinced many of them do) this is the problem that needs to be solved.
To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art,
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press. Come to think of it, that's one of the problems with Gimp. There is a UI, it's just not a good one.
UX is arguably design. But most design departments would place UX as a mixed discipline.
scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them.
You're describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
The problem of poor UX in FLOSS can’t be attributed to a lack of talent; the fact is that FLOSS projects are not hospitable environments for designers, both technically and culturally.
That's just saying it's a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
their expertise is often treated as a difference of creative opinion by developers who know nothing about basic design principles
The consumers of the product know nothing about basic design principles either. Does their opinion not matter either?
If FLOSS devs want usable interfaces (and I’m not convinced many of them do) this is the problem that needs to be solved.
So, forgive me if I'm reading too much between the lines, but what you're saying here is if FLOSS wants better UI, they need to engage someone who says they're an accomplished UI artist and blindly execute their vision even against their own impressions of the requested work?
Maybe there are reasons the FLOSS devs don't want to sign up for that?
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press.
You're describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
Disagree. I do not believe that the design of a button is art. Even things like the roundness of the corners have justifications that relate to usability, which is an inherent part of design, and it always has been. Visual hierarchy is usability. Type selection is usability. Gestalt theory is usability. The hanging punctuation in medieval manuscripts is usability. UI, UX, usability: It's all just design. In fact, if you're a "designer" who is regularly putting out work that doesn't meaningfully consider usability, you may well be an artist instead!
That's just saying it's a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
This is a thought-terminating cliché, but thanks for demonstrating my point by flatly negating my personal experience as a designer who does volunteer for FLOSS projects from time to time.
The consumers of the product know nothing about basic design principles either. Does their opinion not matter either?
This is a strawman. My point was not that no one's opinion but that of a designer matters. My point was that when designers are making recommendations based on their knowledge and experience that relate to design problems, the opinions of people who do not have expertise on these matters should not be treated with equal weight.
So, forgive me if I'm reading too much between the lines, but what you're saying here is if FLOSS wants better UI, they need to engage someone who says they're an accomplished UI artist and blindly execute their vision even against their own impressions of the requested work?
Yea, again, this is not what I'm saying. If a designer says "hey, we should probably put that button here for X and Y reasons," devs should have the humility to understand that, as a design professional, they probably have a reason for saying so that goes beyond 'I think it looks nicer.' That's the cultural component. The technical component is that FLOSS projects need to meet designers where they are and not ask them to use platforms they're likely not familiar with in order to participate.
I agree to disagree, have a good one.
We can’t make Gimp Photoshop-like.
bring back gimpshop for those who don't want to deal with it.
It is essential that you explain exactly what you find unintuitive, otherwise -forgive me, but- this feedback is worthless. Make a bullet list, with captures, show how you would rename or rearrange things. Do your part !
forgive me, but- this feedback is worthless
Its not useless when literally 99% of the people who tried GIMP Over the past 25+ years have had the exact same reaction, pretending its not a thing its whats useless
It is worthless, in fact. Because it's not actionable. Read what the above user said again :
Every time I open gimp to try and get acclimated to it, I close it back out of frustration. Nothing is intuitive in that software. Not even the naming of the tools settings.
Nothing in here is specific enough to do anything about it. Imagine you're a developer, and you read this. What do you do ?
As users, we may not be able to program stuff, but we can do so much design work. Making mockups takes some time but it's within our reach. Let's all contribute to the best of our ability. If all a user can say is "Nothing is intuitive", then their feedback can only be dismissed. Because it's not actionable.
Oh and once you done all of the writeup actually submit it to the devs so they can work with it instead of leaving it to languish on a random web forum
Sure, it would have to happen on whatever they use as version control system
How many of those who have never used Photoshop would have the same reaction to Photoshop?
This is what always frustrates me when people complain about GIMP's UI!
The common opinion is to "make it more like Photoshop", but Photoshop is absolutely not beginner friendly - most of those people are just familiar with it already.
I remember being completely lost and constantly getting annoyed when I first started using Photoshop.
Don't touch my workflow. Just because you couldn't get acclimated to it, doesn't mean no one did.
Reminds me of this:
Source: https://xkcd.com/1172/
Thankyou!
Gosh randall is always on point, though. Either a complete psycho or a savant of the human perspective (laziness, i guess? It seems like most of his stuff is mocking the lazy process fails in science, bureaucracy or people interactions)
There are many examples of software where the UI etc can be changed. I have never felt comfortable in GIMP's UI, but then again I'm much more of a vector guy.
I followed some YouTube tutorial to rearrange all the stuff that can be to make it more like photoshop, which did make things somewhat better