[Feedback wanted] Fill tool options redesign proposal

Since I’m adding some features to the fill tool and some people complaint about how hard it is to use the options, I made a mockup changing some things and adding tooltips.

The spread is a variation of the “softness” option I added. Some people think the term “softness” is confusing, specially in the contiguous selection tool (fuzzyness vs softness vs feathering). So I changes the term.
The contiguous fill options is a feature that still is not present, but almost. See if you can derive what it does by just reading the text on the widgets and the tooltips.

EDIT: The contiguous selection tool options would be similar. I would change “fuzzyness” there by “threshold” to be consistent.
Also, I’m planing to include a propet antialias of the edges to both tools since what the one in the contiguous tool was doing was the same as softness/spread with 0% or 100% value.

Please tell me what do you think.


It looks good, logical and well ordered.
I find it distracting the way that options disappear instead of being greyed out but I’m sure I’d get used to it.

Well, I made them hidden instead of disabled because maybe some people find there are too much options. But this is a mockup, if possible some animation should be used to hide the panels.


I like it that way and would be completely satisfied with it.
Ahab’s comment about the fade in/out, however, I can agree with, I feel the same way (*), but I’ll get used to it, so do as you prefer (and bring in something like a “personal note”).

There will always be users who can’t get along even with these detailed tooltips, and these users will ask here in the forum when they find it. But there will always be people like that, and that’s okay, we don’t get bored that way.


Edit >> (*) In fact, I thought, “Why not!?”

I will go directly to my feedback:

I would change Region selection to something else, maybe Region Affected, i would just avoid the word selection as there is already an option about using current selection.

I feel like the “use contiguous region under the cursor” can lead to confusion, i personally had trouble understanding what that was supposed to mean at first. I think something shorter like “reference from layers” or any other wording that makes sure that its using the contents of the layer opposed to a selection would feel better.

That being said this first part could also be simplified to “Fill Region” and choosing between selection or layer contents.

I think reference layers should be more up maybe before the advanced options.
fast mode could be outside the advanced options and could disable the reference layers.

i think options should be only hidden depending on the Region selection mode, like if current selection is chosen, dont show options for layers and vice versa, but for things like the fast mode, i would gray out the options to show something is disabling them.

i would also think radial buttons would be better as its less clicks than a drop down menu (one click less but since the region and fill with is just 2 options i think a radial would work better). reference layers can continue being a drop down menu

The tool tip for the fast mode feels too technical and a bit redundant in my opinion, i think most users wont really understand that. A suggestion would be “Increases fill speed by disabling some functions”

For the use selection as boundary tooltip i think something like " selection boundaries are used as limits when filling"

For post processing, I think i would change to region or fill adjustments. I understand that the post processing is probably related to the processing of the region that will be filled but this is transparent to the end user and might be confusing. region or fill adjustment gives a better idea that you are adjusting the area being filled, at least in my opinion.

I would also change the tool tip for the post processing to something like “modifies how the area will be filled” or something with a better but similar wording.

Reference layer tool tip, i would change it to " set which layers will be referenced as limits for the fill area", also instead of looked up in the tooltip for label, used.

contiguous fill can also cause some confusion since many tool tips use the word contiguous in another context , i would change it to additional fill or drag fill.

In general i think saying things like computation or computed just doesnt add much information to the end user and might actually confuse the less technical savvy users. Personally i would also try to avoid the contiguous word as in most cases it can be either omitted or replaced, i feel like for the fill tool the words the users might be expecting is limits, boundaries, areas, regions. Many people when reading dont read the whole sentence but look up keywords they are expecting to see, so i think taking this into account is important.

as for tooltips i think being less technical is better, explaining in terms of what is being perceived by the user is better than what is actually happening in code. Reflecting the ui to what the user is doing is also important as it minimizes the possible doubt on what an option is related to.

i think this change would be great, feels weird to me that they have different names.

I hope this feedback is helpful.

1 Like

I agree and I’m not sure that, if it’s a good idea or not…

Especialy when you only have 1 parameter available:

I personally prefer to have everything visible instead of clicking everywhere to search for something.
Also, it means that if collapsed/expanded mode is implemented:
– last user choice (collapsed/expanded) should be kept in memory, even if Krita is restarted…
– for consistency all dockers should try to follow the same UI design (for example this one, there’s no collapse/expand for options in redesign)

Something I’m afraid of is many of users asking for help here don’t even know how to check the tool option docker; and when asking for screenshot, it’s sometimes hard to get complete vision of what is defined in options :slight_smile:
Having collapsed option won’t help us :sweat_smile:

Something disturbing:

The fast mode is in a “level 2 collapse section”, but have impact on “level 1 collapse section”
Not sure that’s really good :thinking:
The fast mode should be at top level in this case, no?

(Sorry, my feedback is more on things on which I don’t feel comfortable in UI than the good things :sweat_smile:)


1 Like

Hi, great suggestions overall, thanks. Keep in mind that this mockup is just something visual I came up with to start the debate. It doesn’t mean I’m 100% happy with it.

These are my comments on yours:

  • Better option names and tooltips are very much wellcomed (english is not my native language and I tend to slightly technical explanations). If we are capable of making the newcommers to understand the tool without having to read the doc, then it’s a win.
  • I made the sections and options hide because some users complaint that these tools have so many options and they should be simplified (see latest comments on this bug report). I do prefer all the options visible and then enable/disable them if needed, but it seems too many options might overwhelm newcommers? I don’t know.
  • I gouped the options in sections. These are my thoughts on that:
    • I think the sections with a title provide context.
    • The section titles thake vertical space, but I think that since they provide context for the options inside, those can live without labels, which take horizontal space and I think having to additionally scroll horizontally is bad.
    • I made them collapsible just because that argument that too many options in front of a newcommer user may overwhelm them. But yes, it can be worst for discoverability and other reasons.
  • I personally would remove the fast mode, and maybe use it internally if the right combination of options is set (just saying, we’ll see in the future).
  • Replacing the combos that have just 2 options with radial buttons seems right, but there are issues: if they are laid out vertically, they take more vertical space. If they are laid out horizontally they may take too much horizontal space, specially on some languajes. also they may be grouped somehow to make it clear that they are different values for the same option.
  • I chose “postprocessing” because it somehow gives the idea that those actions are performed after some other, in this cage getting the region. If we can make the user understand just by looking at the options that the tool performs different steps in order (get a region to fill, modify it, then use it as a mask to fill) then it would be the best. Of course without technical language.
  • For the click & drag option I chose “continuous fill” (not contiguous fill), but I realize it is confusing as well. So I’m open to suggestions.

Ok, I’ll make another mockup as soon as I can. If you have your own please share.

1 Like

I read the bug report and I am against this line of thought. Dumbing things down is not the solution in any case, things hidden is not a good experience for growth of any user. It just lock users into being not advanced users.

Options should all be active because they are literally the options available. This is a editing tool not a game that needs a tutorial and training wheels for increased difficulty for players.

What is a better alternative, if this hidding options thing is really wanted. Taking a look into other softwares you can see the headers of “advanced options” but are greyed out and you need to click on them to activate them. This clearly shows the options exist but are not used all the time unless you have an advanced case but does not hide the options under menus and you discover what the hell is fast mode. Honestly I would not press right away to see what is a fast mode and I would only discover what it is after a good couple of months.

Honestly my personal thoughts about this is that the function fuzziness makes no sense to begin with to this day. Results are never understandable nor are they predictable. They basically make no sense. That for me is a bigger issue on this tool for new users than the options layout.

1 Like

Maybe this will help, maybe not:


That is actually very neat, i quite like it.

For @SchrodingerCat design, personally I find it more to the point and efficient. For the first proposal from @Deif_Lou , because its a bit lengthy, for newbie like me, im a bit confuse.

Im a noob in digital art and krita, my only suggestion is that whatever you guys choose the design, etc, would be better to ask Ramond to make the “how to” in youtube. So whoever ask for it can just watch it.

What I like about your new UI design is that:

  • It saves a lot of vertical space by putting the names of the functions in slider bars.

  • the pattern options “scale” and “rotate” are now hidden unless the option “fill with pattern” is selected. I don’t think that the pattern options needs to always be visible when not filling with a pattern

  • the addition of the “Reference Layers” category. If a user never heard about reference layers before they can google it and see articles and youtube videos showing examples of it.

I agree with @Grum999 that fastmode should be at the top. I think instead of making all the categories dissapear, selecting fastmode should grey them out. The same with selecting “current selection” under region selection.

I think the “use selection as boundary” option shouldn’t be within another category advanced options. It should just be unselected by default.

I think “post-processing” should just be a category within “region selection”. Or have “grow” and “feathering” within no category at all! :smiley: I still don’t believe there’s too many options in the fill tool and the problem was a lack of tool tips with quick explanations.

And I agree with many of @LunarKreatures ideas

@EyeOdin I’m against dumbing things down, and in favor of showing all the options. But if it were for me I wouldn’t make this proposal, since I perfectly know how these tools work. I’m making it so otehr people don’t feel confused when using it. For example, you seem confused about the fuzziness option.
Regarding your last paragraph, what do you mean that the fuzziness function makes no sense? Do you mean the name of the option? or how the tool works? Maybe you mean fuzziness+antialias (which is what people complaint about in the bug report)?

I think that @SchrodingerCat 's mockup looks nice, but I also think that it just reorders the options and I don’t see how it is clearer than what we have now, specially for newcommers.
The reference layers line look great but the color labels combo need to include multiple colors, which would make it wider.

@Reitei17 are you really more confused about how the tool works with the reordering I made than with @SchrodingerCat’s? If you’d have to explain the tool to a newcommer do you think it would be harder with the widget I made?

I was thinking that maybe I should put the “region type” combo on the top with 3 options (names are provisional, so I can talk about the options): “use selection”, “generate from image (normal)” and “generate from image (fast)”. Similar to what @SchrodingerCat did at the top of their mockup (the options would be slightly different). And selecting each one would show a different set of options? Or do you think it is still bad hiding the options in that case?

1 Like

Ok so for @SchrodingerCat design:
I like that for starter, it is easy to start with a clear 3 choices. A fast mode, pattern mode and fill in the selection. So I can just pick one of that and move on. In the pattern mode shown in the picture, I then can choose threshold, grow and feather level. Then below got how big and small the pattern scale and the rotation of the pattern. These all I can understand when I look at the design. For the inside of the fast mode and selection mode, idk cause there is no picture given.

For @Deif_Lou design, I’m stuck in what is "use contiguous region under cursor’ means. And without trying it out I dont know the step by step clearly like I could explain with the @SchrodingerCat design. So I have to give it a try one by one the use and which one is hiding or grey out when I click an option.

This is personal preference, other newbies can disagree.

What happened to “Fill a Contiguous Region Under The Cursor”?

is that what the freehand selection icon is? I did not know this ‘Contiguous Region Under The Cursor’ means, i thought the freehand selection icon mode just fill in to the selection area.

The confusion and misunderstanding begins - for me too :slight_smile:

That is the usual/traditional fill action such as for colouring a layer under lineart where you pay attention to all layers instead of only the one that you are on.

Filling/selecting a contiguous region of pixels is the essential function of the flood fill algorithm, used by the fill tool and the contiguous selection tool (magic wand).

Also, in 5.1.0, there is a ‘Softness’ control slider that affects how much opacity or “grey scale in the selection mask” is applied to the filled contiguous region.
You have to use it to fully understand what it does.

okay thx for the explanation, im still new in digital art, before krita, I only use infinite painter and sketchbook so the features and tools wasnt these many. Maybe making a youtube about all these functions could be helpful for newbies, or I could try all later when this design done.

I only comment that personally I like design that is straightforward step by step and efficient looking. So not to long as I have to read everything is too much. But others may prefer different.

So do I but if you have a complicated tool with many options and control variables, you need more than a simple interface and simple explanations.

1 Like