Okay, whatever you guys decide, ill just learn later
What do you think of changing the “softness” to “spread”, to kind of mimic the term that the layer effects use?. In the end it would be the same as softness but reversed (0% softness=100% spread; 100% softness=0% spread).
@Deif_Lou I think that “spread” is better than “softness” because there is a spread of opacity values (or greyscale values in the equivalent selection mask).
A more descriptive name would be “opacity mapping spread”, which is probably too long a name.
As I said in answer to @Reitei17 earlier, you have to use it and experiment with it to understand what it does.
Thing is for me I can use fuzzy perfectly. Changing the name or layout will make no difference. That does not mean the function makes any sense what so ever, for me it simply does not work as it randomly expands and contracts case to case.
But there is funky business around the selection tools. Strangely the contiguous selection works for me but the magic wand does some real odd stuff if you don’t look at the options.
@EyeOdin The ‘magic wand’, named the Contiguous Selection Tool, does have a ‘spread’(?) characteristic that is either fully on or fully off depending on the state of the (badly named) Anti-aliasing tickbox.
The new ‘spread’(?) slider will let you adjust that over a range from fully on to fully off.
The Fill Tool ‘Threshold’ control slider and the Contiguous Selection Tool ‘Fuzziness’ control slider do exactly the same thing as far as I can tell.
It may be that those particular names are known and familiar from other similar applications and so were used there.
I made the mock-up several weeks ago when they asked me for it, so there are options that are not there, I just left it for reference.
I had this idea but I don’t know if it’s possible.
Although in Kdenlive there is something like that
@Deif_Lou Some time ago I heard something that is very true, a tool that is for artists should be more visual, Krita in its tools has a lot of text that can be replaced by an icon, I think that is what it currently lacks.
But like I said before, maybe it will help maybe not.
I’m in favor of more icons and less text. But it’s easily said than done. For example, in your “sample layers” combobox, I think one has to see the text to fully understand what the icons represent. I understand that maybe those are provisional icons, just to show the feature, but they should reflect the action as well as possible (and that is hard to achieve), otherwise they can confuse the user even more.
I like the design but I think that the icons should be improved and that the color labels should be visible without having to use the dropdown list. Maybe just a hint, and then actually select them through the dropdown.
For compactness, I would then rely on icons with tooltips.
These tooltips may also contain longer texts, then you achieve a slimmer interface and who needs the information just has to hover a little longer over the icons to trigger the tooltip and get the information needed.
If you later understand the functions and have internalized the workflow, you will quickly click through the necessary settings anyway.
Doing some catch up on what was said in this thread
Apologies i completely misread that. this is in part why i said its good to use more unique words, my brain was so set on contiguous that i saw continuous and read contiguous
You are completely right, i totally forgot about translation. In this case I lean more on @SchrodingerCat idea of using icons with tool tips.
I skimmed through the comments and i kinda disagree with the tool having too many options, programs like CSP and ibisPaint have a good amount of options in the fill tool too, to me its more an organization + naming issue. In my opinion the way some things are named in krita have a certain disconnect from what they do to an end user. Might be a good idea taking some name conventions from other programs or just looking at them for ideas. on the weekend I can try compiling how some programs organize and name options if anyone thinks that is relevant.
I honestly think the fast mode is unnecessary, and i agree with this path.
it makes sense and it was also what i thought, but dont know if its just me post processing doesnt convey much if you dont know that the tool first detects the region. When i think of post processing i think more about filter application. Dont know if its just me, for clarity sake I would lean more on having the title reflect that the options affect the boundaries of the fill.
On one hand i think the titles are unnecessary, csp as an example groups options by context without any titles, ibisPaint have just the labels and when the name is too long it puts the label on top of the option. On the other hand, i do think they can be useful to show context. But in the end i really like how compact SchrodingerCat mockup is, though its missing a “fill region” option which i would say its the main operation of the fill tool.
To me having things more compact is better cause you can see all the options more easily, having things too segregated can cause people to have to scroll up and down a lot to find things(as i think not many people have tool options in a long column, i also think it might cause problems for tool options set in the toolbar) and having to open and close the titles can also cause an attrition of “where a certain option is”. Having the options grouped like that can also cause people to think that there are more options than actually are which might cause the problem of people being overwhelmed.
the color label is shown on the combo box with the label sign beside it in the mockup. The sample layer combobox uses the same icons used in the layers docker its pretty clear to me though i understand what you mean, if people dont pay much attention to those icons it might confuse them.
But in general I think compactness with tool tips is the way to go. i also think the hover time for the tooltip should be reduced.
For the screenshot one can not be sure if the color square reffers to a real color label or if that’s just a kind of icon to symbolize “color labels”. But the problem is that one can choose multiple labels and if those are drawn in the combo itself, they will make it larger horizontally the more labels selected you have. I realize that having several different color labeled layers as reference may not be that common, so the combo will remain short, but just saying.
A completelly new widget would have to be made. The last one where the buttons are side by side looks similar to what csp has.
Makes sense, now i get what you mean by not being able to see the color labels. Which brings to how it is in krita right now, the color labels selected don’t show on the tool options unless you open the drop down menu. I also find that kinda hidden.
Another problem the current color label implementation has is that it depends on color labels being used in the layer docker, at first this might sound as a good idea as would make sense that only color labels being used can be filtered. But many times the list of labels in use is not updated which can be very annoying.
A suggestion i would have is to show a list of the labels like it’s shown in the layer docker when selecting a color label. Each square having a checkbox beside it. Don’t know if this would need any additional coding but i feel it would be an improvement in workflow.
I am a bit against having options in combo boxes for options that would make sense to change quickly.
Imagine the scenario,color labels red being lineart of the character and green being the lineart of an weapon the character has, in this case i can see a use of just using one or the other labels and also both at the same time. Having all options layed out like that would make this change much faster.
But just an idea don’t know if more people will agree with it. Unfortunately i can’t make a mockup right now but later i can try coming up with one to make things easier to understand. Hopefully my example and explanations werent too confusing.
@Deif_Lou and @LunarKreatures this might be off topic. But few days back I was talking to tiar on IRC about making the sample from field to include layer names. This way there is no need to label the layers for sampling and color labels can be used for the intended purpose of organisation.
This request is akin to blender where you just select the name of the object which you want to target. But this has a draw back that no two layer can have same name. Sorry for the off topic comment.
For me the best solution would be to be able to mark layers as reference. This way that would be a document property and not a tool options thing. Then you wouldn’t have to setup the labels or layer names in ghe tool every time, just select “use reference layers”.
I don’t like that, i feel like that is a huge problem for people who use many layers. Sometimes i reach 80 layers having all those to choose actually clutters more than help. Having the color labels to limit things feels good to me.
So like CSP does? But right now to me feels like color labels already do what that does with the added functionality of being able to reference more than one layer, the trade off being having to mark the layers with the labels but i would imagine the same would be necessary for the reference layer. So i don’t really see how that is much different from what we have already
Sorry but i really don’t understand how different this is.
I agree that with lots of layers it will be hard to choose names, I myself use more layers in my work flow, some times it goes beyond 300. May be a filter type of dialog where you type the name of the layers and it gives the layer with that name might help. This can also be in addition to the colour labels feature.
On the other hand I found these issues with colour labels
- While using colour labels as sample targets messes up organisational colour labels. Due to large number of layers. I often use colour labels to mark a section of the layer stack which I can quickly come back. But assigning the colour labels means exhausting the number of colours available and then I get confused if I choose the same colour for sampling.
- often I confuse the blue coloured colour label as being the selected one.
These issues might have different solutions or also might not be issue to anybody else. Instead of the colour labels and sampling layer by name, I think the solution provided by @Deif_Lou is good. Mark a layer as reference layer and it will be the target. But this solution has one draw back, what happens when you want to target different layer in different tools, like you already mentioned.
Anyway this is off topic for this discussion we can move it to another thread if required. again sorry for veering off the tangent
That’s going to be the problem, especially for anyone using extensive layer stacks.
Naming and color-coding the layers probably involves a wide variety of workflows, and everyone uses these marking options a little differently.
Even if it is now actually meant more as a teasing, but I see it coming that we will still get checkboxes on the individual layers for it.
And it’s probably not the worst solution.
@LunarKreatures yes, just like CSP reference layer, but you could have more than one. It is not different from layer color labels. In fact you could think of it as an extra label/flag. The real difference is that you don’t mix up organizing the layers (with color labels) with reference layers. Each thing would have it’s purpose. And another advantage is that the user sets which layers are reference at a document level, not at a tool level. Setting that at a document level means it is like the visibility for example, it is stored in the doc and it is the same when you reload it. Having it at a tool level, the document itself doesn’t know anithing about which of its layers are used as reference. So you’ll have to reselect them in the tools when the doc is reopen.
Maybe the ideal would be to have something like the color labels but used only for reference. That could be customized in the specific tools but also would be stored in the doc. And it wouldn’t mess with the color labels. (Maybe redundant, but I like it).
Thanks for the explanation, now i understand what you mean, in this case i agree with you that would be interesting to have.
Azpainter has a very good function that is to mark this icon so that the fill tool takes it as a “reference”.
You can try Azpainter to see how it works. It’s free software as well as open source and it’s licensed under GPL 3 as well.
Ok, I made another mockup inspired by some suggestions like the one by @SchrodingerCat, with more icons and removing the sections.
I renamed the “continuous fill” to “multi-fill” and I don’t have icons for the modes yet (if you are curious what they do check this merge request), so any suggestion is appreciated.
Also I didn’t put tool tips but they would be there, similar to the previous mockup but changed following the suggestions.
I put a background color button in “fill with”. Would that be useful?
And I put an antialias option because I think a proper antialias has to be implemented.