toolbox taxonomy

[Casper Boemann]

>I find that generally a mixture of code and conversation gives the best
>results :-).
Yes prototyping is fine for conveying ideas. I just didn't want to let you
get carried away

>> We all pretty much agree that pencil, brush and airbrush are tools. To
this
>> I would add stamp and fill
>
>I'd like to start from what it is a user does with their mouse or stylus.
If
>you make freehand movements and something line-oriented comes out, then
it's
>a freehand tool with some kind of specialisation. Stamping, smudging,
>brushing or drawing -- stamp tool, smudge tool, brush, pen.
YES, although "freehand" tool may not be the best word. Freehand is better
reserved for the guide that isn't there. Paint isn't that much better a word
since drawing isn't painting (or is it?). But that is the word we use
internally as in PaintOp. Don't know which is the better, but for the
toolbox we should use icons anyway.

>That excludes the fill, so that should be a separate tool. On the other
hand,
>there are several types of fill that fit in naturally in the QToolBox idea.
Yes and yes. The reason I included it was you own comment in an earlier mail
and that fill with no guide could be floodfill, and fill with a rect guide
could be rectfill and so on. But you are indeed right that it doesn't fit
nicely in some cases.

>And that complicates things. Remember that this idea started out with the
>factoring out of the paint ops from the tools so every tool that makes
marks
>on the canvas can use every paint op in a flexible way. Now I don't
>necessarily want to expose the internals of Krita to the users, but our
life
>musn't get too messy either :-).
I totally agree, so fill should not be catogorized together with the other
tools/paintops

>> My idea is to exclude line, rect, ellipse etc from the above list, but
>> rather define them as auxillary tools (that I choose to call guides) to
be
>> combined with any of the above tools. Exactly like when you draw you have
>> your pencil and a ruler if you draw straight lines. Or a pencil and a
>> starshaped stencil.
>
>You could even draw a comparison with the drawer full of masks you need to
>have when you use an airbrush for real. Those should fit in slots in the
>airbrush section.
>
>On the other hand, you'd want to be able to use any of the geometric tools
>with all the other things: no reason why you shouldn't be able to airbrush
a
>square, or even airbrush a filled-in square.
So you agree that the idea of guides (or geometric helpers or whatever we
call them) are a good idea?


>Photoshop has a messy toolbox with drop-out buttons for finer selections.
Yes, lets not replicate that.

>> Also regarding the other tool options that now has a docker. I would like
>> to see them integrated in our new tolbox. The space may not allow it
>> directly, but then perhabs the docker could pop up from the toolbar when
>> the moused is moved over an icon or something like that.
>
>I was thinking of either having a tool properties widget under the
QToolBox,
>or a separate docker, also placed left with the tool/paint op options.
time will tell what's best

>We don't have real brushes yet, just potato stamps in an aliased and
>anti-aliased variety... It's going to be a challenge to fit real brushes in
>Krita's current architecture, too :-(.
nice to dream about them though

best regards / venlig hilsen
Casper Boemann