Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The GIMP UI Redesign

CowboyNeal posted about 7 years ago | from the new-coat-of-wax dept.

The Gimp 549

sekra writes "The GIMP UI Redesign Team has created a blog to collect ideas for a new design of the most popular image manipulation program. Everyone is free to submit suggestions to be published in the blog. Will a new GUI finally get more users to choose The GIMP as their program of choice?"

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmmm (5, Insightful)

thammoud (193905) | about 7 years ago | (#20615713)

the most popular image manipulation program

Re:Hmmmm (4, Insightful)

jayminer (692836) | about 7 years ago | (#20615779)

Should be the most popular OPEN SOURCE image manipulation program

Re:Hmmmm (1)

bconway (63464) | about 7 years ago | (#20615791)

Sounds pretty PIMP.

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615795)


Re:Hmmmm (2, Informative)

hahiss (696716) | about 7 years ago | (#20615807)


Re:Hmmmm (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 7 years ago | (#20616139)

Because PIMP sounds so much better than GIMP...

QT please (1, Insightful)

Vardamir (266484) | about 7 years ago | (#20615715)

They could start by using a better toolkit. Not flaming, just being honest.

wxWidgets! (5, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 7 years ago | (#20615747)

Nothing beats having a program use the same widgets you have on your operating system.

Re:wxWidgets! (5, Insightful)

PolyDwarf (156355) | about 7 years ago | (#20615857)

Seriously.. Also, if you can't do the widgets, at least have the decency to track (separately) last directory used for opening projects and saving images and use those by default in file open and save dialogs (Like most other windows programs). I imagine I'm not along, in that I keep my project files deep in one tree, while the images that are output are deep in another tree.. it's a pain in the ass to always have to go between them.

The only reason I use gimp is because it's free, not because I like it better. I've started putting the bug in my boss's ear about photoshop, because Gimp is just getting on my nerves.

Re:wxWidgets! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 7 years ago | (#20616097)

What peeves me is that when you go to save something, click "New folder" and type in a directory name, you lose the file name in the file save dialog. Same stupid crap as happens in firefox under linux. The only thing that keeps me on firefox rather than switching everything to opera is firebug (and a bunch of bookmarks I'm too lazy/busy to clean up before I transfer them).

Re:wxWidgets! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616263)

What, you mean like with Qt? No, I'm not kidding; under the covers Qt uses native widget APIs on Mac and Win by default. It just doesn't have to. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616001)

My recommendation is to run gentoo before saying things like that.
gtk is no walk in the park to compile, time-wise, but I guarantee you qt is a flipping nightmare to compile, such that I go out of my way to disable the qt* useflags. (Oh, yeah, and this is not a slow system, being a 2.4 GHz single core K8.)

This says qt is full of bloat relative to gtk. Why does gimp need so much cruft just to expose a window and some buttons? What gimp really needs isn't so much a UI redesign so much as native 16-bit component support (or dare we even ask for HDR?) now that everyone and his brother has RAW support on his camera.

[I could go on and flame about C++ and how slow and unmaintainable it really is but then the C++ fanboys would really rag on me for insulting the slow language du jour. But I still recommend looking up "C" and "C++" definitions in the red OpenGL Programming Guide.]

Re:QT please (4, Informative)

jZnat (793348) | about 7 years ago | (#20616007)

There's already Krita [] (part of KOffice, KDE) which uses Qt and looks and acts quite like Photoshop, so come KOffice 2.0, perhaps Krita will become the most popular open source image editor since it'll have native Windows and Mac ports.

You should also note that GTK stands for GIMP ToolKit as it was written as a widget toolkit for GIMP in the first place. I doubt they'll be changing it anytime soon.

Re:QT please (1)

christurkel (520220) | about 7 years ago | (#20616193)

How about Gimp Is My Photoshop?

Re:QT please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616087)

GTK = Gimp ToolKit.

Most Popular?? (4, Insightful)

masdog (794316) | about 7 years ago | (#20615719)

I thought the most popular image manipulation program was Photoshop??

Re:Most Popular?? (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 7 years ago | (#20615895)

The market has spoken. Given that the GIMP does nearly everything that Photoshop does, and costs nothing, but hasn't managed to displace it, then just clone the damn Photoshop UI. It's not a difficult concept.

Most Lame?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615929)

"Nearly everything"? Hardly. You might also want to add all of the third-party plug-ins to that.

Plus there's more written material devoted to Photoshop, while I've gotten rid of my "Grokking the Gimp" book.

Re:Most Popular?? (4, Informative)

masdog (794316) | about 7 years ago | (#20616041)

Nearly everything? I doubt it. The GIMP can do a lot, but it doesn't come close to matching the functionality of Photoshop. According to the Wikipedia article [] :

Comparison with Adobe Photoshop

Like Photoshop, GIMP features support for 8-bit per-channel images. Its Intelligent Scissors are similar to Photoshop's Magnetic Lasso tool, and many basic tools and filters have identical functionality in both.

Photoshop features several advantages in color management. It has support for 16-bit, 32-bit, and floating point images,[10] support for the Pantone color matching system, or spot color and support for color models other than RGB(A) and greyscale, such as CIE XYZ.[11] Photoshop features extensive gamma correction support.

GIMP features no or (with the PSPI plug-in) very weak support for plugins designed for Photoshop, such as 8BF filters.[12]

In addition, Photoshop contains several productivity features and tools not supported by the GIMP, such as native support for Adjustment layers (layers which act like filters),[13], undo history "snapshots" that persist between sessions, the history brush tool, folders in the layer window, a free transform tool to rotate, scale and move in one tool, and an interpolation code to draw smooth brush strokes using a tablet. The GIMP also requires basic programming knowledge to build an automation upon it, usually Script-Fu (scheme) or Python-Fu, while Photoshop can record your actions and repeat them with a "Play" button.

The GIMP's open development model means that it is much more readily available at low or zero cost than Photoshop, on more operating systems, and plugin development is not limited by developers; by comparison, access to Adobe Photoshop's SDK requires authorization.

So, it seems like the GIMP is just barely scratching the surface of what Photoshop can do...

Plugin support and availability (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616173)

GIMP features no or (with the PSPI plug-in) very weak support for plugins designed for Photoshop, such as 8BF filters.[12]
PhotoShop features no support for plugins or scripts designed for the GIMP. GIMP has many free/open source plugins & scripts. PhotoShop has some, but many more are commercial and proprietary.

UI is not the only diff (2)

Verity_Crux (523278) | about 7 years ago | (#20616239)

My biggest complaint about the difference between Gimp and Photoshop is not the UI. Photoshop kills Gimp on performance for images greater than 3k x 3k pixels. I don't know what the deal is, but Gimp crawls when trying to touch up large images. Things like the airbrush seem relatively unaffected by size in Photoshop, but not in Gimp.

And to say that Gimp's scissor tool is the same as the one in Photoshop would be a farce. I think the one in Photoshop was purchased from BYU and is under some kind of NDA between the two. Can somebody confirm this? Dr. Morse?

Re:Most Popular?? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616053)

Given that the GIMP does nearly everything that Photoshop does...

Bwah hahahaahahahahahaha!!! The GIMP is a decent basic image editing program (once you get used to it), but to say that it does "nearly everything" that Photoshop does shows just how far removed from the problem most GIMP users/programmers/supporters really are.

Re:Most Popular?? (4, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 7 years ago | (#20616067)

GIMPShop supposedly copies the Photoshop UI. I still didn't like it. For Windows and Mac, I don't think it's competing against the pay version of Photoshop, GIMP is competing against the infringing copies ("free"/"pirated") version of Photoshop.

I don't even think it's about copying the UI. I don't think people mind different UIs, but I think they mind having to use less efficient UIs. I don't think the UI designers for GIMP really thought that one through. I counted the number of steps it took to perform an action for the actions I often use, and Photoshop beat it. That's not even counting the vertical menu thing in GIMP. I don't know how other people are, but for me, moving the mouse cursor side to side is more efficient than up and down, and the vertical menu has just been more irritating than the standard horizontal menu bar, even if the horizontal menu bar drops down to a short vertical menu.

Re:Most Popular?? (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 7 years ago | (#20616069)

then just clone the damn Photoshop UI. It's not a difficult concept.
I imagine Adobe's lawyers may have some difficulty with the concept.

If GIMP really wants to clone Photoshop, just allow for 3rd party skinnable UI's and allow "the community" to do the dirty work. It'll be one of those whack-a-mole type things for Adobe's lawyers to try to deal with... and once something is out on the internet, it's pretty hard to kill.

Re:Most Popular?? (1, Interesting)

TehZorroness (1104427) | about 7 years ago | (#20616121)

I would have modded you as flamebait, but I chose to respond instead. Yes, the GIMP's current GUI may be unintuitive to people who are used to some different program (Photoshop), but that doesn't mean the program is so useless that it justifies complaining about it. I have found the GIMP to be fine over the past few years as it is. If you don't like it, stop complaining and pay excessive amounts of money and use Photoshop if it makes you happy. Who's stopping you?

On the other hand - thanks to the freedom provided by GIMP - people have seen that GIMP could use a redesign (and they are DESIGNING - inventing, _not_ cloning) and that's what appears to be taking place. Cheers to the developers who bust their asses with little/no compensation other then knowing they have contributed to a world driven by free software.

Re:Most Popular?? (5, Informative)

Glytch (4881) | about 7 years ago | (#20616171)

The problem is that Gimp doesn't do everything Photoshop does, or even come close. There's no 16 or 32 bit channel support, no adjustment layers, no colorspaces aside from RGB and greyscale, no usable colour profile support. Those four things on their own eliminate Gimp as a usable high-end photography tool. The interface is not the problem. The underlying libraries are.

Krita from the Koffice suite is far more modern. It has all four of the above capabilities I mentioned. Some more polish and it'll be a very capable tool.

Anyone know what's really going on with GEGL?

Re:Most Popular?? (1)

s4m7 (519684) | about 7 years ago | (#20616225)

just clone the damn Photoshop UI.

Yeah, it's the UI that keeps me from completely switching. Not the lack of suitable CMYK support and color profiles, not the lack of a decent chopping tool, nothing to do with the huge assortment of really low grade plugins, many with duplicate functionality. Not the missing procedural brushes or textures either.

Honestly. If the UI was the only thing wrong with the GIMP, I'd never use photoshop. Unfortunately, the UI is among the least of the worries of the GIMP team, and putting lipstick on this pig is not going to improve adoption one bit. After all, if Photoshop users know where to find everything they expect in an image editor, it will take them that much less time to notice that the GIMP doesn't have it.

that said, the GIMP is great, as long as you don't have any real work to do.

Re:Most Popular?? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 years ago | (#20616243)

That's the same stupid non-answer that comes up again and again. They are different programs and there are different elements to them. The only sensible answer to a statement like the above is to tell them to just keep on using photoshop then and ask somebody else that can consider why paticular things are useful.

Re:Most Popular?? (4, Interesting)

kaiwai (765866) | about 7 years ago | (#20616257)

The market has spoken. Given that the GIMP does nearly everything that Photoshop does, and costs nothing, but hasn't managed to displace it, then just clone the damn Photoshop UI. It's not a difficult concept.

But doing something remotely practical like that would first require the GIMP developers having to admit they made a mistake; I pointed the mistake out to the developers over 2 years ago and even went so far as to draw mock ups of a new, better gui. I was quickly abused on the irc channel, kicked and then banned. If that is how the GIMP developers react to contributions then they can take their blog, roll it into a tiny roll and cram it.

This is, however, a symptom of a bigger issue; programmers failing to realise that they're programmers and failing to listen to usability people; let the usability experts design the interface - heck, there are tools to allow the separation between the two; then glue them together at the end. Let each team work on the area which they're good at. Admitting your weaknesses doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you an adult who understands what their limitations are.

Re:Most Popular?? (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | about 7 years ago | (#20615995)

No way, the most common way to Photoshop stuff is with the GIMP.

In seriousness, though, you must be new here. Insert "open source" in that sentence and then it'll make sense.

In other news... (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 7 years ago | (#20615725)

... record low temperatures recorded in Hell ...

This is exactly why I hate GUIs (5, Insightful)

nunyabid (1126027) | about 7 years ago | (#20615729)

They had better have a feature where the GUI looks exactly the same way it does now.

I don't want to learn a new gui.

Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs (5, Funny)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about 7 years ago | (#20616037)

I hate GUIs too, and you can be sure I'll be lobbying for a command-line-only interface for the Gimp. It might have a steep learning curve, but can you imagine how powerful and efficient that would be?

Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs (3, Informative)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | about 7 years ago | (#20616255)

I know it was a joke, but the GIMP already has a command line interface, if you can write Scheme. I think they do Perl now as well. It was horrible and undocumented last time I used it.


Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs (3, Insightful)

s4m7 (519684) | about 7 years ago | (#20616261)

I hate GUIs too, and you can be sure I'll be lobbying for a command-line-only interface for the Gimp. It might have a steep learning curve, but can you imagine how powerful and efficient that would be?
Now, that is absolute crazy talk [] , my friend.

Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616277)

gimp -i Use with -b for batch processing.

Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs (1)

JordanL (886154) | about 7 years ago | (#20616057)

I'd be interested in a non-GUI Image Manupilation Program.

Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616177)

You may want to look into ImageMagick's components, and also the gd library...

Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616151)

I don't understand what's wrong with the current GUI either. They better hadn't make it into some MDI bogosity to please Photoshop on Windows trolls who aren't going to switch anyway (besides there's always krita).

The fiter dialogs could be better but please; no gimmicky crap.

Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 7 years ago | (#20616283)

I don't understand what's wrong with the current GUI either. They better hadn't make it into some MDI bogosity to please Photoshop on Windows trolls who aren't going to switch anyway
Actually, MDI would be a hell of a lot better than the "fifteen different windows" approach it does now.

The taskbar should have, at most, one tab for the program and one tab for each file. NOT EVER one tab for each fracking separate dialog box!

Simple suggestion: multiple skins (4, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | about 7 years ago | (#20615733)

To those who are moving in from Photoshop, and would like a similar looka and feel, provide a skin for them. For the true GIMP pros, assuming they exist - retain the existing stuff. And so on. Compared to the size and complexity of code handling images, the UI bit should be miniscule... atleast I suppose so.

Re:Simple suggestion: multiple skins (2, Interesting)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 7 years ago | (#20615757)

GIMPShop - a Photoshop-like skin for those who feel more comfortable with a Photoshop-like skin than the better (IMHO) GIMP skin. But that's just me. I'd like to see some added functionality, to be honest - such as a thumbnailer which outputs to HTML. Read: Irfanview.

Re:Simple suggestion: multiple skins (2, Interesting)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | about 7 years ago | (#20615851)

Better suggestion: fix the underlying engines; 16 bit support, proper cmyk, non-destructive adjustment layers [] , better text handling. While they're at it, ditch GTK for QT for better cross-platform behaviour so that Mac users can ditch X11 and Windows users can have better reliability. The nasty interface can be lived with, and while not Photoshop is better than some (many?) of the alternative commercial packages. Even on Windows, it works pretty well as an image-VI, when you need to quickly whack out a web graphic and don't feel like loading PS.

Alternately, admit that GIMP has run its course, and start porting the interesting bits to Krita []

And while we're at it, rename the bloody thing. "The program formerly known as GIMP" would be a step in the right direction, since the average user community thinks it refers either to cripples, or a submissive in a zippered leather suit who's kept on a chain in a box most of the time.

Re:Simple suggestion: multiple skins (1)

JanneM (7445) | about 7 years ago | (#20616115)

While they're at it, ditch GTK for QT for better cross-platform behaviour so that Mac users can ditch X11 and Windows users can have better reliability.

Better idea: speed up development of GTK integration, especially for Mac, where the deficiencies are the largest. Integrating GTK properly for WIndows and OSX is likely less work than moving Gimp to something else, and would benefit many, many other applications as well.

Re:Simple suggestion: multiple skins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616247)

Better yet, Mac and Windows users should switch to a proper operating system that supports these toolkits without so many fucking problems. And while you are all at it, please rename your operating systems, because "Vista" sounds like you are going blind and "OS X" makes absolutely no fucking sense.

Unintuitive UI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615921)

The UI is the one thing I don't like about the GIMP. I had to buy Akkana Peck's book to learn how to do basic operations, and that's just wrong. Of course, I've learned MY way around things now and if it changes I have to re-learn things, but if it becomes more intuitive others will use it too.

My biggest gripe are the floating toolbars. Others may like them, I don't.

The GIMP is a terrific tool (I wish it did more than 8-bit color, but...).

Re:Simple suggestion: multiple skins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615923)

It's been tried: []

How about (5, Insightful)

LM741N (258038) | about 7 years ago | (#20615749)

a name redesign.

I second that... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615801)

Most of the names in the Linux world put people off and prevent them from referencing them in a meaningful way. It makes it very hard to learn what something is and remember it when the fucking name is something like GIMP! Its NOT cool and NOT intuitive; I guess like the rest of Linux stuff. Not that I have any problem but why bother with a redesign when it has such a shitty name? Oh, yeah, It should work exactly like Photoshop; exactly. This would add value to those who cannot afford and subsequently pirate photoshop in that they could apply their skills to something that everyone already uses and maybe get a freakin job.

Re:I second that... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616129)

I know, corporate naming standards are so kewl compared to the opensource stuff. Have you heard about the newest My Active DirectBullshit?

Re:I second that... (5, Insightful)

jguthrie (57467) | about 7 years ago | (#20616149)

You know, for years I've been listening to people complain that the Free Software and Open Source communities don't ever invent anything on their own. That they simply re-implement other peoples' ideas. I think it's kind of ironic that the number one suggestion for the future of the GIMP is that it be changed such that it simply re-implements other peoples' ideas.

Re:How about (1)

Threni (635302) | about 7 years ago | (#20616035)

Yeah! And also, make it not shit. Make it like other programs so you can just dive in and do your work, and not have all these little windows floating around. Make it do what you think it's going to do. You know, like the apps it's "competing" with (that is, those which perform the same function, only loads better). I seem to remember reading some guy's blog/article about using Gimp. I saw it linked to from a story on Slashdot about Gimp a couple of years ago. It was pretty funny. Perhaps the guys behind Gimp can read it, stop fighting it and change the way Gimp works?

Risking flaming here (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615751)

I'd be risking more psycho mails in my inbox if I posted under any of my usual accounts, so I'm posting this anonymous, even at the risk of it being modded down as a troll.

GIMP people, the biggest, quickest thing you can do to get good people back in the project and working well together is to finally, please, finally get rid of Carol Spears. I know 80% of you agree with me and have demonstrated in private to me or in public that you want her out, but she's pushing more and more people out with her weird shit, her stalking behaviour, her willingness to criticize anyone contributing to the project for insane reasons like stealing her boyfriend or taking her life from her, or accuzing people of having sex with conference organisers to sway them and obtain cash. Whatever, too many good contributors are sick of it. Yes, she has mental health issues, but the project has suffered too much accomodating those. There is only so much you can do for her.

Taking this public because all the private talking has failed.

Re:Risking flaming here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615787)

Where are you running into Carol? She's been virtually MIA from the mailing lists for about a year I would estimate. She did make one post somewhat recently but it wasn't insane and sparked no responses. She's still a landmine for any noobs who show up, granted, but the lists have been relatively cordial as of late.

Re:Risking flaming here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615825)

She's still a landmine for any noobs who show up, granted, but the lists have been relatively cordial as of late.

I'm with the GP. You sum it up well, she's pushing newbies out before they start, and natural attrition is taking care of all but the hardiest remainders.

Gimp used to be great.

Re:Risking flaming here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615939)

> Where are you running into Carol? She's been virtually MIA from the mailing lists for about a year I would estimate.

Have you been on the IRC channels lately ? Everyone who gives anything positive of their time and effort has been belittled by carol's rants and made-up stories since a year or more.

Re:Risking flaming here (2, Insightful)

Glytch (4881) | about 7 years ago | (#20616285)

Maybe Gimp could use a fork. It worked for Xorg when Xfree86 had these kinds of problems.

How about a new name? (5, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | about 7 years ago | (#20615755)

Every time I see The Gimp, I think about Pulp Fiction. How about a cooler name? I know it sounds like form over substance, but you'd be surprised how something so simple could slow adoption.

Re:How about a new name? (5, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | about 7 years ago | (#20615885)

Agreed. I think Firefox's success is at least 50% attributable to the fact that it sounds exciting.

"Gimp" on the other hand sounds like an insult, something inferior, and It rhymes with pimp -- and not in a good way. I have no desire to ever speak that word to anyone. They will never get word of mouth marketing from me.

This is by no means the only drawback that gimp faces, but it is a pretty major one. A great first step towards increased usage would be to change the name along with the UI redesign.

Re:How about a new name? (3, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 7 years ago | (#20616027)

You are free to fork it and call your project whatever you like, from the following list:

1. Firegimp
2. Gusty gimp.

Re:How about a new name? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20616061)

Absolutely. As dumb as this sounds, this is one of the biggest drawbacks to Linux adoption I've seen. There are WAY too many Linux programs that have geeky/hard-to-remember/just plain annoying/unprofessional names, and near the top of the list is "The GIMP." The word itself conjures up images of the ugly and grotesque. (And if you have to explain to people what a product name means, and make excuses for it, then you've already lost the battle for acceptance.)

Conversely, "Film GIMP" turned into "Cinepaint," which is a GREAT name, and deserves better than the near-dead development that has befallen the project.

stupidest key combo decision ever (5, Insightful)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | about 7 years ago | (#20615769)

How about making delete be Delete instead of ctrl+K

Re:stupidest key combo decision ever (3, Funny)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | about 7 years ago | (#20615891)

CTRL-K comes from the sainted EMACS. Remove that and RMS will show up on your doorstep to berate you about the evils of unnecessary keys like Delete.

It's seriously not a bad suggestion, but some UI decisions seem to have been frozen years ago and aren't really open to discussion.

What's Worse Than That (1)

Roofus (15591) | about 7 years ago | (#20616235)

Is having to hit Shift-= to zoom in(+), but just - to zoom out. I know I'd be technically hitting = to zoom in, but at least it feels natural.

Re:stupidest key combo decision ever (1)

lahvak (69490) | about 7 years ago | (#20616251)

^K is from emacs. It works in many other unix applications, and since GIMP was initially supposed to be a unix program, it makes sense to adopt key bindings unix users are familiar with. I don't see any reason why both cannot be used, though. I personally would like to see a graphics program with modal vi like key bindings.

It needs only one word: (-1, Flamebait)

Pig Hogger (10379) | about 7 years ago | (#20615777)


Sure.... (0, Troll)

TFer_Atvar (857303) | about 7 years ago | (#20615785)

...let me boot up Photoshop, and I'll get a couple ideas out there in a jiffy.

Will a new GUI finally get more users (3, Insightful)

Vadim Makarov (529622) | about 7 years ago | (#20615811)

The only thing that will get more users for GIMP is strict enforcement of software licensing (specifically, that of Adobe Photoshop). Which ain't happening.

Re:Will a new GUI finally get more users (1)

kylehase (982334) | about 7 years ago | (#20615953)

That and CS3's bloat.

Is it all that broken? (1, Insightful)

ettlz (639203) | about 7 years ago | (#20615817)

I can't see what's wrong with basic layout of the program. OK, more customisable palettes would be good so I didn't have to keep torn-off menus lying around, but other than that I've no problem getting it to do what I want.

LOL at the urban definition of a Gimp (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615827)

(1) a derrogatory term for someone that is disabled or has a medicial problem that results in physical impairment.

(2) An insult implying that someone is incompetent, stupid, etc. Can also be used to imply that the person is uncool or can't/won't do what everyone else is doing.

(3) A sex slave or submissive, usually male, as popularlized by the movie Pulp Fiction.

Look at that gimp in the wheelchair

Dude, quit being a gimp and take a hit!

Bring out the gimp! []

so to the "street" (or younger population who you should be targetting) its an insult (has been my whole life and im 39), hardly surprising nobody wants to use it

Hey, some of us really like the old interface (1)

tehniobium (1042240) | about 7 years ago | (#20615833)

I've always used the GIMP, and absolutely love the way the current interface is... Do you recon it will be possible for me to keep using the old interface? I hate the photoshop type layout because it limits the amount of space I have for the actual image.

Re:Hey, some of us really like the old interface (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 7 years ago | (#20615909)

Ask yourself this: if they clone the Photoshop UI, will you switch from GIMP to, uh, Photoshop? Paying to do so? Nope, I didn't think so. There's pretty much no downside to them doing it.

I don't have too much of a problem (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 7 years ago | (#20615839)

Except that there are multiple menu bars, one for every window. Right now with the multiple window model I don't think there's any other good way to do it... they might have to go to a single window model to fix it.

Also I think MS had something with Office where they removed most of the menus. The GIMP team should try and slim their menus up.

krita (3, Insightful)

javilon (99157) | about 7 years ago | (#20615859)

This days krita [] is a very good (if not better, as it supports colorspaces) OSS alternative to the GIMP, without the user interface problems the GIMP has.

Re:krita (2, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 years ago | (#20616051)

So, does (the stable branch of) it run on Mac or Windows yet?

Re:krita (2, Interesting)

EVil Lawyer (947367) | about 7 years ago | (#20616095)

Too bad there are no windows binaries. I use GIMP on Windows, as I won't pirate Photoshop.

the skin is not the problem (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615863)

I was working at the cottage, which is linked to the outside world by a noisy party line, which allows me to run @ 15Kbps (ie 1/3 of normal dialup speed). The etiquette up north is that you can check your email for 10 minutes or so, and in any case even ssh over that kind of link is a bit choppy. So I booted my notebook into linux mode and coded against the centos server running lamp. I wanted to use the Gimp so I would not have to keep flipping between OSs. The Gimp turned out to be pretty good, at least for the simple stuff (text boxes layered onto web-resolution jpegs etc) that I was doing.

However, when I got home, I found that the text tool boxes in my gimp files was rendered as shapes by photoshop. I then did a test in reverse and found the same to be true: text tool boxes created in photoshop rendered as shapes when loaded in gimp.

So until that fixed, the gimp is less than useful for most commercial purposes. If you were working on something that you were 100% sure you would never have to export to psd and share with a photoshopper, then sure. But otherwise no.

Krita (2, Insightful)

fadilnet (1124231) | about 7 years ago | (#20615887)

Does anyone remember Krita? URL: [] It's UI is consistent and easy to use - esp. from a newbie pov. What else? a name change? No. GIMP gets advertising from the tonnes of people who TALK ABOUT GIMP and about its 'wrong name'. Tabs - maybe. Add it as an optional feature. Opening multiple instances of an image may tax your resources too much. Make it pleasant - like Visual studio is. No joke. It's intuitive, you get 1 window (add tabs if you want to), menus on top, icons, left panel dividing into sections, with a right one dealing with properties. Hey, VS.NET-UI-like GIMP may be cool. But I welcome any new UI when it comes to GIMP. It's about time. (*Expecting new KDE4 UI effects* - just a thought)

sod photoshop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615911)

paint shop pro (9) has the best gui. fact, probably.

Simple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20615991)

Make it look similar to photoshop or paint shop pro.

I'm serious, everyone bitches how it doesnt look like those anyway.

Bug #1 (1)

delire (809063) | about 7 years ago | (#20616003)

Changing the name from the simile of 'cripple' might be a good start.

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]: gimp n : disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet [syn: {lameness}, {limping}, {gimpiness}, {gameness}, {claudication}]
Perhaps then community centres and schools might stop thinking it's made by insensitive wankers.

I also have to ask, if they haven't been listening to a prolifera of feature requests/UI changes on the mailing lists why should we believe they're going to listen to them on a blog?

Not holding my breath here (4, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | about 7 years ago | (#20616005)

Yeah, considering the utter disregard for decent interface design on any level that the GIMP team has shown in the past, I'm not really holding out much hope for this one. Perhaps we'll get a new coat of paint on top of the old interface, but the whole thing will still be a horrid programmer-interface mess.

Or perhaps they will really create a competent design team and let them dictate every detail of the interface. But with the usual open source ego contests, that seems a tad unlikely.

what about a Ulead Photo Express 3.0 rip-off? (1)

fadilnet (1124231) | about 7 years ago | (#20616019)

Hee hee hee Slashdot inspired me into find an old Ulead PhotoExpress 3.0 for windows. It's meant for newbies. Here's a snapshot: [] Notice anything cool? It's simple, there are big icons on top. The image appears in the centre. Amazing, is it not? Plus you've tab like effect (botton bar) - many pictures are opened and 'objects' (props - I still don't have props in GIMPs) can be moved around from 1 pic to another. Of course, GIMP has more features but instead of cramming them into small icons - it can have big and meaningful ones, with a slide effect on a tab bar. It's not about GIMP being uber cool and super complicated - it's about how fast you can edit a picture, apply a filter, and so on, and save the pic. There's no need for transparency for e.g. Leave transparency as a NON default feature. I do hope GIMP rocks as this old Ulead Photoexpress does. (3.0 rocks - ole' apps had the mojo, IMHO)

Make new GUI optional (1)

sheehaje (240093) | about 7 years ago | (#20616025)

As probably one of the few people who've never used photoshop, I like the current GIMP GUI. If you do decide to overhaul the GUI, do it in a way that makes it optional. Make it skinnable anotherwords. I'm not a heavy GIMP user, but use it for band related stuff. I like the fact that it's easy to use on a dual headed system as is. I understand that the GIMP would be more accessible to a wider audience if it had the feel of Photoshop, but don't abandon the people who find the GUI useful as is.

Give the users a choice of UI (1)

Trevin (570491) | about 7 years ago | (#20616033)

After looking over the design submissions at, I like the idea of having the toolbox attached to the image window. That at least would make it easier to see when I accidentally press a key that changes the current tool.

However, I can also see the point of a previous poster about adding as little as possible to the image window so that you can get the maximum amount of image possible on the screen. So, why not make the toolbox dockable to and undockable from the image window, just like the dialogs can be docked to and undocked from the toolbox?

I can also see how using a tabbed multi-document window can reduce clutter and make it easy to switch between multiple images. But personally I prefer having images in separate windows, particularly when I want to copy and paste selections from one image to another. So why not allow the user the choice of being able to stack certain images together in a single tabbed window or split tabs off into separate windows? (Say, that's kind of like what Firefox does with tabs.)

The one idea I don't like is that of putting all of the separate image, toolbox, and dialog windows inside a single application window. All that accomplishes is reducing the screen real estate available to the child windows.

One thing that annoys me (1)

sc0ob5 (836562) | about 7 years ago | (#20616065)

I have no problems with the layout as it is really. I just wish that the tools/dialogues would always be on top of the image so it's easy to select what you want when the image is full size or have other windows open.

GIMP UI improvements (5, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | about 7 years ago | (#20616093)

I love the way the GIMP has two completely different File menus with different contents. That cracks me up every time.

UI isn't my problem with GIMP (4, Informative)

Speare (84249) | about 7 years ago | (#20616105)

Call me wacky, but the UI isn't a problem. Any tool can be learned in a few days or weeks of using it.

Instead, here's my wishlist:

  • icc profiles for display and printer
  • deep color (16bit/channel or deeper) and hdri color
  • better support for huge images in moderate memory
  • filter layer types

Being on Mac OSX, my top wish is for an updated Mac OSX build (even if it still must be under The OSX-ready builds are far behind the main development releases, and for the glacial pace of GIMP development, that is really saying something. I bet all of the above items are ready on Linux, just not the officially recognized OSX-ready builds on macports or the website.

Gimpshop (1)

kalislashdot (229144) | about 7 years ago | (#20616131)

I always thought the GUI was a little odd. I am not a fan of the floating toolbars, I like them docked. Even the newer Photoshops still have floating toolbars, at lease Dreamweaver got rid of them.

I just use the GimpShop version of Gimp as I am somewhat familiar with Photoshop, Gimpshop lays out the features in similar places.

Some suggestions for UI changes (1)

Dragon Bait (997809) | about 7 years ago | (#20616141)

  • MDI: Allow a single window with a multiple document interface; but allow existing window interface for current users.
  • Dialog boxes
    • Slide out dialog boxes (Analogous to K-Develop): a set of icons on the side indicating the various dialogs, clicking the icon slides the dialog (e.g., layers) out where it can be used ... clicking the icon again or clicking the dialogs [x] hides it. By default, I'd probably make the last dialog box opened be on top of the other boxes.
    • If slide out, still detachable: allow me to move the dialog box to be moved anywhere within the GIMP window.
  • Menus: Allow simplified menus for beginners and full menus for advanced users.
  • High Dynamic Range -- okay, this probably isn't an UI request per se, but high dynamic range handling would be really cool.

New method of getting user feedback (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about 7 years ago | (#20616145)

This a great improvement: recieve graphical user suggetions via a blog and then compleately ignore them.
Far better than the old way: get user suggestions in plain text and then completely ignore them

Buzzwords create synergy (1)

KevinIsOwn (618900) | about 7 years ago | (#20616153)

I think it's obvious that the GIMP really needs more web 2.0 integration. And maybe some really annoying flashing advertisements too. (But since this is a FOSS project, just make it go to a blank page after you hit the monkey)

I don't really see the problem. (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | about 7 years ago | (#20616155)

As a recent (read: within the last year) convert to Linux, I of course picked up gimp as one of my first package downloads--can never go wrong with having an image editor. While there are a few peculiarities, such as having multiple sets of menus or the whole multiple window thing, I've never really found anything crippling about the gimp UI. I can't help but think most people complain not so much about the fact that it's a bad UI, but more that it's just not Photoshop. Honestly, I for one like the way it uses multiple windows. It may not be apparent from a Photoshop die-hard's perspective, but in Linux it allows you to take better advantage of multiple virtual workspaces. Perhaps a mode where you can define a tool palette as "sticky" so it will follow you to whatever workspace you change to? Also, given that it's broken up into multiple windows, having multiple menus does make sense. Really, all I want to see personally are layer hierarchies. And of course some people want support for higher color depths. But as far as the UI goes I just don't buy these silly accusations of "unusable" or "nonsensical." It's just a little different, but arguably for a good reason.

Re:I don't really see the problem. (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | about 7 years ago | (#20616185)

Woops. It's early and my brain decided carriage returns would be sufficient for making new paragraphs on Slashdot :( Sorry for the wall of text.

Wilbur Animates (3, Informative)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 7 years ago | (#20616167)

I know I say this every time they have a story about GIMP, but Wilbur (the coyote) is the only icon on Slashdot that animates.

Watch, his eyes move very subtly.

just make it more like Photoshop (1)

m2943 (1140797) | about 7 years ago | (#20616199)

Photoshop is what people expect and it's what most books are written for, so that's what the Gimp should aim form primarily. Only in cases where there is a really good reason to deviate from Photoshop should the Gimp deviate.

I should say that I don't have much respect for Photoshop; I don't like the UI, and I still remember it as a toy application compared to those it replaced. Nevertheless, good or bad, like Microsoft Office, it's the de-facto standard and we'll have to live with it for the time being.

Here's a wild idea: (5, Interesting)

mookie-blaylock (522933) | about 7 years ago | (#20616213)

Instead of opening up Photosho.. err, GIMP and cranking out a bunch of comps that are just mashups of existing UI concepts, why not talk to your users and design around their workflow and needs? Good UI is not born in a vacuum, good user experience doesn't happen without talking to users. For an app that seems to have the Rodney Dangerfield complaint, the team around it seems to do little to counter that. (You think Adobe doesn't test the hell out of its apps?)

So, I'll throw one out there, in the interest of PRACTICAL feedback:
Single window mode is a bad idea because it makes a photo retoucher's life much more difficult.

Here's an example why, an actual segment of a workflow and/or task, done in Photoshop to show the ease of this and why multi-window works well.

Grab a picture of a friend, ideally if they are drunk or have blotchy skin in the photo -- make it as unflattering as possible. Wedding pictures are ideal. Needs to be color.

Open it in Photoshop. Now, since I don't have another copy in front of me, this is the CS2 method:
Window>Arrange>Open New Window for [foo.jpg]
Window>Arrange>Tile Vertically

Now center both windows on the same area, ideally, said blotchy skin.

On ONE window, go to the layers/channels/paths palette. Switch to the Channels palette. Turn off all channels except green. Odds are, it looks pretty much like the color photo, just in B&W.

Now take the Clone tool and massage out some of the blotchiness in the green channel ("B&W") version. Ta-da, fixed in both. And you can see its effect immediately.

This is one way that your favorite babes are airbrushed to laughable non-human perfection for magazines. It's quick, it's got incredible feedback, and it's not possible in a tabbed or single window method.

Talking to your users, as opposed to a comp-off (or the cardinal sin, the designer assuming he knows everything), gives you all kinds of useful information like that.

Aimless brainstorming, bad. Brainstorming with a direction, productive.

New Windows installer? (1)

supremebob (574732) | about 7 years ago | (#20616229)

Are their any plans to release a simplified Windows installer that also installs required GTK runtime libraries as well? That was always a pet peeve of mine.

Ignore gnome UI yahoos please. (1)

gambolt (1146363) | about 7 years ago | (#20616249)

Improving the UI by removing features is a net loss for the application.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>