• 0 Posts
  • 266 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle






  • Manually adding alpha channels to layers… I’ve seen so many people knock their heads against GIMP because, for whatever reason, they didn’t just add the channel by default. (Okay, sure it’s probably the default if you’re starting with a blank file but the background layer doesn’t have one and if you start by opening a jpg, then subsequent layers won’t have alpha because… reasons…)

    I don’t think it’s because they don’t have UX designers, it’s because they only solicit feedback from existing users rather than researching new user experience and watching how a new user gets on with the program.

    I also think very few Adobe or Affinity power users get stuck into GIMP etc because they bounce off it so quickly. So they never get feedback from the very users they want to convince to move over.


  • Inkscape and GIMP etc are fine tools in their own right (I have had them installed for years) but where things have always broken down is when you’re working in larger teams and working towards a larger goal.

    Inkscape, GIMP, Krita, LibreOffice is an awful chain when you compare it to say Affinity where you can shift between vector, pixel, and layout workflows within the same tool (or copy and paste seamlessly across Adobe tools).

    Until the FOSS community sits down and works with creatives and end users who don’t use the tools (which Audacity did thanks to Tantacrul and the results speak for themselves), we’ll be stuck with proprietary tools.

    The problem is when new users turn up to give feedback to say Inkscape for some of their weirdness like opening a blank doc each time the app opens, different tabs for fill and stroke color, weird behavior with fonts changing when you backspace out to an empty box, blah blah, the community goes “skill issue” or “this isn’t Adobe”.

    Yet they fail to understand the design decisions as to why other products have more obvious behaviour patterns - they want the tool to be relatively self explanatory and try and align to user expectations as much as possible.

    Tantacrul did a great talk at FOSS Backstage Design conference that is really worth watching if you’re interested in the topic.








  • I’m a huge retro board game fan (we just called them board games back in my day) but computer games have been implementing far more complex systems, and far more systems, than board games for decades.

    The Campaign for North Africa, for the board game example, isn’t exactly complicated as most of the rules are referenced as you get to the mechanic or scenario. People talk of the 200 page manual like it’s scary but D&D has more pages of rules across the PHB, DMG, and MM alone.

    The “complexity” you’re talking of is basically the admin that a computer game does for you in the blink of an eye, without you needing to think about it.

    Europa Universalis was a very complex board game that required 6 players and was turn based yet when it became a computer game, the complexity increased, it was made real-time, the number of events taking place across the map increased, and you could finally play it solo (sure, you can play the board game solo but you spend more time doing admin than playing). And the game has been built upon for years, the 5th one just came out.

    If it spun out into a board game again, mechanics would need to be paired back again as, without the computer to ease the implementation of mechanics so the player doesn’t have to do it themselves, it’d be the most baffling rule book ever.

    Again, I’m a huge fan of board games. But computer games have offered way more complexity since the 90s and Civilization.