For what i heard, a lot of people on the Linux community use Krita for image manipulation, even though, it's intended for digital painting, and GIMP is the one intended for image manipulation, because people don't like the GIMP's UI.
My issue is, i never understood why they don't like the GIMP's UI, since i never have issues with it,(Although it's probably because i'm used to the UI) so i need to adress this problem and ask you What does the GIMP UI has that you don't like or hate so much and why you like Krita's UI over GIMP's?
Before you event comment your answer i need to ask you to do the following:
-
Address each specific issue along with an concise and direct explanation of why you don't like it
-
Answers such as "I just don't like it", "I don't like where it's placed" or anything alike doesn't count as "Concise and Direct", we are adults, not 4 year old children.
-
If you can provide a suggestion of how GIMP's UI can be improved, it would help a lot, and maybe this issue can be solved.
-
If someone else commented something you were about to comment, upvote them, this way we can address the most common issues effectively.
-
I need you to watch the screenshots of both UI's, because something that most people don't know, it's how similar Krita and GIMP's UIs are.
Krita's UI
GIMP's UI
(Credits to a friend of mine for lettig me use the screenshots.)
My ideas on how GIMP can improve it's UI
-
Adding the option of the new UI selected by default, but with the possibility to switch to the new UI.
-
Possibly addding "work spaces" like Krita would help too, along with the possibility of exporting and importing them, this way people can have custom arrangements of the UI according to the kind of work they will do.
Thanks for reading and hopefully we can address this issue effectively.
All I want is to GIMP to save tabs layout as workspaces. That is enough. Part of GIMP hate is based on 15 year old complaints. Just like people still complains today about stuff of Linux that has been resolved for decades. It's just memery that has stuck around.
There are issues with GIMP, but none are about the stuff most people meme about in social media. Every tool has room to grow, but GIMP UI suffers from the “too amateur to know what's wrong” loud majority effect. Imagine someone who has no concept of music appreciation in their lives sits at the front of a grand organ. Then proceeds to complain that the pedals get in the way of sitting on the stool and that he founds the three keyboards redundant and unintuitive. This notion is valid, from his point of view. But it informs nothing about the usability of that particular instrument for a professional organ player.
The same thing tends to happen with several software packages, specially the open source ones. Since they don't have the industry standard tag, they don't get any leniency when it comes to learning their features and capabilities. Then, when the amateur checks them out, they don't compare it to the industry standard (which does have a leniency license) but compare it to the simplified, accessible for everyone and strip down apps. These people don't have the foresight to understand that this tool is capable of way more than their reference point, and the initial friction is an indicator of their inexperience, not of the tool's quality or potential.
The amateur is more comfortable sitting in front of a Casio learner piano. And we shouldn't lend much credence to their feedback about the ergonomics or key feel of a Steinway concert grand.
You are complaining about the amateur? A pro will never use gimp. Ps is too integrated into professional work, not too mention it has a better ux, it's more stable, uses more for formats, had better support,... The semi pros still prefer to use affinity. You are only left with amateurs! And still, they prefer to use krita, a program not even meant for this kind of work!!!
There is no doubt that there are big problems with gimp.
You missed the point of my post. You're right in that you are left with amateurs as an audience. But, and it is a big but, the amateurs aren't comparing you to Photoshop, they are comparing you to the UX friendly app they have on their phone (no matter if they say otherwise). Yet the pro won't ever give GIMP any chance because it doesn't carry the “industry standard” label and the privilege that comes with it. When people are learning graphic design or photoediting they are mandated to learn Photoshop. Either by a rigid teaching system or the cultural environment prevalent amongst the people with strong passion to learn on their own. The result is that a lot of UX and UI quirks and headaches (which photoshop does have, let's not lie to ourselves here) are overlooked or just accepted as the norm. Humans can adapt to a lot of fuckery and bad design, that doesn't make it good UX. GIMP does not have the label, leniency or benefit of the doubt from anyone. Just read this thread, people complaining and whining about the default layout. No one has addressed the things that GIMP does better UX wise or when ways to overcome its shortcoming are mentioned people react with hostility and denial. Most even admit that they have never used GIMP or that they have no business anywhere near an image editor. But here we are, discussing the opinions of the peanut gallery based on feefees and second hand vibes.
Pros don't give gimp a chance but many of us still test try it. It's not viable, not only because Adobe is a must have because of interoperability but because it's faster to work in, it's faster, more stable, more supported,... literally there is no category in which it was worse. Ux is not the best for sure, but it's still way better than gimp. Even more, everything works in the same patterns as the users expect. Same as other graphical programs. It's easier to use, easier to switch, easier to use similar software. That's ux. Gimp doesn't have that.
Because of all that, it doesn't have a target audience beyond someone who is just very determined to use something free.
See, the thing with this argument is that, however much I agree with the basic idea, it's still not useful. We can agree, sure, that overall the UI and UX (two different things) on GIMP is not as subjectively good as Photoshop. But saying, it's easier, it's faster, it's whatever, still does not help at all. It's still all just vibes and impressions, it's not actionable.
“The default UI is not like Photoshop” is inactionable. It's different from the opinions I left on this thread. That GIMP need to have a way to save and reload layouts, that's an specific feedback, concise, concrete and actionable. I also agree that some workflows take too many clicks, maybe have simplified tools to do common actions. That is also actionable, specific, concrete.
Your comment offers nothing to go on with. It even manages to ignore and bypass my criticism, it doesn't address the “Industry standard” bias and privilege. Because when pros try GIMP the response “It doesn't work the way I expected and are used to, so I don't like it” is a garbage feedback. The only thing you are offering is “clone photoshop”, and that's just not what the project has ever been about, or will ever be about. So the conversation is fruitless.
What is actionable? Maybe this :Make ux more like ps so more people will be able to use it or want to use it? :)
You want small things to fix? Small actionable things. I'm saying there is a broader issue that you cannot easily patch. I don't care about your criticism of ps, many people have tons of criticism, I have tons, none of it matters with the situation at hand.
What was gimp project about? Pushing users away with design patterns that exist nowhere else?
OK, in terms you understand. The criticism "GIMP is not like Photoshop" is crap advice, its shit and your shitty attitude is offensive and insulting to the hard work of devs. Go keep sucking the adobe boot since you seem to like the taste of dirt on leather so much. "Just clone Photoshop" is a meme useless attitude to have.
In sorry I hurt your feelings, but come on. Read what you just wrote. Seriously? Lol.