There could be a selection of predefined workflows, including one with a small selection of core modules targeted at beginners. And of course, the ability to define custom module groups would be retained. A config option can select which module group to show by default. The “Beginner” group could be the default value.
Concerning the pedagogic value of the groups, the names of the modules should suffice already. If that’s not the case, maybe they should be renamed.
That is a possible idea, and I and others have argued previously that making Beginner the default workflow has a certain logic to it. However, I’ve also been of the strong opinion that we should then also revise the content of that workflow.
With the direction dt has taken over the last years, it seems wrong to me to direct beginners towards working with tools that are not core parts of a scene-referred workflow.
But basically I think it is wise to present users with a suite of modules larger then the bare minimum. The number of modules we normally actually work with, is not that high that it has to overwhelm a beginner – in particular if they are given some level of categorization, as was my experience the current tab division gives.
As I indicated above, the processing framework here also has a connection to the auto-apply pixel workflow defaults setting in preferences. so I think this whole topic could need to be thought through in some depth.
A first step could be to discuss which modules ought to be included in a beginners’ suite, where we want to go thereafter, and what should be the mechanisms for moving users further on from the beginner phase.
I agree, but the discussion about which modules should be in which workflow is kind of orthogonal to the discussion about the UI.
My suggestion above stems from the fact that the proposed layout is (IMHO) more self-documenting and intuitive than an (arguably) arbitrary set of groups of modules with arbitrary icons with semantically opaque actions (as the “click-twice to show all” behavior discussed in the thread).
In all honesty, the default module group should look like this:
New people learn these modules, and you’ll be good. That is it. Several of them you probably already know and understand (crop, exposure, rotate, lens correction).
Yes, that could be about it.
But there will be discussions.
I, for one, think that simple retouching are among the things a beginner may want do quite soon when taking on image processing. So there you have one more …
And then there is the much praised capture sharpening, that requires access to the demosaicing modul. Another one …
However, that is not necessary if CS is rather activated default, as many have argued for.
Then comes orientation.
Yes, dt normally takes care of that without need for user activity.
But orientation has for me all the time been an important tool for consideration of an image’s composition - as it enables me to quickly turn the image on its head to let my vision work in graphics mode, (by eliminating the immediate cues for cognitive appreciation of the photographed scene).
However, since rotation is also available in lighttable, and composition anyhow is often judged better in a smaller thumbnail format, I can accept that we leave it out.
Framing is often wanted, easily understandable in concept, and fairly easy to use. One more.
Then finally comes all the useful presets of DorS … DorS can frighten anybody at first appearance, but if we somehow can lead users to just consider the presets, there are several easily understood concepts that a beginner may quickly find good use of. How can we deal with that? Perhaps include only the module header with the presets in the QAP?
We are not trying to recommend every good module for every use case, we are trying not to scare people off the first time they open the application.
Once you get the basics, sure, discover all the modules and what they do, customize the interface, all of that. But that’s once you’re comfortable.
To me the QAP doesn’t suite beginners, and it just can’t. Its useful for… Quick access. I don’t like it at all and I think its really confusing that it is enabled by default.
I agree. It’s more confusing than it is helpful.
I’d be happy if someone took up the topic. There’s a lot going on in different places at the moment (e.g. on Github), so I’m going to drop out of the discussion here. I don’t think more opinions from me will help 
Yes, but I think that some of the aspects involved is not easy to unite. How can we present a simple first impression of the ui, while at the same time make the rest visible to the extent that user become aware of their existence (still without being overwhelmed) and create curiosity about their use?
I’m divided in my judgement of QAP
It’s a danger to underestimate the role QAP may play for beginners as a help in identifying and overviewing most of dt’s core controls.
I prefer photoshops layout. Not multiple tabs for multiple workflows. Just one “tab” with all the modules that have been added by the user, whether on or off. Modules can be added from a menu below.
With respect I would strongly disagree with this as I for one have organized the modules I want to see in a customized module group.
I agree that for a first time user this would be a very suitable group of modules to display. Of course there will be unresolved debate about if other modules should or should not be included, but for a first day in DT these modules would be a good introduction.
This is an interesting suggestion. The word proper is an interesting choice because that will mean different things to different people. Proper might be the Microsoft Office approach because that is what so many people have become use to. GIMP has more or less taken the Microsoft Office approach with its layout. Is that similar to what you are proposing? I for one could see some merit in this sort of UI but I am not sure who would want to create it and I can only imagine the level of resistance to change that would be encountered.
All software takes investment in learning the UI and I have taken that time and been rewarded with a the best RAW file editor I have every used.
Maybe i was not clear. My suggestion is to drop the association between module groups and tabs, not to drop module groups.
Hi Danielle, maybe I need more coffee since it still morning but I am not understanding your proposal clearly. My bad. Just for clarity on my part, this is how I organize my module layout to suit my needs. Effectively I have created a mini-Microsoft Office like drop down list to navigate to the required tools.
Our #1 feedback has been for some time that “there are too many modules and too many ways of doing the same thing” and this is a way to help that.
Yes, that’s why we gotten no where. Just present a good list. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Perfect is the enemy of good.
I intend to use your list as a recommendation for first time users and when I teach my DT classes. I like you have selected Sigmoid because for many images there is no need for user intervention. I love AgX but for a first day DT user all the options would initially overwhelm them, but with a little guidance AgX is very easy to use and has become my default tone mapper.
I wonder if there would be any benefits having a new installation of of DT open with a splash screen giving the user the choice between beginner or expert layout. This might satisfy both groups.
I’m aware of that, and that’s why I basically concurred to your proposal.
I’m not sure though if this complaint applies to the default module group display for scene-referred workflow, or this is a complaint that mostly arises first when
I would find it reasonable to expect that users quickly catch up the information provided by the tabs’ pop-up, and very soon get the impression that the set of modules is broken up into smaller, fairly understandable sub-sets, that are few enough to get a grip on.
Hey Terry,
So, what I was suggesting is that the module groups (which above I had called workflows) would be in a select instead of tabs.
Then you would have 3 permanent tabs:
The rationale being that the semantics of each control/tab would be clearer, with no loss of functionality. In particular, it addresses the discomfort that many seem to have with the module tabs showing something different if they are clicked once or twice.
Note that I am not unhappy with the current setup, even though I really only use the search bar and the list of active modules.
This, I think, would be a nice solution, combined with eliminating the double click function.
But I’m not sure we in total gain much from eliminating the other tabs - as doing that will also mean a loss of information. What about calling Mica’s default tab for beginner, and keep the others as is, albeit with those included in this beginner tab culled from them and adding a little more description in the tab pop-up?
Then we will have a clearly visible and identified beginner starting point, while any progression is also visible and easily available.
All in all there are several small amendments that together could make a substantial improvement in how beginners meet dt (or v.v.). Most of them touched upon in this thread.
From previous discussion on similar topics here in the forum I’ve gotten the impression, though, rightly or wrongly, that within the developer group there isn’t very much interest and focus on these more softer aspects of the UI that meets the dt beginner. (However, I have not followed any discussions in GitHub, so perhaps the potential for improvement is better than what I think.)
I’m therefore in doubt as to how we best can move the issue forward.
Could those who are interest try to agree here on a set of a amendments and then present the wish list as a Feature Request in GitHub?
Combining this with some of the graphical user topics addressed by OP and Chris, it could IMO be a nice lift in dt usability.
I wonder if there may be a way to harmonize this with the functions in the right click which until recently I never even knew about…
When you right click on say the default color/grading icon you will get this, showing the 6 default modules in the group, a further group that can be added with a click and then a fly-out for all modules
I am not sure what determines the extra possible modules that can be added straightaway between the all modules at the bottom and the currently selected ones in the group shown above “add module” but you have this nice structure in place with the alphabetially ordered modules…and at the bottom is all modules. You could actually just pass on those and just have the all modules flyout to add some other module.
Right now this is a slick way to make on the fly modifications to the module groups but what if and here is the tricky part and where my feable brain fails, but sort of keeping in mind what you have said and or what some others have said about dropdowns, what if in a sort of hybrid approach left clicking the icon a second time brought up the same sort of menu but it was for adding/activating modules for the edit in that same sort of structure so you could if you wanted also see all modules in any group. This would be proposing an action that is more like a menu? The resulting tab would look the same or maybe even only show modules added from the menu selections of that group if a menu only system could be realized in a way that enhanced things.
Along with all the other ideas there may be a way to streamline it … I wish I were more creative
In my head I would just do all my multiple instances and module rearrangement (if any) in the active module pipeline tab and have some clearly indicated toggle for active vs all in that tab or leave the second click but for new users a visual might be nice. I would use the mdoule group icons such that a left click would set the focus and bring up the current group as defined by the preset. I would remove the second left click action on those module group. I would consider using right click (or maybe the second left click if that stays) to bring up a module selection menu mimicing somewhat the module editing menu and I would move that to ctrl right click as I would suspect that it is used less often ( or again it could be left at right click if the second click brings up the modules list menu) …
Would this be worth all the coding and offer something any better…not really sure…maybe the combination of styles and autopresets covers a lot of ground…it seems to for me as I rarely use the module groups…
Again, this is why the default are more or less the same as they’ve always been. Consensus won’t be reached, too many cooks in the kitchen.
Just need to change the module list default (I don’t care about the group name) to something more opinionated and go with it.
