I have read many complaints about the GIMP UX and very rarely do they lead to meaningful change. In my opinion, it’s usually not because the developers are unresponsive or incompetent. Most complaints are missing one or both of two very important points. The first is that the problems need to be described in detail. The description needs to answer what are you trying to achieve, how you are doing it, and why you feel it is difficult. There’s a place for UI/UX discussions were people can share these details with the developers. I don’t have a link, but I’m sure someone will post it here soon. The second point is taking other people’s workflow and opinions into consideration. It’s easy to design an application that works well for one person. Now share it with other people and you will discover how many people thinks it has a bad UX. Addressing the two points will significantly improve the chance at getting the developers to do something.
This is a good example of point 1. It’s not detailed enough for the developers to do anything with it. Do you have list? Where did you get the data from?
I have a small screen with everything scaled up properly. I don’t have to scroll to access the vignette filter, and there’s still plenty of space for more filters. A screenshot would be helpful. It’s also possible to quickly invoke the vignette filter by typing /vig and hitting the enter/return key.
Are you sure about that? As far as I know, every filter is applied to the active layer. Perhaps I’m part of the 1% that expect the filters to have consistent behavior. Undoing and starting over again is a one-time thing. Once you learn how the filters behave, you should know to add a new layer first if that’s where you want the filter to apply.
I don’t understand what you are saying here and I don’t expect a search engine to understand either. A search engine may be more knowledgeable, but not more intelligent.
Users and developers (who are also users).
It’s a feature-rich application. I expect all applications like this to have some level of complexity.
Officially, GIMP is not trying to be a Photoshop clone, but it is supposed to have a large feature set similar in size to Photoshop.
Point 1 again. What features would you like to see? It’s also at odds with your claim that GIMP has many useless features. To some, the “great features” from the newer applications may be considered bloat. I’m not saying that GIMP shouldn’t get new features, but that GIMP should keep its existing features.
There’s a number of people who use FOSS because they are concerned about data privacy (I’ve seen a few comments about it here on Pixls). Just something to consider.
Point 2. Do you really know? I’ve read many stories from GIMP users about what they use GIMP for and I’m always reminded of how many different uses there are.
I have no idea either, and that’s why I won’t make any assumptions about what the developers can or can’t do, and what information they do or do not have. Better to provide them with detailed, actionable feedback in case no one else has done so already.
For me, GIMP has a reasonably good UX. I’m an occasional user with basic needs. I’m sure others will have different opinions.
