Since my UI proposal thread has become broken for the second time, I had post this as a new topic..
I have included a new section in the UI proposal about
how to change the file browser, inspired by an older mockup by Matt Ebb. Please check it out!
Here is an image:
This is a link to the File Browser proposal:
I have also updated the texturebuttons proposal. I had
to have a max eight texture channel system because it
is hardcoded in Blender. See it here:
Click below to read the entire proposal:
-William Reynish (monkeyboi)
1. Stick with common terminology. Instead of "LOAD", why not "OPEN"? What do "Separate" and "Collate" mean?
2. I can see situations where it would be expected that files in the browser be programatically limited to a specific type. For example, if you're going to load an image into the UV editor, there's no reason to see .blend files, or any files other than image files.
3. Something that has mystified me about file browsers in general on the Linux platform - you can't autoselect a file name by typing the first few letters of its name. This is common on both Windows and the Macintosh, and makes for the expedient location of specific files.
4. I see the lefthand column with two sections (and upper and a lower), but it isn't immediately apparent what these are for. The top section looks like I can select different options. The bottom portion- just isn't clear. If this area is only used to display the icons and what they mean, I'd leave it out entirely, because it may very well result in more confusion that it helps to eliminate.
5. After re-reading the linked document, I'm not real keen on the manner in which "separate" and "collate" have been proposed. Instead of two buttons, why not have a triangle (which typically indicates a hierarchical data model) next to each entry with multiple files? When clicked, it would point downward and expand the list to include all the entries associated with its parent.
Something else to consider...it would be difficult to envision someone piling all of their rendered image files into a single directory. They could, but I'd almost think it would be more prudent to keep the rendered images for each project in separate directories. If this is likely, it would seem to reduce the need for an application-imposed hierarchy.
Last edited by p_vertex_ on Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:16 am; edited 2 times in total
I second everything p_vertex_ wrote above.
Especialy the separate/collate thing:
Allmost nobody will know in advance what it's supposed to do, therefor it's distracting.
And who would put a lot of numbered pictures out of more than 1 sequence into a single folder? Everbody manages files with a standalone filemanager, and no filemanager I know of has such functionality.
But it would be OK to have it as an option in a less prominent place, if it should be of use to some people.