Blender should adopt industry user interface standards

The interface, modeling, 3d editing tools, import/export, feature requests, etc

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

N86
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:51 am

Post by N86 »

This is all pointless discussion. Blender needs a more customizeable UI. I see many comments on Cinema4D and MAX. What people do not realize is that the UI is fully customizeable in most modern programs, to the point you can build your own UI from scratch. Maya for instance may look cluttered to the unexperience user, but you can fully configure it to have only tools related to modeling or animation, and access them via a quick click or shortcut key.

I personally don't see the 'speed' in modeling that has been discussed here. Its decent but no where near as fast as say SILO, Hexagon or WINGS3D. I find it archaic. Blender doesn't even have smooth slice tools or a flexible bevel tool. I'd never use Blender for modeling. Animation is OK, but the interface design is makes animating akward. Look at Messiah or C:S thats how animation layouts should be. I looked at the Project Orange layouts while they animated and was shocked at how much garbage was on the screen. Anyway, Blender is great, but people need to open there eyes and see the real work here.

BogdanOancea
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:26 pm

Post by BogdanOancea »

N86 wrote:Blender needs a more customizeable UI.
I'm certain it will happen.
But you said:
This is all pointless discussion.
:) Sorry to disagree on this one... The discussion is not useless. Even when Blender will have a much more customizable UI, it will still need the best possible Default interface the community can come up with.

Eternl_Knight
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:22 am

Post by Eternl_Knight »

While I agree with you Bogdan - the reason the discussion has become useless is that there is no way those of us "pro-interface-change" can convince those "anti-interface-change" (beyond making Blender customisable).

This goes both ways too - there is no way someone is going to convince me the current interface is more intuitive with so many deviations from "de facto" interface standards.

Given this situation - arguing for/against right-click menus, QWERTY/RSG keymappings, etc is a pointless exercise since there will never be an agreement between the two sides.

I agree making the default interface the best possible is a good idea, but unless the person is given an option when they first install - it is unlikely we'll be able to get major changes implemented in it.

--EK

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri »

Eternl_Knight
:)

If the blender foundation should start blender 3.0 tommorow from ground up then I would probably agree alot more with posed issues.
But, as some know, blender currently undergoes evolution, not revolution.

I'm not claiming blender has the most intuitive interface possible. I'm stating that I don't see the must for changing it. I don't care if blender has the most easy to learn interface so to most people will use blender. It's a total nonsens goal. If changes can preserve the efforts long time users have put into the package I'm all for it, but if changes distroy thoose efforts (say like breaking the gingerbread man tutorial to show off the crappy hidden vertex selection) then I'm against it. Not because the blender interface is the best intuitive one, but to protect the investment thousands of people have put into using blender.

A lot of people can use Word. But did this give us more excellent writers? No. Nothing microsoft does on the interface of Word will create better artists. Same goes for blender.


Anyway...
about the " "QWERTY" is not "intuitive" but it is "user-friendly" "
I think if you document G, R, S then it works on any keyboard, not just the US ones, making it the most userfriendly option.

You can't convince me that giving a hotkey the begin letter of the toolname is a bad idea. Except for it's language limitations. But being dutch I like to have english words for stupid things as computer commands, it doesn't dirty-up my own language during conversations.
Blender uses Ctrl as 'make' and Alt as 'break'. Ctrl- P make parent, Alt- P unparent. And it works for all other tools. I don't care if that's intuitive or user-friendly. It's handy. This means that alt- R probably means clear rotation, and you know what? It does.

3d cursor.
I'm not convinced that in blender 3.0 LMB should put a 3d cursor somewhere in 3d space. But I do hate that I need to add a locator in Maya to rotate an object around some point in space, because I do not always want to move the objects pivot.

And maybe more tutorials should be about using 3d space. I can imagine that wings3d users don't really like blender. They mostly create single (game) objects. and they create it on the origin. But blender is made to create complete scenes and move truw them.

"Given this situation - arguing for/against right-click menus, QWERTY/RSG keymappings, etc is a pointless exercise since there will never be an agreement between the two sides. "

Interesting point. So how to deal with that?

elander
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:30 pm

Post by elander »

But sometimes you just have to do drastic changes. Remenber that Ton had to rewrite the entire animation system and throw away the effort the older developers have put in it. It just wasn't manageable any more. The gui code doesn't need a complete rewriting since there is already some new code in there. Only the old gui code that is not coherent with the new gui needs to be replaced.

You guys keep discussing things in the abstract and you will never get to any conclusion that way. What is important to discuss is the specific changes that had to be done to the api and how IYHO for something useful to come out of this.

Toon_Scheur
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:20 pm

Post by Toon_Scheur »

Joeri wrote:A lot of people can use Word. But did this give us more excellent writers? No. Nothing microsoft does on the interface of Word will create better artists. Same goes for blender.
SMACK! You hit the nail right on the head! Although the comparison is a little out of whack... but it is a valid one.

Furthermore, I keep hearing about industry standards, but Maya and Max and Houdini and Lightwave has totaly diferent interfaces. They couldn't all be the industry standard at the same time isn't it?

Elander, I thought that Ton mentioned once that the old armature code was nicely done after all, so little had to be changed there. But correct me if I'm mistaken.

The Blender interface certainly is something you won't encounter easily in other packages. Very unique. The first WIMP's (windows interfaces) were unique too. Although they were very primitive and even though there were a lot of critique from the command line people, the industry perservered and improved on this philosophy.

The same is for Blender. It is too late to do drastic GUI refactoring. It is not the way to force Blender in a Maya or Max jacket. Instead we should continue to walk this path and try to improve on the Blender Gui without transforming it into something else.

Maybe a drawer style GUI could fit in the Blender phylosophy? By that I mean like you see with winamp or other good media player. You can pull the equaliser handle to expose the equaliser, or the visualisation drawer. Maybe we can reorganise the buttons windows to work with drawers? Actually it is the same functionality as those collapseble panel, but maybe there could be more levels build in in those?

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein »

Eternl_Knight wrote:No offence, kAinStein, but I'm going with Marianne on this one. You either ignored or twisted over half my points to fit your world view.
I did what? I have responded to every single point you made and proved that intuitive thing of you wrong. If that's twisting point to fit a world view - well then! Actually you are twisting things as you need them:

On one hand the interface needs to be intuitive and on the other it needs to be efficient. If Blender is efficient in his interface then it's not intuitive - but where Blender is more intuitive then this is totally irrelevant because it's not efficient. Just to twist things the way *you* want them! And instead of reasonable explain what you need how and for what in what way, you just use that industry standard point that has been proved also wrong! Have you realized what's got out of the industry standard icon toolbars, renaming and keybindings proposals? Nothing! Now it's right click menus! Did you answer my question what you would put in there? No!
While there are no "official" or ISO standards for modelling / animation applications - there are a few de facto standards that EVERY other application in the genre i have used BUT Blender has. Right-clicks are a context menu is the best and most ubiquitous one to point at.

In addition they don't have a zoomable UI with non-blocking windows or a *good* and *simple* screen management. So the industry conventions are good as they are, aren't they? So let's go 3 steps back to the "de facto standards" and cripple blender. With that mentality humankind would still live in caves...

I'm not saying that right click menus are bad. But besides of some places (and I don't know if you know: Blender also does have right click menus! Even though only in the buttons window...), where would they be really useful?

I think that there are way more important things than right click menus like for example widgets that act more like those in other applications (clicking into the background of a scrollbar makes the scrollbar go up/down and things allike) and probably a better file dialogue (filtering and everything that makes life easier sometimes - which already have been discussed years ago).
However, as Marianne said, there are hard-core cons for the change I will never convince (I believe you are one of them). As such, I think basically the "allow Blender's interface to be customisable" method is the way to go. Then the users can choose which one they find is the better one to use.

If we can customise it to what we fell is best - then none of us have anything to argue about right? You can use it as is, I can change it to meet a workflow I feel better with. Everyone is happy.
That's part of the Blender philosphy as I've already written in an earlier posting.
While I agree with you Bogdan - the reason the discussion has become useless is that there is no way those of us "pro-interface-change" can convince those "anti-interface-change" (beyond making Blender customisable).
Probably the discussion is totally useless because you and others didn't make any single well thought proposal but just used buzz words instead!
This goes both ways too - there is no way someone is going to convince me the current interface is more intuitive with so many deviations from "de facto" interface standards.
No one tried to convince you that the current interface is more *INTUITIVE* besides of the QWERTY/ RSG thing! But there you just used the user friendly point. These contradtictions are what makes this discussion so senseless! What do you really want? An intuitive interface or an efficient interface? (Besides that QWERTY is not that more userfriendly - but you can soon have the keys you want for it - as I've written: This is no matter to argue about anymore!)

But it's in many ways more effective than other interfaces - once you've understood the principle behind it (what you are definitely not willing to).
Given this situation - arguing for/against right-click menus, QWERTY/RSG keymappings, etc is a pointless exercise since there will never be an agreement between the two sides.
Actually you are demanding developers and users of a program to totally change the philospohy of the program just because it doesn't fit in *YOUR* world!
I agree making the default interface the best possible is a good idea, but unless the person is given an option when they first install - it is unlikely we'll be able to get major changes implemented in it.
An option for what? "[Install Maya] [Install Max] [Install Wings3D] [Install Blender]"? Yeah! I also think that MS should give the option to install vi/ TeX when you've got a MS Office box. Sounds very reasonable!
N86 wrote:This is all pointless discussion. Blender needs a more customizeable UI. I see many comments on Cinema4D and MAX. What people do not realize is that the UI is fully customizeable in most modern programs, to the point you can build your own UI from scratch. Maya for instance may look cluttered to the unexperience user, but you can fully configure it to have only tools related to modeling or animation, and access them via a quick click or shortcut key.
You don't seem to realize that Blender was designed to be customizable and that long ago, back in times when nearly all modelling tools had a fixed 4 view screen layout, do you? So getting more customization into Blender is quite a goal from the beginning. Also Blender might scare off unexperienced users - and that's the main point of joeri: If you want to use a new tool - RTM!

And if it isn't the tool you need: Get the one you need! If you're happy with something you've already have - stay with it. Otherwise: RTM!
I personally don't see the 'speed' in modeling that has been discussed here. Its decent but no where near as fast as say SILO, Hexagon or WINGS3D. I find it archaic. Blender doesn't even have smooth slice tools or a flexible bevel tool.
SILO and Wings are totally different tools. If you're just doing box modelling, game models and organics - well, those specialized tools are your way to go. But not everyone is doing so. So that's a weak point! I personally don't use Wings because I nearly don't have any use for it!

Also: That's a matter of tools! Less of the interface!
I'd never use Blender for modeling. Animation is OK, but the interface design is makes animating akward. Look at Messiah or C:S thats how animation layouts should be. I looked at the Project Orange layouts while they animated and was shocked at how much garbage was on the screen. Anyway, Blender is great, but people need to open there eyes and see the real work here.
You can have any layout you want to. I don't get your point here!
elander wrote: But sometimes you just have to do drastic changes. Remenber that Ton had to rewrite the entire animation system and throw away the effort the older developers have put in it. It just wasn't manageable any more. The gui code doesn't need a complete rewriting since there is already some new code in there. Only the old gui code that is not coherent with the new gui needs to be replaced.
I don't think that changes should be drastic at all. There are a lot of reasons for that, like documentation that has to be written, tutorials changed, users will have to learn a totally different workflow etc. Also there are a lot of people out there using Blender just for the latter reason. It is a different tool, with an totally different approach to 3D. So the right way to go would be the evolutionary! What fits stays in, what not fits stays out, what works stays in, what not works stays out... So it's not only a matter of coding but also of good analysis of what's really needed (also to see how it is done in other packages - not doubt about this one) and how it can be done regarding the Blender design goals/ philosophy. Awkwardly demanding things without taking respect of the fact that Blender is a totally different approach is definitely not the way to go!
You guys keep discussing things in the abstract and you will never get to any conclusion that way. What is important to discuss is the specific changes that had to be done to the api and how IYHO for something useful to come out of this.
Yep. That's the point! Just demanding stuff without making good, well thought and reasonable proposals doesn't bring any improvement at all. But all that came up was nothing more than actually "this doesn't look like xyz"... And that's no good reason to make the demanded changes...
Toon_Scheur wrote:Furthermore, I keep hearing about industry standards, but Maya and Max and Houdini and Lightwave has totaly diferent interfaces. They couldn't all be the industry standard at the same time isn't it?
Yeah. It's getting ridiculous.
--snip--

Maybe a drawer style GUI could fit in the Blender phylosophy? By that I mean like you see with winamp or other good media player. You can pull the equaliser handle to expose the equaliser, or the visualisation drawer. Maybe we can reorganise the buttons windows to work with drawers? Actually it is the same functionality as those collapseble panel, but maybe there could be more levels build in in those?
Hm. Actually the basic philosophy is left hand on keyboard and right hand on mouse - and do a maximum with the least amount of mouse movement in a mostly flat structure.

That's a freaky proposal. I can't even imagine how it would look - not to think about how to work with it! ;)

What would be different? We've already got menus and select boxes. What would be the benefit? Honestly - I can't imagine it...

Eternl_Knight
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:22 am

Post by Eternl_Knight »

joeri:
You make several interesting points, most of which I agree with, some of which I don't, and some I simply don't understand.

Firstly - the comment about Word making good writers makes no sense. It is neither Word's or Blender's aim to make "better writers" or "better artists". But the more intuitive & user-friendly an interface is, the more likely those "good writers" & "good artists" will be able to create something using the tool.

As for the QWERTY vs RSG - this is a matter of "user-friendlyness" not related to "intuition". Yes, RSG works on all keyboards, however for most people QWERTY is easier to use at runtime (all grouped together as they are). In much the same way that most first-person computer games COULD make the default movement keys "FBLR" (forward, backward, left, & right), but by default make them WASD because it is easier to use. The difference between the computer games & Blender is that the computer games allow you to reconfigure those keys, Blender at this point does not.

Your examples for key-mappings are good, and I am not sure I would chnage them. But given the breadth of user out there - being able to is something I think that would allow ALOT more users into Blender. By making it possible to introduce Maya, Max, XSI, etc users to Blender using similar key mappings and mouse abilities - you might be able to convert more of them to the current "Blender way of doing things". You may not, but by having an interface so far away from what MOST 3D developers are used to (in even the simplest areas like RMB="context menu") they are turned off before they can see the rest Blender has to offer.

As for the 3D tool - I am not an advocate of removing it. I think it is a useful tool. I simply think that it is not so central to Blender's workflow that it needs to completely remove an interface option (the right-mouse click).

I think the way to move forward is two-fold. Firstly, I think nigh on all but the most ardent Blender interface fans agree that a customisable interface (i.e. via custom key-mappings, mouse options, and "possibly" configurable panel layouts) is the way to go. When that is first released - all the configurable options will be set to the "Blender default". From that point, there is no need to have these debates on the forums. People will simply create (and share) their configurations and in true Darwinian fashion the best interface as decided by the users (and not the developers) will be more numerous :)

elander:
I remember this as well, and do not recollect him recanting said statement (though Toon can probably dig up the reference *shrug*).

It doesn't really matter if he DID recant it. Just because one thing was fine the first iteration, does not make them all that way. To think that the Blender method of doing things is the "one true way" is as arrogant as those that state Maya's way is the only way (or Max, Wings, whatever). Take the good things from all of them.

I think this is where making the interface customisable (rather than hard coded as it now stands) will come in with the end-users rather than the core developers coming up with the best layouts & key-mappings through using the software.

kAinStein:
I'm not interested in a "tit for tat" argument where we both nit-pick eachother's arguments. Summing up our positions - you do not feel that the interface needs changing, I do. Neither of us is going to change the other's view on this.

--EK

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein »

Eternl_Knight wrote: kAinStein:
I'm not interested in a "tit for tat" argument where we both nit-pick eachother's arguments. Summing up our positions - you do not feel that the interface needs changing, I do. Neither of us is going to change the other's view on this.
Bullshit! Now who's twisting points made? Probably you should read more carefully! But that's not the point: Actually you've tried to right click into the menu window, didn't you?

elander
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:30 pm

Post by elander »

There are no standards in the sense an application that everyone should copy or cookie-cutter (is this an english word?) rules for making guis. But there are some guidelines. For example schneiderman 8 golden rules are widely acepted.

The rules are:

1. Coherency

Blender is coherent with itself

2. Shortcuts

Blender has plenty and well defined shortcuts

3. Feedback

Blender provides visual feedabck in almost everything we do

4. Sequence closure

Do you have trouble in Blender knowing when an action has finished ?

5. Prevention and error treatment

I don't remenber doing something being misleaded by Blender gui.

6. Reversible actions

You can undo/redo operation after this feature was added. However in some windows this is only available with a keyboard shortcut.

7. User control

I would say the user usualy controls Blender and not the other way around. At least for me.

8. Reduce cognitive weight.

With the adition of menus we no longer have to memorize keyboard shortcuts.

This is only one guideline among other slightly similar and redundant guidelines but they all procalim more or less the same.


What Schneiderman golden rules don't focus is exploration which is more important in modern applications. The user should have the possibility to rearrange his application gui layout and try different ways to work with it. But allways with the possibility of reverting to a safe point by loading default layout(s).

Right now i would say that not being able to reassign keyboard shortcuts and mouse actions, the inflexible and space wasting toolbar for views and the deprecated guis that still exist in blender are the biggest priority.

Any sugestion how this could be done? How to improve the old guis? How would a new file dialog work? How to improve the view toolbars to ocupy less space? How to manage and save gui layouts? etc

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein »

elander wrote:
--snip--

6. Reversible actions

You can undo/redo operation after this feature was added. However in some windows this is only available with a keyboard shortcut.
Yep. This one was essential. and surely can be improved.
8. Reduce cognitive weight.

With the adition of menus we no longer have to memorize keyboard shortcuts.
Yep. This is what is called intuitivity. It's opposed to user friendlyness (e.g. when things are organized in to deep menu structures for example, which makes it more difficult to reach a function fast) or efficiency (too many toolbars which a) take too much space and/ or require unnessessary mouse motion). So you always have to keep a certain equilibrium and make some compromises. But regarding that this affects you only in your beginning phase there should be more weight on efficiency.
What Schneiderman golden rules don't focus is exploration which is more important in modern applications. The user should have the possibility to rearrange his application gui layout and try different ways to work with it. But allways with the possibility of reverting to a safe point by loading default layout(s).
Well, exploration is nice for the beginning but actually makes the UI "deeper" in a way of speaking and since Blender does have so many functionality the UI would surely become too complex: It would need loads of icons taking away much space on screen (for every possible action at least one icon). I don't think that this really would be an option! Also: You can explore Blender to a certain point while browsing the menus. Though this is a very inefficient way to do things.

But I totally agree that you should have a possibility to recover defaults when you messed something up. This would be a kind of undo improvement.
Right now i would say that not being able to reassign keyboard shortcuts and mouse actions, the inflexible and space wasting toolbar for views and the deprecated guis that still exist in blender are the biggest priority.
True. This would be just the consequence of the possibility to create screen so you can have the tool you need.

To the inflexible view toolbars. Well, at least there should be the possibility to have them also vertical arranged (right/ left) - in addition a function to hide/ unhide them on the fly (Would this be something that might be done in kind of a drawer way?) - I don't mean it in the way it is done right now via the right click menu. More like that they disappear when you leave a certain zone and appear when you enter it again - or a simple button to hide and unhide.
Any sugestion how this could be done? How to improve the old guis? How would a new file dialog work? How to improve the view toolbars to ocupy less space? How to manage and save gui layouts? etc
On the file dialog: This has been on my wishlist for a few years now. There have been some proposals in the past on it. There already seemed to be some designs going into the right direction. What's really missing is a more common behaviour of the scrollbar which would be quite handy then. Also the possibility to filter/ search for file names and the possibility to have shortcuts to different file repositories (also made accessible via a Python/ plugin API so you could just plug in several storage methods like DB storage, WebDAV, etc. on the fly) and a better integration of import/ export scripts/ plugins directly into the file manager (instead of just using the dialog from a script). A new user then doesn't have to look at a scaring list of importers to import a file. Just have the file manager to decide which importer should be used according to the mime type, file extension, file headers, etc... This would need an additional registry for the file types where the scripts hook in.

Managing and saving GUI layouts should be kept as simple as possible - like now. You can easily create new layouts and store them in the user preferences. That's ok, I think. Perhaps UIs shouldn't be loaded by default. In my experience it can sometimes be frustrating because you've forgotten to uncheck the Load UI button when loading a foreign .blend and are sitting in front of a UI that doesn't fit your screen size etc.

In addition it shouldn't be too difficult to create screen sets, so you could easily change between some screen presets including the default one. This would be a good compromise to the exploration thingy (new users could see what possibilities they could have - this makes finding the perfect UI layout easier) without messing up Blender.

There are certainly more improvements that can be made. Many things you just come up with when messing around - but I often forget those, because they are not that annyoing...

Rui

bky1701
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:21 am

Post by bky1701 »

The interface needs to be customizable. No if ands or buts about it. There are always going to be people that like menus, always people that like keyboard shortcuts, always ones that like pie menus (though not common, I can see such things becoming used for a lot of stuff) and ones that like to him them. You will NEVER convince them to change, nor should they; they like their way fine. Ether allow them to use it, or they will use something else.

There is no “best interface”, so give it up. Menus are never going to be perfect; but not everyone wants to or can learn all the keys. Menus are just fine for many users, why can they not be supported, other then you want people to use YOUR idea of the best interface?

If you don't allow people to work the way they want to, they will use something else. Deal with it; make it customizable, or look like confused elitists in the 3D world.

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri »

bky1701 wrote:why can they not be supported, other then you want people to use YOUR idea of the best interface?
That's where open source comes in.
You cannot force people to implement your ideas of the best interface unless they are willing todo so. Most likely they have their own idea of best interface and rightly create that as it's their own time they spend on it. Unless they have no idea of interface, then any help on that is good.

But this topic is about changing the interface, not adding to it.
Although some people talk about adding in a sense of creating user options to select one of the possible interfaces. I'd rather see a blender branche than all thoose user options, because of global (internet) documentation.

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri »

Eternl_Knight:
Firstly - the comment about Word making good writers makes no sense. It is neither Word's or Blender's aim to make "better writers" or "better artists".
Well, hmmm. Blender is a software package so I don't think it has an aim at all. The blender foundation has set some goals and non of them state to create the best (more intuitive & user-friendly) interface.
It's to make 3dcg available to the widest possible audience.
Currently most improvement is put in visibility of blender and opensource.
And into documentation (SumOfDoc).
Changing interface settings is only a very small possible part of improvement. ( And that even hurts doc! )
But the more intuitive & user-friendly an interface is, the more likely those "good writers" & "good artists" will be able to create something using the tool.
I don't agree. Just learn the tool that you want to create your art with.
It only goes for transistion from one tool to the other, say from typewriter to wordprocessor. The more the wordprocessor looks like the typewriter the easier the transition is. That's what this topic is about. Adapting other apps settings so it's easy to jump from Maya to Blender.

but by default make them WASD
Hihi, really?
I remember DOOM very well. The first to use WASD, it got alot of complaints not using the arrowkeys. But I don't agree that QWERTY is easier to use. Not to me. I always have to look what the widget does in Maya, there is no logic to Move Scale Rot or was it Move Rot Scale?
The difference between the computer games & Blender is that the computer games allow you to reconfigure those keys, Blender at this point does not.
That's not by vision or idiology, that's just 10 years old code that is interwoven truw all of blender and needs alot of work to refactor. Keybinding is on the todo list for 8 years and getting on top of the list soon.
People will simply create (and share) their configurations and in true Darwinian fashion the best interface as decided by the users (and not the developers) will be more numerous Smile
Leaving the issue of documentation.

I'm all for a wiki plug-in that makes it possible to upload your personal keybinding to the site and have the wiki display the correct key-strokes & mouse-presses for your set-up.

Toon_Scheur
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:20 pm

Post by Toon_Scheur »

The interface needs to be customizable. No if ands or buts about it.
OK, give us some examples then! The Blender interface is highly configurable. The buttons windows is highly configurable. To what lengths do you want to go then? Configuring the events handling system? What menu items go under which menu header (which is not a industry standard way of working)?
As for intuitive vs user friendly, in all menus there is the corresponded keyboard shortcut included next to the command.

I get the distinct feeling that the arguments of some of those people here is based on the that they think that Blender is a pauper's app and Maya & Max has class.... so Blender should imitate those.

We already established that Blender need a key mapping, something to deal with clutter, maybe other visual cues ? Maybe we should use more color themes for each mode and type of work. Like for example one color for edit mode and another for object mode.

And even that could bring some confusion, because the way Blender operates is fairly independant of what you are doing, for example, you can render while in edit mode or object mode just the same. I can agree that the interface should be revamped to make a clear distinction between mode specific and modeless operations. With the upcomming node editing and composing, this should be a top priority. Remember that 90% of all Blender users at first ditched Blender because the interface is confusing. You click something and it does one thing, and later you repeat it again and something else happens. That is the very problem what I'm talking about. I'm certain that this can be fixed without a trade off on the fast workflow paradigm.

I think we should spend our efforts more to brain storm and come up with better ideas for the Blender interface instead of bashing it with the Maya and Max club.

Post Reply