Suggestion for Selection Ratio

[helmut]

Olivier et al,

Helmut, we may actually be discussing a philosophical/psychological issue...

Not really. It's all about usability.

...
That's a different interpretation. And from LostClown's reaction, I believe that he understood it as [2] as well. And in this version, two sub-menus doesn't make sense as you consider only the current selection.

Exactly. There's two ways for interpretation. I hope LostClown and others understand how [1] should work, too, and can follow the discussion.

We'll have to look at the differences in use, in order to choose the right one. Or just create a poll...

Polls work well on simple decisions and simple things. This is not the case, here. (Polls remind me a bit of dark ages and roman empire, were the crowd made decisions: Thumbs up, Thumbs down).

First example: I create a 3:2 Landscape selection, move it, set it to "Free", adjust its size... and now, I want to re-use it immediately with the automatic "Use image's orientation" for next images. With [2], I will just click on "Use image's orientation" and that's it. How would you do with [1] ?

In approach [2] you can set "Use image's orientation" at any time, since it is an option (or part of it) and has effect on new predefined selections, only. The current selection is not affected/changed at all.

Second example: I have created a 3:2 Landscape selection, "swapped" it to Portrait, but I changed my mind and would prefer the 4:3 Ratio. With [2], I will just select the "4:3" Ratio and it will be directly in the right orientation (Portrait). And in [1] ?

Yes. You are bringing a new, strong card into the game: Until now, the existing selection has not been considered at all. For example the user could make an arbitrary selection and then decide that the selection should follow 4:3 ratio for example. Then the orientation of the current selection should be used. This would be just intuitive and should/would also work when switching from a 3:2 selection to a 4:3 selection.
But what is "Orientation" option good for, then? The answer is to either get rid of the orientation option, or make the orientation option only work on new selection (nothing is selected at all) or if the current selection has ratio 1:1. (This is why I mentioned the naming "Initial orientation" and located the options deep down in a sub-sub menu.)

The functions that user will use often are "Selection - Swap width & height" and "Ratio - Same as image". We should keep these two in focus and make sure that these can be used well. The other things are not too important. Sure enough all of this has to fit together.

Greetings, Helmut

Note: I'm surprised to see all these night owls flying around.

[Olivier_G]

You are bringing a new, strong card into the game: Until now, the existing selection has not been considered at all.

Well... In my mind - and since the beginning of this thread - the Orientation settings were applicable to the Selection (no difference wether it is for the existing current one or for the creation of a new one). I don't see Ratio/Size/Orientation settings as options, but rather as actions to change the Selection => direct relationship between settings and selection... a bit like "what you do is what you get" (and I find this more intuitive and direct than options to be used for a new selection).

But what is "Orientation" option good for, then?

The Orientation group is a more explicit way to select the orientation. It is useful to show the user what is the current setting when he wants to create a new selection based on Ratio. But more importantly: it is a way to show and select the "Use image's orientation" setting and separate it from "Landscape" or "Portrait" (for existing Selection or one to be created, cf previous comment).

The functions that user will use often are "Selection - Swap width & height" and "Ratio - Same as image". We should keep these two in focus and make sure that these can be used well.

Right. The "Free" ratio will probably also be used often (to 'deselect' the previous Ratio choice).


All this being said, I feel satisfied with:

Main menu 'Edit':

Code: Select all

Set Selection Size (to be discussed...) 
Set Selection Ratio
Set Selection Orientation
Swap width & height   Ctrl+<key>

Submenu 'Set Selection Ratio':

Code: Select all

X Free           Ctrl+<key>
  Same as image  Ctrl+<key>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  1:1                (1.00)
  2:1                (2.00)
  3:2                (1.50)
  4:3                (1.33)
  5:4                (1.25)
  16:9               (1.78)
  A4, A3...          (1.41)
  US Letter          (1.29)
  Cinema 1           (1.85)
  Cinema 2           (2.35)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Custom
   Save selection as custom

Submenu 'Set Selection Orientation':

Code: Select all

  Portrait
X Landscape
  Use image's orientation (with "*" symbol when temporary swapped)

I think that all usage recommendations have been respected (except Pierre's one about the possibility to change directly with one 'click' both Ratio and Orientation... but I couldn't find the right compromise, so far), and I like the 'direct' logic of it.

What is your opinion ?

Olivier

[Dreamer]

Submenu 'Selection Ratio':

Code: Select all

X Free
  Same as image    Ctrl+<key>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Custom
   Save selection as custom
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  1:1                (1.00)
  2:1                (2.00)
  3:2                (1.50)
  4:3                (1.33)
  5:4                (1.25)
  16:9               (1.78)
  A4, A3...          (1.41)
  US Letter          (1.29)
  Cinema 1           (1.85)
  Cinema 2           (2.35)

Submenu 'Selection orientation':

Code: Select all

Swap width & height   Ctrl+<key>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Portait
X Landscape
  Use image's orientation

...And last not least:
Both shortcuts (see menus, above) should be usable with the left hand, since mouse is on right side (sorry to the left-handed people).

What about this? Hotkeys (with or without Ctrl)

Code: Select all

[~ or `] Swap width & height  [0] Same as image
[1] 1:1  [2] 2:1  [3] 3:2  [4] 4:3  [5] 5:4  [6] 16:9...

I know [0] is not the best... Maybe this?

Code: Select all

[Tab] Swap width & height  [~ or `] Same as image
[1] 1:1  [2] 2:1  [3] 3:2  [4] 4:3  [5] 5:4  [6] 16:9...

P.S. Use just keys 0-9, not numpad 0-9 keys, I've got a better idea for them

[helmut]

Olivier et al,

You are bringing a new, strong card into the game: Until now, the existing selection has not been considered at all.

Well... In my mind - and since the beginning of this thread - the Orientation settings were applicable to the Selection (no difference wether it is for the existing current one or for the creation of a new one). I don't see Ratio/Size/Orientation settings as options, but rather as actions to change the Selection => direct relationship between settings and selection... a bit like "what you do is what you get" (and I find this more intuitive and direct than options to be used for a new selection).

But what is "Orientation" option good for, then?

The Orientation group is a more explicit way to select the orientation. It is useful to show the user what is the current setting when he wants to create a new selection based on Ratio. But more importantly: it is a way to show and select the "Use image's orientation" setting and separate it from "Landscape" or "Portrait" (for existing Selection or one to be created, cf previous comment).

Already, the user has various ways to see what the orientation of current selection is:
The selection itself, and the ratio in the toolbar.
Also, the user has an easy and quick way to change the orientation of the image: There's "Selection - Swap width & height". The "Selection - Swap width & height" is done in an instant, without even thinking whether the current selection is landscape or portrait (sorry for repeating myself).

So I see no benefit to have a menu "Orientation" to see and set the current orientation.

Following my approach, the "Orientation" settings are used when creating a new predefined selection. This is not much benefit, and not much more than a nice detail. It wouldn't even harm the users much if the initial orientation couldn't be set at all and was "Landscape" all the time. And most users will keep the "Orientation-Same as image" for the rest of their life. But selection will be used very often, this is why I put focus even on such details.

The functions that user will use often are "Selection - Swap width & height" and "Ratio - Same as image". We should keep these two in focus and make sure that these can be used well.

Right. The "Free" ratio will probably also be used often (to 'deselect' the previous Ratio choice).

Absolutely. As written in another post/topic, the user should also have an option to decide whether the selection ratio is reset when closing an image or not. Currently it is always reset.

All this being said, I feel satisfied with:
...

I think that all usage recommendations have been respected (except Pierre's one about the possibility to change directly with one 'click' both Ratio and Orientation... but I couldn't find the right compromise, so far), and I like the 'direct' logic of it.

What is your opinion ?

Currently, we are a bit stuck. In my opinion both suggestions are mature and good enough to make a first implementation of this. This will give us a better basis for further discussions. If you don't mind, I'll ask Pierre to implement the menu structure the way I suggested.
Later, the release candidates will give us time to make changes if needed. And changing the GUI without touching functionality should be a piece of cake.

Greetings,

Helmut

Note: On Friday/Saturday I won't be around, so no new ideas/replies from my side during that time.

@Olivier: One day we have to 'armagetron' against each other.

[helmut]

Dreamer et al,

...What about this? Hotkeys (with or without Ctrl)

Code: Select all

[~ or `] Swap width & height  [0] Same as image
[1] 1:1  [2] 2:1  [3] 3:2  [4] 4:3  [5] 5:4  [6] 16:9...

I know [0] is not the best... Maybe this?

Code: Select all

[Tab] Swap width & height  [~ or `] Same as image
[1] 1:1  [2] 2:1  [3] 3:2  [4] 4:3  [5] 5:4  [6] 16:9...

...

The 'Tab' key is large and can be used easily. Since swapping selection size will be used often (I think), this is a good idea.

I don't like the Ctrl+<Number> very much: Currently we happen to have 10 ratios, what will you do if there is an 11th? Also I think that typical users will use few (1-2) ratios, only.
And if someone wants to use fro example 16:9 often, he/she saves this ratio as Custom and uses the hotkey whenever needed. So I do not see a real need for having a hotkey for each single ratio.

Greetings,

Helmut

[Olivier_G]

Currently, we are a bit stuck. In my opinion both suggestions are mature and good enough to make a first implementation of this.

Very true... this is why I asked - not seriously - for the "Poll thing" ...and I liked your explanation quite a lot ("Polls remind me a bit of dark ages and roman empire, were the crowd made decisions: Thumbs up, Thumbs down")

If you don't mind, I'll ask Pierre to implement the menu structure the way I suggested.

Agreed. We'll see how it looks in real use and improve it even further if needed.

@Olivier: One day we have to 'armagetron' against each other.

It's really a fun game on network... very addictive, very dangerous: Beware!!!

Olivier

[Dreamer]

Dreamer et al,

...What about this? Hotkeys (with or without Ctrl)

Code: Select all

[~ or `] Swap width & height  [0] Same as image
[1] 1:1  [2] 2:1  [3] 3:2  [4] 4:3  [5] 5:4  [6] 16:9...

I know [0] is not the best... Maybe this?

Code: Select all

[Tab] Swap width & height  [~ or `] Same as image
[1] 1:1  [2] 2:1  [3] 3:2  [4] 4:3  [5] 5:4  [6] 16:9...

...

The 'Tab' key is large and can be used easily. Since swapping selection size will be used often (I think), this is a good idea.

I don't like the Ctrl+<Number> very much: Currently we happen to have 10 ratios, what will you do if there is an 11th? Also I think that typical users will use few (1-2) ratios, only.

I think keys 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 would be better without Ctrl...
Also, I think, keys 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (maybe few others) would be enough and logical / easy to remember - 1:1, 2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 16:9

[Lostclown]

That's a different interpretation. And from LostClown's reaction, I believe that he understood it as [2] as well. And in this version, two sub-menus doesn't make sense as you consider only the current selection.

Olivier, you are absolutly right about my understanding. I'm a [2] person
Thanks for making this distinction clear.

Regards, Lostclown.

[Lostclown]

I must say that Oliviers example describe very well how I can image I would be using this.

First example: I create a 3:2 Landscape selection, move it, set it to "Free", adjust its size... and now, I want to re-use it immediately with the automatic "Use image's orientation" for next images. With [2], I will just click on "Use image's orientation" and that's it. How would you do with [1] ?

In approach [2] you can set "Use image's orientation" at any time, since it is an option (or part of it) and has effect on new predefined selections, only. The current selection is not affected/changed at all.

So "Use image's orientation" simply makes a new selection Landscape or Portrait based on the current image height and width?
Yes, I understood when writing that question

Second example: I have created a 3:2 Landscape selection, "swapped" it to Portrait, but I changed my mind and would prefer the 4:3 Ratio. With [2], I will just select the "4:3" Ratio and it will be directly in the right orientation (Portrait). And in [1] ?

Yes. You are bringing a new, strong card into the game: Until now, the existing selection has not been considered at all. For example the user could make an arbitrary selection and then decide that the selection should follow 4:3 ratio for example. Then the orientation of the current selection should be used. This would be just intuitive and should/would also work when switching from a 3:2 selection to a 4:3 selection.
But what is "Orientation" option good for, then?

Maybe orientation is there simply to get rid of the need to have two items for all predefined selections (Landscape and Portrait).
And gives us less crowded interface.

Helmut,
I don't mind which way this is implemented.
But I have a better feeling for version [2], probably because I understand it better.
And I get the feeling that something similar applies to you for version [1].
Difficult to tell which is better.
We will just have to try the way that will get implemented.

I am sure both versions [1] and [2] are better that the current implementation though
Is version [1] maybe closer to the current implementation? If so then that is
enough to justify picking [1].

And maybe my understanding has something to do with the fact that before the
start of this thread I didn't feel I was understanding the current implementation
of predefined selections very well!

Best regards,
Lostclown

[helmut]

I must say that Oliviers example describe very well how I can image I would be using this.

O.k. Perhaps I'm on the wrong track. We'll find out once the release candidate is available.

So "Use image's orientation" simply makes a new selection Landscape or Portrait based on the current image height and width?
Yes, I understood when writing that question

You got it.

...
Maybe orientation is there simply to get rid of the need to have two items for all predefined selections (Landscape and Portrait).
And gives us less crowded interface.

Exactly. This is why I use the term "Option". "Orientation" is an option of 'Selection - Ratio" and "Selection - Size".

I don't mind which way this is implemented.
But I have a better feeling for version [2], probably because I understand it better.
And I get the feeling that something similar applies to you for version [1].

Difficult to tell which is better.
We will just have to try the way that will get implemented.

Agreed. When using the first versions we will see whether it's good and easy to use or not.

I am sure both versions [1] and [2] are better than the current implementation though

Absolutely.

Is version [1] maybe closer to the current implementation? If so then that is enough to justify picking [1].

I don't know what the implementation is like and actually I do not care. The user interface must result in an implementation, not the other way round.

And maybe my understanding has something to do with the fact that before the start of this thread I didn't feel I was understanding the current implementation of predefined selections very well!

Possibly. As written before, approach [2] looks easier and clearer. But in fact it's not. Let's see whether the release candidate confirms my thoughts or not.

(Again) thank you for your feedback!

[helmut]

XnView 1.80 Release Candidates with the "new" Selection Ratio is out, now. From my point of view it works quite well. Other opinions?

[Olivier_G]

I encountered this Height/Width bug as well in RC5, and this last Same as Image & Swap bug in RC6 (I am pretty sure there was another one in RC5, but i can't reproduce it in RC6... good news ). So, everything should be fine, now...

I didn't expect exactly this behaviour: I probably misunderstood what was said, but I thought that the Orientation Menu would be kept... especially to set the "Use Image's Orientation" separately from Landscape/Portrait. As I said, this could have been useful to crop various pictures [portrait and landscape] quickly without even having to swap width & height.

But but but...
It is so easy/fast to actually swap width & heigth, that such an option has become almost useless: I would say that the increased complexity makes it unwanted.

Therefore: I feel happy with that new selection ratio feature, and I thank Pierre and all who helped...

Olivier

[helmut]

Hello Olivier,

thank your for checking how selection ratio in 1.80 RC7. Gives me some relief to read that you basically agree with the way it works now. Let's use the selection ratio for a while and see whether there's need to change it, again. (Hopefully not ).

Also a thank you from my side to you and LostClown for the lively discussion - it was fun to exchange ideas and make this thing fly!

Helmut

[Olivier_G]

For example the user could make an arbitrary selection and then decide that the selection should follow 4:3 ratio for example. Then the orientation of the current selection should be used.

It seems we missed that one... :
- create a small 2:1 ratio selection, horizontal
- press 'Tab' (it will be vertical)
- set selection ratio: Free
- move a corner as to recreate a small horizontal selection
- set selection ratio: 2:1
=> you will get a vertical 2:1 selection instead of a nice horizontal one...
(ie: when selecting a ratio, it should always be based on the current orientation)

Olivier
PS: and I have mixed feelings about the absence of an Orientation group as "Selection - Swap width & height" is still vague...