Have you tried using keyboard shortcuts to access the panels? I often switch between Layers, Align and Distribute, and Transform, but always use the keyboard shortcuts.

Inkscape's UI is a point deserving of attention (the GIMP has a more elegant UI), but I can't say that I've found it to be in decline (on the contrary).

> the GIMP has a more elegant UI

GIMP must have come a long way for those words to form a sentence!

Not that it was ever necessarily inelegant, but GIMP's reputation has always suffered from a big chunk of it's natural audience being experienced Photoshop users who find the transition jarring, and trash the UI for that reason. Hearing someone praise the interface is a bit unusual, still!

FWIW I find Photoshop more intimidating and confusing than GIMP, because I never learned to use Photoshop.

If you're looking at GIMP as something to attract Photoshop users, sure, the UI is bad because it's not the same as Photoshop. Sure, there are places you can look at Photoshop and say "wow, that's so much better for productive use" (ignoring feature differences where we know Photoshop is ahead of course). But this thing about GIMP having a UI that's _objectively_ bad is just unsupportable IMO.

> But this thing about GIMP having a UI that's _objectively_ bad is just unsupportable IMO.

I don't mind GIMP's UI being different from Photoshop. I last used Photoshop over a decade ago and that would be plenty of time to adjust to any good UI. The things that annoy me about GIMP's UI are things like the focus always being in the wrong place so I have to use the mouse, or windows being placed over things I need to see, or having to reselect my font styling every time I retype something. The problem isn't that Photoshop does something different, it's that what GIMP does is bad. I happily use Blender's UI even though it's like nothing else on Earth.

Edit: Just so I don't come off entirely as an ungrateful asshole, I use GIMP regularly and I appreciate the work that goes into it. I just get tired of people claiming there's nothing wrong with the UI, when there so clearly is. Single Window Mode was a huge step in the right direction IMO.

One thing that amazes me is that to this day, its Layers palette offers no way to select multiple layers. At least, not through any UI convention used by major operating systems in the past couple of decades…

Under macOS it also has this funny little issue of picking up on the most recently added input method for setting the UI language instead of the system's default/current selected input method. As a result my copy of the GIMP runs in Japanese despite the rest of the system being NA English.

> things like the focus always being in the wrong place so I have to use the mouse, or windows being placed over things I need to see

But both of these are things that are fixed with Single Window Mode (which it's clear you know about). Complaining about a UI issue that has already been fixed does seem a bit ungrateful.

> or having to reselect my font styling every time I retype something

Ok, fair enough. That one is less obvious as there are two places to change the font. If you're in Single Window Mode, you'll see that when you select the Text tool, you'll get the Tool Options underneath. Change the font there and that becomes the new default. You can still choose different fonts in the floating selector for specific Text fields.

> But both of these are things that are fixed with Single Window Mode (which it's clear you know about).

They aren't entirely gone though. Eg. if I find my chosen font in the font selector, click it or press enter to select it, and continue typing I'll end up with "Nimbus Sans Lsomerandomtext" in the font selection box.

Another example - the default shortcut for "Show / hide docks" is Tab, which is also the shortcut to cycle between tools. So which of those things happens depends on what part of the screen happens to be focused.

It's true that Single Window Mode made a lot of those sorts of problems go away, and possibly I'm holding on to the years of frustration at Gimp people saying there was no problem before it was finally introduced.

I didn't know the two font boxes did different things, I always used the one in the floating selector. Thanks for clarifying the behaviour. The floating selector is generally a source of annoyance for me. I can move it up or down, but that'll also move my text. So if I want to see what's under it while typing, as far as I know I'm SOL. Maybe there's some way to turn it off or make it behave differently?

> Another example - the default shortcut for "Show / hide docks" is Tab, which is also the shortcut to cycle between tools.

Not anymore.

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?id=52ad5bb2a11e39f...

Cool! Despite my whining I really appreciate the past and future efforts to make it better.

> Despite my whining...

The thing with complaints is... Personally I'm prepared to handle a lot of that, even trash talking. But only if the user ends up providing a useful insight. Otherwise it's just a huge senseless loss of time for both parties.

The thing is, my whining isn't really directed at you or the GIMP's devs, it's directed at people who blame any complaints about the UI on Photoshop users or whatever. It sounds like you understand that the program isn't perfect and you're focused on making it better, which is obviously great.

Your comment made me wonder if there are any way to contribute to design in FOSS project the same way people contribute to the code?

Does anyone know of any FOSS project that has a documented UI and UX contribution process?

There's this: http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign

I use both GIMP and Inkscape regularly. I used GIMP every third day to just crop an image and sometimes to add text to an image.

GIMP is a hodgepodge that has at best marginally improved over the years. I'd give the GIMP UI credit for being good-enough but that's about it. I can understand that for someone people, a UI that can be simply understood is the main thing (Photoshop, deriving from pre-computer methods, is opaque in its operations but the now-obscure Corel Photopaint showed how a paint program could have an actual good interface - naturally, similar to CorelDraw and ... Inkscape).

Consider that there are wide variety of tasks that clearly take more time than necessary. The separation of the move, scale, rotate and so-forth operations into distinction tools is an constant annoyance (Inkscape has one tool for all this btw). If you input text over an image and then attempt to move this text, the background image move instead (you can do it with a little UI dancing but why, this should be simple). Setting the font and size of text is a constant pain also as mentioned by other posters.

It's as if some of the core GIMP developers and evangelists wear the fact that they have never ever used or know anything about Photoshop and never will as a badge of pride, and they are fanatically dedicated to never sullying themselves by ever even looking at Photoshop or especially listening to any of the complaints from Photoshop users.

Any changes to GIMP that make it more like Photoshop, or acknowledgement that there's anything about Photoshop that GIMP should emulate, are considered anathema.

It's always been a hot-button issue, so you get rationalizations like "The GIMP has lost its User eXperience (UX) maintainer. Jack Wallen thinks this could be good news for one of the most powerful open-source image editing tools," [1], and articles with touchy defensive titles [2] like "GIMP is Not a Photoshop Alternative", sections like "Why It’s Unfair to Compare GIMP to Photoshop", and quotes like "For example, when I’m talking about my Linux OS to a non-Linux user, and if he or she asks about Photoshop, my response is along the lines of “Nope, no Photoshop; I just use GIMP.".

It's like: "No puppet! No puppet! You're the puppet!"

And then there's the stubborn refusal to ever consider changing the name so it's not so offensive. That would be far too "politically correct".

[1] http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-gimps-bad-news-could...

[2] http://designinstruct.com/opinion/photoshop-alternative-gimp...

Its certainly OK for a product to innovate, as GIMP has. But sometimes the differences are gratuitous. That doesn't help with GIMP adoption, because admit it, most folks have some exposure to Photoshop already.

Further, GIMP suffers (as many mature products do) from a certain baroque-ness of feature. Its menus and features have grown from someplace less mature, to where they are. And it shows in the clumsy menus that make sense if you went along for the ride but for a 1st-timer are just confusing.

> Its certainly OK for a product to innovate, as GIMP has.

I'm not sure the GIMP's UI choices can generally be described as "innovating". I think they're generally just the obvious GTK+ default options, implemented without much testing or tweaking.

GTK is the Gimp Tool Kit. I expect GIMP to use the defaults: historically they created to toolkit for their needs, and so they should choose the right defaults for them.

Note that the above is historical. GNOME selected GTK long ago and has somewhat strong armed GTK development away from GNOME. I don't follow either project closely enough to suggest how much.

Here's an example that was just pointed out to me by prokoudine:

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?id=52ad5bb2a11e39f...

The default situation was that the toolbox grabbed the focus when clicked. That meant various actions, eg. "Show/hide docks", didn't work if the last thing you clicked was the toolbox. That's an annoyance created by "accepting the defaults", that's thankfully now been fixed in light of real-world usability issues.

It's like they've confused the valid idea of an open source programmer being tainted by looking proprietary source code, with the ridiculous idea that a user interface designer would be tainted by looking at or using a proprietary user interface.

Some aspects of Photoshop's user interface are patented, but it's much safer and wiser to LOOK at them and be aware of them and read the patents, so you're consciously aware of what not to do accidentally, and able to work around them.

> I think they're generally just the obvious GTK+ default options, implemented without much testing or tweaking.

GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit; the entire toolkit is GIMP's innovation.

> And it shows in the clumsy menus that make sense if you went along for the ride but for a 1st-timer are just confusing.

Would you mind being a wee bit more specific? :)

Sure! Running a script is under 'Filters' for some reason. To undo a brush, that's under 'Windows' inexplicably. Filters like Feather and Distort are under 'Select'. Keyboard shortcuts are under 'Edit'. The Plugin Browser tool is under 'Help'

My favorite: 'File' has 'Open' above 'Open as Layers', as if you'd more commonly want to destroy all your image layer info when opening an image file. In fact, with 'flatten' there's no need for 'Open' at all?

These things maybe made some sense at some time, who knows. But now, its like a blender went through the menus and scattered features at random.

I'm fairly sure that 'Open as Layers" allows you to open multiple files at the same time as layers in a single images, instead of opening and adding each individually. Open will open an image with all its layers as you would expect, it won't flatten it. Feather and Distort operate on the selection, so being under Select makes sense.

I'm probably out of date. Used to be, you had to have plugins to open exotic formatted files like "pdf"; initially the plugin for that just imported the flat bitmap. But that was long ago.

> Running a script is under 'Filters' for some reason.

You mean the script console? Where would you rather see it?

> To undo a brush, that's under 'Windows' inexplicably.

Er... I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate please?

> Filters like Feather and Distort are under 'Select'.

Well, they are not exactly filters, and they affect the selection rather than actual pixel data.

> Keyboard shortcuts are under 'Edit'.

We don't have a Settings menu :)

> The Plugin Browser tool is under 'Help'

Where would you place it?

> My favorite: 'File' has 'Open' above 'Open as Layers', as if you'd more commonly want to destroy all your image layer info when opening an image file.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

> In fact, with 'flatten' there's no need for 'Open' at all?

Why?

I can answer these. But consider: the fact that it seems confusing it the whole issue here. Not that it makes sense to you.

And note I am using Gimp 2. So these things may have changed.

Scripts: I would imagine these would be under Tools.

A quick survey of apps show that options and settings are usually under Tools. Or Files.

And the Plugin Browser is an odd bird. Its details I struggle with when writing scripts. Its reasonable that a database could be under Help. I need it when I'm writing scripts, and no other time. And there's nowhere to go from there - no 'copy example to cut buffer' etc. I'm accustomed to viewing it from a Script console, so I can construct each argument. But not a thing I'm ever going to browse like other Help items.

Admittedly, nested menus is a fairly opaque way to categorize features. Everything is hidden unless you 'open the little door' like an Advent calendar. You can't search for anything without just doing a click-fest down the row. Its a shortcoming of the paradigm. Why others turned to the hated 'ribbon' etc - to make feature-hunting more transparent.

Please don't blame Blender for that! ;)

Photoshop isn't available unless you pay money or violate copyright, so I can well imagine not having exposure.

That could be me. I think I might have used it though, on a System 6 Mac with a 1-bit black-and-white screen. (resulting opinion: Photoshop doesn't support color)

There is a web site called "youtube" that has many many free video tutorials explaining how to use Photoshop. There is nothing about self imposed ignorance to be proud about.

> Any changes to GIMP that make it more like Photoshop, or acknowledgement that there's anything about Photoshop that GIMP should emulate, are considered anathema.

Not really, no. Whenever people ask us to do smth like what Photoshop does, all we ask back is to explain why it is better. Perhaps you should answer that question every once in a while?

Have you actually used Photoshop yourself, or spent any time watching the millions of free Photoshop tutorial videos available on youtube? If not, then why not?

And also: why throw down the gauntlet about never changing the name from GIMP, unless your point is to offend people for being "politically correct", and marginalize your project so nobody will ever consider using it in a professional context, on purpose?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gimp

gimp (ɡɪmp) n

1. offensive slang US and Canadian a physically disabled person, esp one who is lame

2. slang a sexual fetishist who likes to be dominated and who dresses in a leather or rubber body suit with mask, zips, and chains

> Have you actually used Photoshop yourself

I've been Photoshop user since 1997.

> why throw down the gauntlet about never changing the name from GIMP, unless your point is to offend people

I'm not trained to deal with people who apparently seek to be offended.

This is not about labeling the idea of treating disabled people politely and not insulting people with hurtful name calling as "political correctness" and labeling people who object to offensive and inappropriately sexual language as delicate snowflakes "who apparently seek to be offended". The term "gimp" is an offensive slang term, as well as a sexual term, according to the dictionary definition. You're trolling if you pretend otherwise. The purpose of GIMP is not to fight against political correctness, or arouse people sexually, it is to edit images. Using a purposefully offensive name does not help edit images, or encourage people to take it seriously.

I don't know how much training you have in the meaning of words of the English language, but do you understand this definition or not?

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gimp

The noun gimp is sometimes used to describe a limp or another physical disability, although it's an outdated and offensive word to use.

If you comment on someone's gimp, call the person a gimp, or say, "Look at that guy trying to gimp across the parking lot without his crutches," you've chosen a very objectionable way to talk about a disability. People will know what you mean if you use the word, but they're likely to be offended by it. Gimp was first used in the 1920's, possibly as a combination of limp and gammy, an old slang word for "bad."

> Using a purposefully offensive name

I'm afraid you still don't get it. We have no purpose to offend anyone. All the offense is self-inflicted.

I wish you spent this much time on making the world a better place to live in.

Yes I do get it, and you're perfectly illustrating my point. That's precisely the kind of defensiveness, glib brushing off of feedback, denial of the obvious, cultivated ignorance, redirection and projection that I'm talking about.

It's not just your use of the word "GIMP" that offends people, it's also the lengths you will go to deny it's offensive and instead lay the blame on your users and supporters themselves, for being narrow minded and easily offended. And also your Machiavellian approach of redefining the meaning of a word to be all about your own project and nothing else, then calling on your users and evangelists to do the Sisyphean task of re-educating the public, commercial and educational institutions that the well known historical dictionary and pop-culture definitions of "gimp" no longer apply. I'm not making this stuff up:

"Basically our approach is to redefine what "Gimp" means. ... If it is a problem in your local area (some areas in the US typically) that is unfortunate, but we need to rely on your powers to explain that we're helping in getting rid of the derogatory interpretation of the term "Gimp"." -Simon Budig, GIMP developer, April 11 2015, http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-developer/17151-gimp-in...

Year after year, many people give you feedback explaining why it's a problem. Time and again, you deny it, happily marginalize and ignore them, and try to turn it around by accusing those people -- YOUR USERS AND SUPPORTERS -- of being "narrow minded", which insults them and drives them away:

"I seriously doubt that the name is effectively keeping GIMP from being used. And I am all happy to ignore the very few people who are so narrow-minded as to having a problem with the name." -Sven Neumann, GIMP developer, December 12 2004, http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berke...

I am trying to make the world a better place, by giving you honest feedback like you requested, with numerous citations and quotes of your leaders and users, and asking you to please consider not using such an offensive term, and not accusing your own users of being narrow minded and easily offended, because not only is it sabotaging the potential success of your own project in particular, but it's also an embarrassment to the open source community in general:

"Is there any thought on salvaging the marketing effort and renaming this product so that it can be taken seriously by people and institutions? Also, a big barrier to entry adopting Linux for people is a solid graphic manipulator. The bad branding is causing many people in my art communities around Austin to avoid Linux in general." -Sam Bagot, GIMP user and supporter, April 8 2015, http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-developer/17151-gimp-in...

A lot of people that hate on Gimp are really saying, "It's not Photoshop and I like Photoshop."

Its because GIMP's UI is designed for users that have more traditional Linux style window managers(tiling, focus follows mouse etc.)

Whereas most other programs, including the Adobe suite, are designed for the more underpowered window systems in osx and windows. That's why it is painful to use in those environments and environments like gnome which follow a similar design philosophy.

Comparing Gimp to X-Windows window managers is pretty apt, actually:

"In summary, ICCCM is a technological disaster: a toxic waste dump of broken protocols, backward compatibility nightmares, complex nonsolutions to obsolete nonproblems, a twisted mass of scabs and scar tissue intended to cover up the moral and intellectual depravity of the industry's standard naked emperor.

Using these toolkits is like trying to make a bookshelf out of mashed potatoes. - Jamie Zawinski"

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disast...

> Its because GIMP's UI is designed for users that have more traditional Linux style window managers(tiling, focus follows mouse etc.)

I think I can safely speak for the team here: no, we don't think much about tiling or f-f-m.

Well, then I guess its just a happy accident because the separate windows for different tools makes it a lot more convenient for with weirdos like me. So thanks a bunch, even if you didn't mean it!

keyboard shortcuts have their place, but it is not a real solution here. Compare

    1. Press Ctrl+Shift+A on keyboard
    2. Select alignment mode with the mouse
    3. Press Ctrl+Shift+F on keyboard
    4. Change color with the mouse 
    5. Press Ctrl+Shift+L on keyboard
    6. Change current layer with the mouse 

to

    1. Select alignment mode
    2. Change color
    3. Change current layer

The latter is fluid while the former feels artificially slowed down.