This community is mostly unmoderated, but there are a few guidelines & rules we ask you to follow and keep in mind when posting entries and comments here.
The key word here is optional, which is huge, in my opinion. One of my biggest pet peeves, not just as a user, but as tech support, is when a development group decides to make major UI changes and not give the option to have the old UI style. *cough*MSOffice*cough*
From a conversion standpoint, this is a really good move, as it not only gives people options to emulate more what they're used to, but also provides an interface more like some of the other programs. Both of these will help ease the switchover from a different program (as one of the major target conversion audiences is people already using a different program).
I'm still of the opinion, though, that Gimp's biggest hurdle right now is lack of true support for layer grouping (a la Photoshop), not only for conversion reasons, but compatibility reasons. The sooner they can implement that, the easier they'll be able to viably compete with Photoshop, especially in a team, mixed-software environment.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 4 March 2010 20:11 (UTC)From a conversion standpoint, this is a really good move, as it not only gives people options to emulate more what they're used to, but also provides an interface more like some of the other programs. Both of these will help ease the switchover from a different program (as one of the major target conversion audiences is people already using a different program).
I'm still of the opinion, though, that Gimp's biggest hurdle right now is lack of true support for layer grouping (a la Photoshop), not only for conversion reasons, but compatibility reasons. The sooner they can implement that, the easier they'll be able to viably compete with Photoshop, especially in a team, mixed-software environment.