Getting rid of button bars

[Dotan Cohen]

In my opinion the Digikam UI is horribly cluttered. In Kate one can
move the buttons on the button bars from side to side, and even remove
them. However, I cannot seem to do this in Digikam. I'd like to move
all the buttons to one side, and remove those which I do not use. How
is this done? The obvious right-clicking operation does not work.

Dotan Cohen

http://lyricslist.com/
http://what-is-what.com/
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2007/4/7, Dotan Cohen <[hidden email]>:

In my opinion the Digikam UI is horribly cluttered.

Really ?

In Kate one can
move the buttons on the button bars from side to side, and even remove
them. However, I cannot seem to do this in Digikam. I'd like to move
all the buttons to one side, and remove those which I do not use. How
is this done? The obvious right-clicking operation does not work.

Configure/Settings Toolbar...

Gilles

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dotan Cohen]

On 07/04/07, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> 2007/4/7, Dotan Cohen <[hidden email]>:
> > In my opinion the Digikam UI is horribly cluttered.
>
> Really ?

As with most KDE apps that use side button bars, yes.

> > In Kate one can
> > move the buttons on the button bars from side to side, and even remove
> > them. However, I cannot seem to do this in Digikam. I'd like to move
> > all the buttons to one side, and remove those which I do not use. How
> > is this done? The obvious right-clicking operation does not work.
>
> Configure/Settings Toolbar...
> Gilles

This only allows configuration of the top toolbar, not the sides.

Dotan Cohen

http://technology-sleuth.com/long_answer/what_is_a_router.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/adsl.html
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gerhard Kulzer]

Am Saturday 07 April 2007 schrieb Dotan Cohen:

> On 07/04/07, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2007/4/7, Dotan Cohen <[hidden email]>:
> > > In my opinion the Digikam UI is horribly cluttered.
> >
> > Really ?
>
> As with most KDE apps that use side button bars, yes.
>
> > > In Kate one can
> > > move the buttons on the button bars from side to side, and even remove
> > > them. However, I cannot seem to do this in Digikam. I'd like to move
> > > all the buttons to one side, and remove those which I do not use. How
> > > is this done? The obvious right-clicking operation does not work.
> >
> > Configure/Settings Toolbar...
> > Gilles
>
> This only allows configuration of the top toolbar, not the sides.
>
> Dotan Cohen
>

The sidebars are considered essential to digiKam. Even if it was possible I

would not like to see them hidden. They can be reduced by simple click, and
F11 always catapults you into full screen mode.

I don't find the UI 'horribly cluttered'.

Gerhard

--
Hakuna matata
http://www.gerhard.fr

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dotan Cohen]

On 08/04/07, Gerhard Kulzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The sidebars are considered essential to digiKam. Even if it was possible I
> would not like to see them hidden. They can be reduced by simple click, and
> F11 always catapults you into full screen mode.
>
> I don't find the UI 'horribly cluttered'.
>
> Gerhard

I may have exaggerated. I do find the right (maybe left on non-Hebrew
systems:Albums, Dates, Tags, Searches) sidebar essential, but the left
one (Properties, Metadata, Colours, Comments/Tags, Tag Filters) does
not need to be in the main UI. Ideally (for us) horizontal screen
space could be maximized by
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dotan Cohen]

On 08/04/07, Gerhard Kulzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The sidebars are considered essential to digiKam. Even if it was possible I
> would not like to see them hidden. They can be reduced by simple click, and
> F11 always catapults you into full screen mode.
>
> I don't find the UI 'horribly cluttered'.
>
> Gerhard

I may have exaggerated. I do find the right (maybe left on non-Hebrew
systems:Albums, Dates, Tags, Searches) sidebar essential, but the left
one (Properties, Metadata, Colours, Comments/Tags, Tag Filters) does
not need to be in the main UI. Ideally (for us) horizontal screen
space could be maximized by having the 9 sidebar buttons as a dropdown
menu in the main toolbar, and a None option. That will net 40
horizontal pixels width. As all our pictures have white bands above
and below them in Digikam, it is obvious that the limiting factor in
their display size is the horizontal width. So anything that we could
do to increase the horizontal width would be helpful.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com/what_is/rss.html
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/39/arab_strap.html
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Jakob "Østergaard"]

Dotan Cohen wrote:

> On 08/04/07, Gerhard Kulzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The sidebars are considered essential to digiKam. Even if it was possible I
>> would not like to see them hidden. They can be reduced by simple click, and
>> F11 always catapults you into full screen mode.
>>
>> I don't find the UI 'horribly cluttered'.
>>
>> Gerhard
>
> I may have exaggerated. I do find the right (maybe left on non-Hebrew
> systems:Albums, Dates, Tags, Searches) sidebar essential, but the left
> one (Properties, Metadata, Colours, Comments/Tags, Tag Filters) does
> not need to be in the main UI.

I guess that depends on how you work.

For me the Props/Meta/Color/... tabs are absolutely essential, and my
wish for improvement would be the ability to cherry-pick information
from several of the tabs and have it all shown in one; (for example
linear and log histogram and shutter-speed and aperture).

As Gilles wrote, you can make them almost disappear and they will stay
that way, not cluttering up the interface.

  Ideally (for us) horizontal screen
> space could be maximized by having the 9 sidebar buttons as a dropdown
> menu in the main toolbar, and a None option. That will net 40
> horizontal pixels width. As all our pictures have white bands above
> and below them in Digikam, it is obvious that the limiting factor in
> their display size is the horizontal width. So anything that we could
> do to increase the horizontal width would be helpful.

While you have a valid point wrt. the horizontal screen space, moving
the tabs to a menu would make them more difficult (slower) to access
(unless hotkeys were provided).

Also please consider portrait images, where we're short on vertical
screen space. Most monitors are 4:3 or even wider; portrait images are
much bigger victims of tool bars and menu bars than landscape images are
of the side tabs.

I'm just trying to say that there's a lot more to this than saving 40
pixels.

--
Best regards,
    Jakob Oestergaard


_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dotan Cohen]

On 09/04/07, Jakob Oestergaard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I may have exaggerated. I do find the right (maybe left on non-Hebrew
> > systems:Albums, Dates, Tags, Searches) sidebar essential, but the left
> > one (Properties, Metadata, Colours, Comments/Tags, Tag Filters) does
> > not need to be in the main UI.
>
> I guess that depends on how you work.
>
> For me the Props/Meta/Color/... tabs are absolutely essential, and my
> wish for improvement would be the ability to cherry-pick information
> from several of the tabs and have it all shown in one; (for example
> linear and log histogram and shutter-speed and aperture).

Then a completely customizable interface would make everybody happy :)
I understand that there has to be a limit, so I'm willing to drop the
subject here. Though I think I've read something that KDE4 (or Qt4, to
be more exact) will in fact enable this type of customization.

> As Gilles wrote, you can make them almost disappear and they will stay
> that way, not cluttering up the interface.

It's still buttons on top, buttons on the left, and buttons on the
right. Not all in one convinient place.

>   Ideally (for us) horizontal screen
> > space could be maximized by having the 9 sidebar buttons as a dropdown
> > menu in the main toolbar, and a None option. That will net 40
> > horizontal pixels width. As all our pictures have white bands above
> > and below them in Digikam, it is obvious that the limiting factor in
> > their display size is the horizontal width. So anything that we could
> > do to increase the horizontal width would be helpful.
>
> While you have a valid point wrt. the horizontal screen space, moving
> the tabs to a menu would make them more difficult (slower) to access
> (unless hotkeys were provided).

For one, a hotkey would be great. I don't like the mouse at all (but
the wife does). For another, I think that it would speed access, as
all the controls would be in one place, the vertical tool bar.

> Also please consider portrait images, where we're short on vertical
> screen space. Most monitors are 4:3 or even wider; portrait images are
> much bigger victims of tool bars and menu bars than landscape images are
> of the side tabs.

There is no reason to shot portrait images with a digital camera for
use on the screen. Unless, of course, one turns his monitor 90 degrees
as well as the camera. Portrait images are an artifact of film
photography that is still used only by those accustomed to film
photography. There is a reason that digital cameras shot a 4:3 aspect
ratio: it is the dimensions of a standard computer monitor.

> I'm just trying to say that there's a lot more to this than saving 40
> pixels.

Those 40 horizontal pixels translate to 40*(40* 4/3) =2120 pixels
total: quite a bit of screen space. As this is a photo app, one goal
should be (in my opinion) providing maximum screen realestate for the
photos. And of course there is more to it than saving the pixels, the
app should be easier and more comfortable to use. Grouping all the
controls in one place (not spreading them out along the top and both
sides of the UI) will in fact make the app easier to use.

Dotan Cohen

http://dotancohen.com/eng/army_pictures.php
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/542/2_unlimited.html
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

Dotan Cohen wrote:
> [snip]
> There is no reason to shot portrait images with a digital camera for
> use on the screen. Unless, of course, one turns his monitor 90 degrees
> as well as the camera. Portrait images are an artifact of film
> photography that is still used only by those accustomed to film
> photography. There is a reason that digital cameras shot a 4:3 aspect
> ratio: it is the dimensions of a standard computer monitor.
[snip]


No offense, Dotan, but could you explain your reasoning for this
statement?  I shoot many portrait-format images and I would love to how
to get around holding the camera in the less-natural orientation...

Paul
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dotan Cohen]

On 09/04/07, Paul Waldo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dotan Cohen wrote:
> > [snip]
> > There is no reason to shot portrait images with a digital camera for
> > use on the screen. Unless, of course, one turns his monitor 90 degrees
> > as well as the camera. Portrait images are an artifact of film
> > photography that is still used only by those accustomed to film
> > photography. There is a reason that digital cameras shot a 4:3 aspect
> > ratio: it is the dimensions of a standard computer monitor.
> [snip]
>
>
> No offense, Dotan, but could you explain your reasoning for this
> statement?  I shoot many portrait-format images and I would love to how
> to get around holding the camera in the less-natural orientation...
>
> Paul

The aspect ratio of a photograph taken by most digital cameras is 4:3,
this is not coincidentally the aspect ratio of most common computer
monitors. By shooting a photograph with a 3:4 aspect ration (ie,
holding the camera sideways) your photo will not take advantage of all
the available screen space. Unless you rotate your screen as well.

Paper photos are easily rotated to match the photo format (4:3 or
3:4). Digital photos on a computer monitor are not. Simply hitting the
'rotate' button in Digikam does not cut it: your photo is being shrunk
on the screen to fit the unusual dimensions.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com/what_is/adsl.html
http://essentialinux.com/linux-software.php
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

Guys, it sounds like the both of you are on different wavelengthts! No use
getting into an agrument over a misunderstanding...

Paul is talking about prints and Dotan about computer monitors.

I guess you both have different end-uses in mind for your photography.

The common ground seems to be that you need to consider what you will do
with the output before you press the shutter. A no-brainer, right?

Dennis

> On 09/04/07, Paul Waldo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> > There is no reason to shot portrait images with a digital camera for
>> > use on the screen. Unless, of course, one turns his monitor 90 degrees
>> > as well as the camera. Portrait images are an artifact of film
>> > photography that is still used only by those accustomed to film
>> > photography. There is a reason that digital cameras shot a 4:3 aspect
>> > ratio: it is the dimensions of a standard computer monitor.
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> No offense, Dotan, but could you explain your reasoning for this
>> statement?  I shoot many portrait-format images and I would love to how
>> to get around holding the camera in the less-natural orientation...
>>
>> Paul
>
> The aspect ratio of a photograph taken by most digital cameras is 4:3,
> this is not coincidentally the aspect ratio of most common computer
> monitors. By shooting a photograph with a 3:4 aspect ration (ie,
> holding the camera sideways) your photo will not take advantage of all
> the available screen space. Unless you rotate your screen as well.
>
> Paper photos are easily rotated to match the photo format (4:3 or
> 3:4). Digital photos on a computer monitor are not. Simply hitting the
> 'rotate' button in Digikam does not cut it: your photo is being shrunk
> on the screen to fit the unusual dimensions.
>
> Dotan Cohen
>
> http://what-is-what.com/what_is/adsl.html
> http://essentialinux.com/linux-software.php
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[hidden email] wrote:

> Guys, it sounds like the both of you are on different wavelengthts! No use
> getting into an agrument over a misunderstanding...
>
> Paul is talking about prints and Dotan about computer monitors.
>
> I guess you both have different end-uses in mind for your photography.
>
> The common ground seems to be that you need to consider what you will do
> with the output before you press the shutter. A no-brainer, right?
>
> Dennis
>  

Excellent mediation, Dennis!
I concede :-)

Paul
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dotan Cohen]

On 10/04/07, Paul Waldo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Guys, it sounds like the both of you are on different wavelengthts! No use
> > getting into an agrument over a misunderstanding...
> >
> > Paul is talking about prints and Dotan about computer monitors.
> >
> > I guess you both have different end-uses in mind for your photography.
> >
> > The common ground seems to be that you need to consider what you will do
> > with the output before you press the shutter. A no-brainer, right?
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> Excellent mediation, Dennis!
> I concede :-)
>
> Paul

I didn't even realize that we were arguing: I thought that we were
discussing the subject. I suppose the tone I intend when writing an
email is not the tone that the reader perceives. Sorry for appearing
argumentive. I thought that I did mention that for use on a monitor,
the camera should not be rotated. Paper is a different medium and has
different limitations.

However, with the consideration that group A will want to use Digikam
to view photos on the computer and group B will want to use Digikam to
organize photos for print, the argument is still in favor of
sacrificing vertical photos for horizontal. Group A obviously needs
only horizontal display, for reasons stated in previous emails. Group
B is not affected by the drawbacks of vertical photo display because
they are not interested in seeing the photos on the screen anyway,
rather they are interested in seeing the photos on paper.

Dotan Cohen

http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/635/white_zombie.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/malware.html
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Jakob "Østergaard"]

Dotan Cohen wrote:
...
> I didn't even realize that we were arguing: I thought that we were
> discussing the subject. I suppose the tone I intend when writing an
> email is not the tone that the reader perceives. Sorry for appearing
> argumentive.

Ok no problem - I'll try and give my view on what you wrote.

> B is not affected by the drawbacks of vertical photo display because
> they are not interested in seeing the photos on the screen anyway,
> rather they are interested in seeing the photos on paper.

I take RAW photos both landscape and portrait.
I import everything into DigiKam.
I then use DigiKam's excellent 16-bit/channel editing to:
1) Sometimes adjust white balance
2) Sometimes adjust exposure
3) Crop
Finally, some of these images are sent to print, some become computer
desktop wallpapers, etc. etc.

For the print images, landscape and portrait alike, it is essential that
I can inspect the image on the monitor. Both to see composition (for
cropping), to inspect details (for exposure) and everything in between
for white balance adjustments, gamma, ...

So, I am with you 100% as far as "Making good use of the screen area is
important". Screen navigation and flexible display is very important,
and certainly something that is worth improving wherever possible.

I disagree with you that only 4:3 landscape matters on screen - my
laptop is 1280x800, so even for strict computer-use-only images that
argument doesn't hold.

In conclusion; I think the side tabs are intuitive (even my mother finds
them easy to use!), and while they certainly do take up space on the
screen, they do not take up "a lot" of space. The tradeoff is between
accessiblity+intuitiveness against space. Personally, and I don't speak
for anyone but myself here, I think the current solution is a good
tradeoff. I'm sure it can be improved, but I think that moving the tabs
into a menu is a worse tradeoff than the current, not a better one.

I could be wrong of course  :)

--
Best regards,
    Jakob Oestergaard


_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2007/4/10, Jakob Oestergaard <[hidden email]>:

Dotan Cohen wrote:
...
> I didn't even realize that we were arguing: I thought that we were
> discussing the subject. I suppose the tone I intend when writing an
> email is not the tone that the reader perceives. Sorry for appearing
> argumentive.

Ok no problem - I'll try and give my view on what you wrote.

> B is not affected by the drawbacks of vertical photo display because
> they are not interested in seeing the photos on the screen anyway,
> rather they are interested in seeing the photos on paper.

I take RAW photos both landscape and portrait.
I import everything into DigiKam.
I then use DigiKam's excellent 16-bit/channel editing to:
1) Sometimes adjust white balance
2) Sometimes adjust exposure
3) Crop
Finally, some of these images are sent to print, some become computer
desktop wallpapers, etc. etc.

For the print images, landscape and portrait alike, it is essential that
I can inspect the image on the monitor. Both to see composition (for
cropping), to inspect details (for exposure) and everything in between
for white balance adjustments, gamma, ...

So, I am with you 100% as far as "Making good use of the screen area is
important". Screen navigation and flexible display is very important,
and certainly something that is worth improving wherever possible.

I disagree with you that only 4:3 landscape matters on screen - my
laptop is 1280x800, so even for strict computer-use-only images that
argument doesn't hold.

In conclusion; I think the side tabs are intuitive (even my mother finds
them easy to use!), and while they certainly do take up space on the
screen, they do not take up "a lot" of space. The tradeoff is between
accessiblity+intuitiveness against space. Personally, and I don't speak
for anyone but myself here, I think the current solution is a good
tradeoff. I'm sure it can be improved, but I think that moving the tabs
into a menu is a worse tradeoff than the current, not a better one.

Totally agree with you Jakob,

I hate personnaly the applications layout like showimg or gwenview where you can move everywhere each part on the left/right/top/bottom.

The layout is always broken and not intuitive. This way have been used by old M$ applications like Office and now completly forget.

I remember some long thread with digiKam developper in digikam-devel ML about the way to display informations in digiKam. The best way find is sidebar like it's implemented.

Gilles

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dotan Cohen]

If popular opinion says to leave it as it is then that is of course
the right thing to do. And rereading the thread, I see that I may have
started out rude by declaring that the UI is 'horribly cluttered'. I
meant that buttons on 3 of the four sides makes the app seem like it
was patched together without much thought, ie a mess or cluttered. But
it is not horrible. If it were than I wouldn't be using it. And I do
like Digikam very, very much.

Dotan Cohen

http://dotancohen.com/howto/linksyssetup/index.php
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/vista.html
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gerhard Kulzer]

Am Tuesday 10 April 2007 schrieb Dotan Cohen:

> If popular opinion says to leave it as it is then that is of course
> the right thing to do. And rereading the thread, I see that I may have
> started out rude by declaring that the UI is 'horribly cluttered'. I
> meant that buttons on 3 of the four sides makes the app seem like it
> was patched together without much thought, ie a mess or cluttered. But
> it is not horrible. If it were than I wouldn't be using it. And I do
> like Digikam very, very much.
>
> Dotan Cohen
>

Thanks very much Dotan for your attitude,

you seem to be one of the rare kind who learn and respect others. You are very
welcome here :-)

Gerhard

--
Hakuna matata
http://www.gerhard.fr

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users