[ptx] thoughts for hugin UI, post 0.5

[Rob Park]

On 5/26/05, douglas wilkins <dgswilkins at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I have to say that the interpolator setting in the output options not only
> makes sense, but I change it on a regular basis, depending on what I am doing.
> It is a part of my regular work flow.

Ok, then. I'm not sure what effect it has on the output and I've never used it.

I think we should use another suggestion I made, in the preferences
window, add tabs for nona and Ptstitcher, much like there are already
tabs for enblend and autopano, to keep settings like that. The
Stitcher tab itself should be as simple as possible for the layperson,
keep all the complicated advanced stuff in a preferences window, and
give it all sensible default values that should generally work and
only need to be changed by advanced users.

> If on the other hand, it is not part of most users workflow, perhaps we should
> think about an "advanced" portion that can be hidden/unhidden depending on the
> users choice?

I don't like the idea of hiding stuff behind the "advanced" label,
that just scares people. I think the interpolator choice would do fine
hidden on a preferences panel somewhere.

> > But what it sounds like to me is that the two files pano_panel-2.5.xrc
> > and nona_panel.xrc are going to have to be merged into one big happy
> > UI layout.
> 
> That is going to be easier said than done :-) However, if it makes hugin easier
> to use (and I don't mean less flexible) then I am all for it.

Right. I've been looking over the XRC files and although I'm having a
fairly easy time picking up what it means (eg, I can easily look at a
part of the code and point at what part of the UI it defines), I'm
having a hell of a time actually editing this file. It's like a
write-only language.

i'm starting to have feelings that we should throw out hugin (or at
least all the GUI parts of it, and try to salvage the internal code
that does all the real work), and start over in wxPython.

> My attitude is:
> If I can't justify why the layout is like this, then perhaps it needs to change
> :-)

Sounds reasonable. I'm just having difficulty making the jump from
"good idea" to actually making the change in the code.

-- 
Urban Artography
http://artography.ath.cx