- cross-posted to:
- foss
- freesoftware@lemmy.zip
- opensource@programming.dev
- gimp@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Man, after decades, why does GIMP still have a marketing problem?
Just visit https://www.gimp.org/ and compare it to https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop.html
Just assume both did exactly the same thing and cost the exact same amount (free or otherwise). Which would you choose based on their website?
Why does GIMP (and pretty much all FOSS) have to be so secretive about their product? Why no screenshots? Why not showcase the software on their website?
It’s so damn frustrating that every FOSS app appears to be command line software, or assumed that the user knows everything about it already.
Devs, you might have a killer piece of software, but screenshots go a long way to help with gaining interest and adoption.
Agree, however on clicking the photoshop link was first hit with 2 popups before I could see the page.
Idk if GIMP has a marketing problem but I definitely agree that FOSS projects should add screenshots and a description of what the program does to their website and repo. It really annoys me when someone links a piece of software and it just doesn’t say what it does and there’s no screenshots that would make it easy for me to see what it looks like and how the UI is structured. When there’s no screenshots I’m rarely even interested in trying it out because, even with a description, I don’t really know what it is. Like, I wouldn’t be interested in a car based on only a description, I’d have to see a picture of it too.
This is a frequent source of frustration for me, too. Can’t even tell if it’s cli or gui a lot of the time, based on the documentation. If I could just see what it looks like, I’d have a good idea right away of whether it might meet my needs.
Actually I would pick GIMP.
- Says what it is, an image editor.
- No popups and random interruptions.
- Not only AI editing examples which makes me thing the tool is AI only.
- An overview of the variety of major features it has rather than just AI editing.
- Links to helpful documentation rather than endless marketing pages that say nothing.
Really think only thing I would like to see is some screenshots and examples of using the tool, rather than just info on what it does. But the Photoshop page barely has this, just a few examples of the AI tools.
I would have to choose GIMP (in spite of this awful name) because that page loaded without javascript and the photoshop page requires me to enable javascript.
I know I’m being a bit facetious, here, but… Adobe can afford to hire full time front end devs and designers. FOSS projects can’t really compete with Adobe’s investors.
LOL. Brother, I get what you’re saying, but I think you missed the point. If Random User X is just looking for an image editor, and they are presented with a few options they know nothing about. Do you think they’re going to even bother with the one image editor that doesn’t have any screenshots?
Just another comparison, a little more relevant: https://www.rawtherapee.com/
You know EXACTLY what it is and what it does within about 2 seconds. That would be more than enough information for someone to at least make the effort to download the software.
If I recommend some software to someone, most normies I know would directly go on to youtube and check some guy using and reviewing a software. The “official website” wouldn’t even cross their mind.
In this day and age if a random user really wants something, they have a miriad of options to see what they’re about to use. Forums, Youtube, blog posts and so on.
If a user doesn’t even bother a bare , they’re better off not downloading random executables from the internet.
The website isn’t end all, be all of how users find a software demos. You seem to think a single website is enough for users to make their choices these days. It isn’t the 90s.
An informed user goes through that much effort. Most users are not informed and will do a quick search, download something that looks remotely what they think they need, and they’re done.
This is why it’s frustrating that some really good open-source software end up being lost in a sea of other stuff that was easier for someone to download, without doing a ton of research.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be a website, but a website should be “home base” for a software, company, etc. If not the official website, then the developer has less control over the presentation of their product, which would suck.
App stores are successful for a reason: they offer a quick, accessible means to find 1000s of apps or desktop software. And if an app has a poor description or piss poor screenshots, they are skipped very quickly.
The same applies to the UX and UI of an app or website. A poor experience can cause someone to uninstall it (or exit the page), even if it offers them the features they want/need.
You’re right. I wasn’t familiar with rawtherapee but just seeing that home page immediately clued me into the fact that it was some kind of image program. Didn’t even need to read a single word.
Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I’ve wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would’ve just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.
Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I’ve wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would’ve just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.
Yes!! I’m glad I was able to illustrate my point better.
Open Source software is not a product that needs marketing.
The devs making Gimp gain literally nothing from you downloading and using it.
Stop applying capitalist logic to one of the few aspects of life that haven’t been monetized yet.Open Source software is not a product that needs marketing.
That’s highly debatable.
Surely, if nobody is using the software, then there’s no incentive to keep making it.
Marketing generates interest. Interest gets users. Users (hopefully) get donations and/or contributions to the project.
Even from a purely practical standpoint, why not be clear and avoid wasting people’s time as they try to figure out what exactly a project is about?
I’m not suggesting that GIMP take out Facebook ads. But my god, would a few screenshots kill the project?
Surely, if nobody is using the software, then there’s no incentive to keep making it.
Making a tool you or the company you work for need yourself, fun, learning, community, doing good, showing off, status, being remembered, (even if it’s just in a circle of 10 people)…
Marketing generates interest. Interest gets users. Users (hopefully) get donations and/or contributions to the project.
Irrelevant for the vast majority of open source projects, which will never be financially profitable.
why not be clear and avoid wasting people’s time as they try to figure out what exactly a project is about?
Maybe because the volunteers working on the project in their free time are programmers, not marketers or good communicators?
Also, they aren’t wasting anybody’s time by creating useful software and giving it away for free.I realize I’m being confrontational towards you, but this mindset of demanding things from people who literally give away free stuff with no strings attached rubs me the wrong way, every single time. And this mindset is much too prevalent, even to the point of harassing, insulting and threatening open source devs for choices they make in their projects.
The devs owe you nothing. If you don’t like what they do, simply don’t use it.
There are other options out there, but they may come with a $23/month price tag.
FOSS projects are often labors of love.
Nobody who isn’t completely deranged loves marketing.
I couldn’t agree more and I see it everywhere as well. It’s systemic.
Which would you choose based on their website?
Problem is, people on Lemmy are techies who might actually prefer the Gimp site. But any “normal” person would not.
I don’t know man, I think the Photoshop homepage reeks of corpo crap, whereas the Gimp homepage does a good job at cleanly presenting the program in a quick way. Maybe I’m just used to FOSS, or already too allergic to corporate software, but going by the homepage design, my preference is obvious, there’s not even a contest
I think my point was missed. I wasn’t saying that GIMP should copy what Adobe does (I can’t stand Adobe and their “business model” spyware bullshit.
My point was more to show that Adobe showcases the features of the software, so a potential user knows what it does without needing to go through the trouble of downloading it. It may not be what the user wants, and that’s ok, at least they know!
But GIMP is so vague in their description and offers no insight to what the app does or looks like. There’s no need to be mysterious.
the gimp one displays normally, while the adobe one shows a blank white page.
the choice is obvious
I mean, tastes are different, but I really did not like the photshop page design.
Taste aside, you can easily see what features Photoshop has, rather than guessing, right?
I should have used a FOSS example, since Adobe is just bad in general (users saying the page has pop-ups, etc.).
All I see is “Ooooh look, we use AI!” which actually repels me quite a lot. The page leaves the impression that photoshop is a toy, not a tool.
Ok, let’s get off Adobe for a second… here’s a FOSS example: https://www.rawtherapee.com/
Easy to understand exactly what it does, screenshots are excellent. Surely, you can agree that this is better than how GIMP presents itself, right?
dont forget how they expect you to compile it. some projects offer a nice .msi for windows, a .whatever for mac, and then linux users just get a link to their github. i mean cmon.
edit: i’m not talking specifically about gimp, my dudes.
“They” most of the times is solo devs and you can’t blame them for that. GIMP does have flatpak, appimages, etc.
solo devs can spin windows executables and mac installer but not linux…?
I switched to Linux because there were almost no good open source apps on Windows. The comparison is not fair considering how drastically the parameters are changing.
Also a lot of solo devs do try to maintain some community repos.
I’m not trying to disagree but I haven’t come across any projects that only wanted the Linux users to build. You can correct me.
i have found a couple before but havent bothered with them, i don’t remember which they are but it sure peeved me off to be the only one told to “build it yourself”
That’s false, not sure why you would say that. Literally just visit the download page
i see what you did there
I sure hope so
compiling a program takes like 2 clicks dude
Idk I like the gimp page. Two clicks, and you’re into the tutorial on how to edit pictures. The first page gives you all you need to know: Image manipulation program.
adobe’s page otoh… Well after the first two popups, I gave up.
…
Alright, Second try and four popups later, I’m in. gotta admit the funny animations and the tools they show off are pretty nice
I mean, the name is a bigger problem than anyone seems to want to admit…
Majority of area in the world does not recognize it as negative thing.
Even for English, English itself is diverse language. Singaporean English, Indian English, Asian English, definitely not negative in all of them.
Forcing one standard of language as a universal is a bad precedent for language diversity.
zero screenshots on the announcement page and zero screenshots on the homepage. Exactly what i expect from gimp lol
GTK 3 support just in time for GTK 4 & 5
Incredible. This is one of those hard to believe moments.
It’s been 21 years since the release of GIMP 2.0.
It’s been more than 10 years since work on a majorly overhauled GIMP 3.0 was announced and initiated.
And it’s been 7 years since the last major release (2.10).
I can’t wait for the non-destructive text effects. After all these years of dealing with the fact applying drop shadows meant the text couldn’t be edited, at last it’s no longer an issue.
Version numbers are basically meaningless.
Next. They should drop everything and solely focus on improving ux & ui . Every time I open gimp to try and get acclimated to it, I close it back out of frustration. Nothing is intuitive in that software. Not even the naming of the tools settings.
i mean its pretty good if you get used to it… i remember the shortcuts for all the major tools i use and it’s very quick and easy to use for me.
This is exactly the problem they face. I use GIMP since ~15years. Any change they make will annoy me to a degree. But I also understand that getting into the UI is not that easy. They somehow have to manage these two completly opposing interests.
Don’t touch my workflow. Just because you couldn’t get acclimated to it, doesn’t mean no one did.
Reminds me of this:
Source: https://xkcd.com/1172/
There are many examples of software where the UI etc can be changed. I have never felt comfortable in GIMP’s UI, but then again I’m much more of a vector guy.
It is essential that you explain exactly what you find unintuitive, otherwise -forgive me, but- this feedback is worthless. Make a bullet list, with captures, show how you would rename or rearrange things. Do your part !
Nothing is intuitive in that software.
UI/UX is a very very difficult job. I’ve only ever known a few UI/UX artists that were any good, and OMFG, are they expensive.
You can’t just drop everything and focus on something where you don’t have domain experts. Not to presume too much about you, but that would be like saying you need to drop everything you’re doing and focus on brain surgery next year. UI/UX is art. It’s a very specific type of art that, unfortunately, doesn’t come easy for people. There are companies for hire that work professionally on UX/UI, but they’re not cheap either. Anyone can spot bad UX, but knowing how to fix it in a way that works for everyone, that’s nearly a unicorn.
I’ve been using gimp since it was released for daily driver projects.
I’ve been using Photoshop for about a decade when required for gigs.
I can get around either app pretty decently at this point.
If you drop any new user into either, they’ll be absolutely lost.
If you drop a seasoned Photoshop user into GIMP, they’ll not only be lost but be unable to use their vast array of plugins and macros and aren’t quite (but non-technically are) impossible for the average user to work on.
We can’t make Gimp Photoshop-like. We can make strides to improve Gimp, but it’s beyond reach for the current team. Maybe we can start a crowdfund to get a UX company to take a stab at it, but even at that we’d need buy in from the developers and it would likely be an incredibly large rework, not unlike the current one that took quite a long time.
@rumba @mtchristo To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art, and in fact, this painting of the profession as some artsy fairy-dust non-technical creative magic is a big part of the reason why FLOSS projects have trouble attracting designers—they don’t respect their work.
UI/UX makes broad use of scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them. Conducting studies is literally part of the job at large companies, and those who do not have the budget rely on resources like reports from the Nielsen Norman Group to get up to date information on topics such as how people’s eyes scan a page, how content influences this, effectiveness / interaction rates of different design patterns, et cetera.
Unfortunately for the odd designer who does wind up in a discussion on a merge request on GitLab, their expertise is often treated as a difference of creative opinion by developers who know nothing about basic design principles such as gestalt psychology.
The problem of poor UX in FLOSS can’t be attributed to a lack of talent; the fact is that FLOSS projects are not hospitable environments for designers, both technically and culturally. For a start discussions happen on GitLab et al, platforms which are confusing to people who aren’t developers. And then, whereas if a non-technical user started arguing with devs on matters they don’t understand they’d be booted from the discussion, devs who clearly don’t have even basic design knowledge get carte blanche to debate against designers (on design, not technical feasibility), and their positions are treated as equally valid because they see design expertise as art—a subjective matter of mere opinion.
If FLOSS devs want usable interfaces (and I’m not convinced many of them do) this is the problem that needs to be solved.
To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art,
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press. Come to think of it, that’s one of the problems with Gimp. There is a UI, it’s just not a good one.
UX is arguably design. But most design departments would place UX as a mixed discipline.
scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them.
You’re describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
The problem of poor UX in FLOSS can’t be attributed to a lack of talent; the fact is that FLOSS projects are not hospitable environments for designers, both technically and culturally.
That’s just saying it’s a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
their expertise is often treated as a difference of creative opinion by developers who know nothing about basic design principles
The consumers of the product know nothing about basic design principles either. Does their opinion not matter either?
If FLOSS devs want usable interfaces (and I’m not convinced many of them do) this is the problem that needs to be solved.
So, forgive me if I’m reading too much between the lines, but what you’re saying here is if FLOSS wants better UI, they need to engage someone who says they’re an accomplished UI artist and blindly execute their vision even against their own impressions of the requested work?
Maybe there are reasons the FLOSS devs don’t want to sign up for that?
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press.
You’re describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
Disagree. I do not believe that the design of a button is art. Even things like the roundness of the corners have justifications that relate to usability, which is an inherent part of design, and it always has been. Visual hierarchy is usability. Type selection is usability. Gestalt theory is usability. The hanging punctuation in medieval manuscripts is usability. UI, UX, usability: It’s all just design. In fact, if you’re a “designer” who is regularly putting out work that doesn’t meaningfully consider usability, you may well be an artist instead!
That’s just saying it’s a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
This is a thought-terminating cliché, but thanks for demonstrating my point by flatly negating my personal experience as a designer who does volunteer for FLOSS projects from time to time.
The consumers of the product know nothing about basic design principles either. Does their opinion not matter either?
This is a strawman. My point was not that no one’s opinion but that of a designer matters. My point was that when designers are making recommendations based on their knowledge and experience that relate to design problems, the opinions of people who do not have expertise on these matters should not be treated with equal weight.
So, forgive me if I’m reading too much between the lines, but what you’re saying here is if FLOSS wants better UI, they need to engage someone who says they’re an accomplished UI artist and blindly execute their vision even against their own impressions of the requested work?
Yea, again, this is not what I’m saying. If a designer says “hey, we should probably put that button here for X and Y reasons,” devs should have the humility to understand that, as a design professional, they probably have a reason for saying so that goes beyond ‘I think it looks nicer.’ That’s the cultural component. The technical component is that FLOSS projects need to meet designers where they are and not ask them to use platforms they’re likely not familiar with in order to participate.
I agree to disagree, have a good one.
I followed some YouTube tutorial to rearrange all the stuff that can be to make it more like photoshop, which did make things somewhat better
Off-Canvas Editing Paint tools can now automatically expand the width and height of a layer as you draw! You can select “Expand Layers” in the tool options to enable drawing past the current boundaries of layers.
More features such as guides and auto-expanding layers can be used to work in the off-canvas space!
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
So in the end we got gimp 3 before GTA 6
We got gimp 3 before half life 3.
Brilliant and huge congrats to the amazing people who worked on it. One silly question though, is the “new” Gimp logo supposed to look out of focus or are my eyes getting old?
Not having non-destructive editing has kept me from using gimp. I tried but just couldn’t use it. I’ll have to try again.
Now do VLC 4.0 :D
Hot damn! Never thought that I’d see the day.
Already on flathub. Nice modern packaging world. https://github.com/flathub/org.gimp.GIMP
FUCK YES!!!
I’ve been waiting for this for years! Omg, what awesome news!!
I’ve been seeing quite a few posts about this, pretty funny that it all happened so fast.
It finally happened!?!