Condense transform tools into object properties #37728

Closed
opened 2013-12-07 18:13:39 +01:00 by Scott Petrovic · 23 comments

Would anyone be opposed if I moved the transform settings to be in one spot. The settings area is more condensed, so I would move that to the properties area.

It doesn't seem like a good use of space to have the same information in two close spots.

Thoughts?

move-duplicate_transform-info.png

Would anyone be opposed if I moved the transform settings to be in one spot. The settings area is more condensed, so I would move that to the properties area. It doesn't seem like a good use of space to have the same information in two close spots. Thoughts? ![move-duplicate_transform-info.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F37325/move-duplicate_transform-info.png)
Author

Changed status to: 'Open'

Changed status to: 'Open'
Author

Added subscriber: @scottyp

Added subscriber: @scottyp

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'
Brecht Van Lommel self-assigned this 2013-12-07 23:43:55 +01:00

The 3D view panel supports editing multiple objects which the properties editor does not. So we can't remove these until that works. It's a bigger discussion that needs a design on the wiki I think, also for handling armature bones, meshes, curves, etc.

The 3D view panel supports editing multiple objects which the properties editor does not. So we can't remove these until that works. It's a bigger discussion that needs a design on the wiki I think, also for handling armature bones, meshes, curves, etc.
Author

I just tested this out and they appear to be doing exactly the same thing. The lock options update each other when they are changed as well. I am not clear on how the transform tools are different. If they are, the UI doesn't isn't communicating it.

I just tested this out and they appear to be doing exactly the same thing. The lock options update each other when they are changed as well. I am not clear on how the transform tools are different. If they are, the UI doesn't isn't communicating it.

Changed status from 'Archived' to: 'Open'

Changed status from 'Archived' to: 'Open'

Oh, I thought there was multi object transform editing here, but it seems there isn't.

Personally I wouldn't mind removing these but I remember in 2.5 development that people kept asking for these in the 3D view, and that they were eventually added back because so many people requested it. It's not ideal to have this information duplicated but somehow people seem to like having this in the 3D view without having to browse the properties editor.

Oh, I thought there was multi object transform editing here, but it seems there isn't. Personally I wouldn't mind removing these but I remember in 2.5 development that people kept asking for these in the 3D view, and that they were eventually added back because so many people requested it. It's not ideal to have this information duplicated but somehow people seem to like having this in the 3D view without having to browse the properties editor.
Brecht Van Lommel removed their assignment 2013-12-09 07:52:57 +01:00

Added subscribers: @JonathanWilliamson, @billrey

Added subscribers: @JonathanWilliamson, @billrey
Author

I see. Maybe this is a larger discussion for later on what needs to happen. I have noticed some conflict between what goes in the 3D View settings and the properties space. They seem to have an ambiguous relationship currently. I also see other things repeated like naming the object in both places.

If convenience is that important, we might need to think about object properties getting their own space to manage object related functions. Right now, the properties space is getting pretty overloaded with functionality. This would be 2.7x territory though.

I see. Maybe this is a larger discussion for later on what needs to happen. I have noticed some conflict between what goes in the 3D View settings and the properties space. They seem to have an ambiguous relationship currently. I also see other things repeated like naming the object in both places. If convenience is that important, we might need to think about object properties getting their own space to manage object related functions. Right now, the properties space is getting pretty overloaded with functionality. This would be 2.7x territory though.

I agree that these should probably be unified, but also that it's part of a larger issue. Personally I think this would best be resolved with undockable panels, as that would allows us to keep the options all in the properties area, but also to pop them out to the 3D View if desired: #37424

I agree that these should probably be unified, but also that it's part of a larger issue. Personally I think this would best be resolved with undockable panels, as that would allows us to keep the options all in the properties area, but also to pop them out to the 3D View if desired: #37424

Yes, I'd like to see these duplicated things removed too. The same goes for the Item panel, which is also the same as the name field in the properties.

The only thing that's unique to the 3D View Transform panel is the Dimensions, which is an alternate way to set the scale values. We could add the Dimensions to the Object properties by having a menu to select between Scale/Dimensions, lust like the Rotation Mode menu.

So, to recap:

  • Remove Transform and Item panels from 3D View
  • Add menu under Rotation Mode to select between Scale/Dimensions
Yes, I'd like to see these duplicated things removed too. The same goes for the Item panel, which is also the same as the name field in the properties. The only thing that's unique to the 3D View Transform panel is the Dimensions, which is an alternate way to set the scale values. We could add the Dimensions to the Object properties by having a menu to select between Scale/Dimensions, lust like the Rotation Mode menu. So, to recap: - Remove Transform and Item panels from 3D View - Add menu under Rotation Mode to select between Scale/Dimensions

@billrey, yes I think that's all.

I suspect many people won't like this, as it makes the transform panel harder to get to, but I really don't Object specific items should be in the Viewport Properties. I believe the viewport properties should be focused on things that affect the whole viewport (such as shading mode, grid settings, etc), not specific items.

@billrey, yes I think that's all. I suspect many people won't like this, as it makes the transform panel harder to get to, but I really don't Object specific items should be in the Viewport Properties. I believe the viewport properties should be focused on things that affect the whole viewport (such as shading mode, grid settings, etc), not specific items.

Here's a layout mockup of a design that could accommodate the Dimensions controls inside the Object Properties:

transform_scale_mode.jpg

An alternative, clearer and more compact version:

transform_scale_mode2.png

Here's a layout mockup of a design that could accommodate the Dimensions controls inside the Object Properties: ![transform_scale_mode.jpg](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F37986/transform_scale_mode.jpg) An alternative, clearer and more compact version: ![transform_scale_mode2.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F37989/transform_scale_mode2.png)

More thinking: I remember why we kept this panel for 2.5.

The main issue with the idea of removing Transform panel from the 3D View is that it is in fact needed for Edit mode. There's no Vertex Properties in the Properties editor, so instead users can use the 3d View Properties to find the location of the selective vertices.

We could remove the panel in Object mode, but then it becomes inconsistent with Edit mode. Or we could remove these items from the Object Properties, but that's not very hie either as these are clearly basic object properties related to the object datablock.

Can't really think of a great solution within the current paradigm.

It still might be nice to be able to specify Object Dimensions in the Object properties though. And the 'Item' panel I think should be removed.

More thinking: I remember why we kept this panel for 2.5. The main issue with the idea of removing Transform panel from the 3D View is that it is in fact needed for Edit mode. There's no Vertex Properties in the Properties editor, so instead users can use the 3d View Properties to find the location of the selective vertices. We could remove the panel in Object mode, but then it becomes inconsistent with Edit mode. Or we could remove these items from the Object Properties, but that's not very hie either as these are clearly basic object properties related to the object datablock. Can't really think of a great solution within the current paradigm. It still might be nice to be able to specify Object Dimensions in the Object properties though. And the 'Item' panel I think should be removed.

@billrey the Edit Mode issue is a good point and definitely a rough spot. With that in mind, I suggest we let this one mull for a while. Keep thinking on it.

@billrey the Edit Mode issue is a good point and definitely a rough spot. With that in mind, I suggest we let this one mull for a while. Keep thinking on it.
Author

These transform properties seem to be doing a lot. Maybe the object properties isn't the best place for this. It is used in quite a few contexts outside of just object properties (edit, multiple selections, other?). It is obviously confusing people, including me, about what it does.

I think this goes back to creating better separation between areas with new spaces, or un-dockable panels. Things could be organized better instead of putting things in larger buckets.

These transform properties seem to be doing a lot. Maybe the object properties isn't the best place for this. It is used in quite a few contexts outside of just object properties (edit, multiple selections, other?). It is obviously confusing people, including me, about what it does. I think this goes back to creating better separation between areas with new spaces, or un-dockable panels. Things could be organized better instead of putting things in larger buckets.

@scottyp: I'm afraid I didn't get any of that. What was your point?

@scottyp: I'm afraid I didn't get any of that. What was your point?
Author

@billrey: the main point is that this tools is more complex than what is shown. Condensing the tool to one area isn't going to fix the fundamental issue. It needs to communicate better with what it is doing based off of the context (selecting one object, selecting multiple objects, etc).

@billrey: the main point is that this tools is more complex than what is shown. Condensing the tool to one area isn't going to fix the fundamental issue. It needs to communicate better with what it is doing based off of the context (selecting one object, selecting multiple objects, etc).

Added subscriber: @WarrenBahler

Added subscriber: @WarrenBahler

could implementing tabs in the 3d view properties panel be a valid solution? I did a rough mockup on the wiki a while back that demonstrated some possible organization; although some of the ideas there have been improved on already:

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Proposals/UI/Tabbing_Editor_Side_Panels_for_Better_Organization

I think this would be be a logical extension of #37601

could implementing tabs in the 3d view properties panel be a valid solution? I did a rough mockup on the wiki a while back that demonstrated some possible organization; although some of the ideas there have been improved on already: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Proposals/UI/Tabbing_Editor_Side_Panels_for_Better_Organization I think this would be be a logical extension of #37601

@WarrenBahler

No I think that's unrelated. Adding more layers of complexity to hide stuff is not really a solution. And more specifically, the tabs that stick out of the area it's related to seems confusing as wasting space

@WarrenBahler No I think that's unrelated. Adding more layers of complexity to hide stuff is not really a solution. And more specifically, the tabs that stick out of the area it's related to seems confusing as wasting space

Added subscriber: @Januz

Added subscriber: @Januz

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'
Brecht Van Lommel self-assigned this 2018-10-31 14:29:02 +01:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
6 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#37728
No description provided.