See T87009 for the original proposal.
- Visibility never affects functionality.
- Included in this proposal is to use sub-panels to separate between Properties, Inputs and Outputs.
- Included in this proposal animation decorators in the properties panel. This is not required, but I wanted to think ahead and see how they would fit.
- With compact node design we can have more sockets to take an attribute. This is demonstrated here with the Transform node.
- In the properties panel only show inputs that can have a value (i.e., don't show Geometry sockets).
- In the properties panel only show outputs that are optional.
- I'm not sure if the labeless second line should span to the entire line or be confined in the half column (as shown in mockup).
- In the context menu users can change type and visibility (as operators, not as properties).
Initial feedback I got from Ton:
- Nice to have the visibility control (though the icon to "invisible" is very invisible.
- The Node panel could mention the node name (and perhaps the color) ▸ Node: Transform
- There could (should?) be individual nodes for Translation, Rotation and Scale. And let artist combine them in the order they want.
- Users should be able to know which attribute the Transform node is operating on (in this case is "position", but this could be exposed so users can change).
- It would be nice to be able to quickly look at what is in the Geometry data being passed around (in the properties panel OR in it can be in the socket inspection)
- Geometries could be named (and the name visible in the spreadsheet and in the geometry inspection (see 5.)
- Changing the socket type seems problematic. Why can't artists just plug something (attribute reference or the value itself) and things work? Why attributes can't be passed around?