Rename to Remove Named Attribute node #97512

Closed
opened 2022-04-21 15:12:07 +02:00 by Jacques Lucke · 15 comments
Member
No description provided.
Author
Member

Added subscriber: @JacquesLucke

Added subscriber: @JacquesLucke
Author
Member

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'
Member

Added subscriber: @HooglyBoogly

Added subscriber: @HooglyBoogly
Member

Testing this out, the name looks almost absurdly long to me.
In the end I'm not really convinced that the consistency benefit of having "Named" in all three nodes is worth the ugliness of the wide node, especially when "Named" doesn't clarify much in this case, since only named attributes can be removed.

I wonder what others think, or if people care about the wideness.

{F13014815 size=full}

Testing this out, the name looks almost absurdly long to me. In the end I'm not really convinced that the consistency benefit of having "Named" in all three nodes is worth the ugliness of the wide node, especially when "Named" doesn't clarify much in this case, since only named attributes can be removed. I wonder what others think, or if people care about the wideness. {[F13014815](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13014815/image.png) size=full}
Contributor

Added subscriber: @Rawalanche

Added subscriber: @Rawalanche
Contributor

I vote for the first option - creating the node at the same width as others, and just truncating the end of the name. "Attr" ends up being a really good abbreviation.

Having random node widths destroys aesthetic, but at the same time, if there's a set of nodes containing the term "named attribute", then it should be used consistently everywhere, so that new users get the implication this set of nodes is meant to be used together.

Once one is familiar with the basic concepts, the name "Remove Attribute" may be a bit confusing, since it may imply also ability to remove built in attributes, or that it's a naming bug/mistake.

I vote for the first option - creating the node at the same width as others, and just truncating the end of the name. "Attr" ends up being a really good abbreviation. Having random node widths destroys aesthetic, but at the same time, if there's a set of nodes containing the term "named attribute", then it should be used consistently everywhere, so that new users get the implication this set of nodes is meant to be used together. Once one is familiar with the basic concepts, the name "Remove Attribute" may be a bit confusing, since it may imply also ability to remove built in attributes, or that it's a naming bug/mistake.
Hans Goudey self-assigned this 2022-04-25 21:41:46 +02:00
Member

We talked about this a bit more in the submodule meeting today-- people preferred the second option, making the node wider as necessary to fit the name by default.
I don't think people are that thrilled by the need to use "Named" at all here, but this should at least be consistent with the other two nodes, and the naming needs to be different from "Capture Attribute" somehow.

We talked about this a bit more in the submodule meeting today-- people preferred the second option, making the node wider as necessary to fit the name by default. I don't think people are that thrilled by the need to use "Named" at all here, but this should at least be consistent with the other two nodes, and the naming needs to be different from "Capture Attribute" somehow.

This issue was referenced by 2fd8fa8f84

This issue was referenced by 2fd8fa8f84514c32c6f213e0e49b75c94fc93885

Added subscriber: @mod_moder

Added subscriber: @mod_moder

Can this option be considered more general for nodes that work with text identifiers?
2022-09-04 01-54-14.mp4
The logic is that if nodes work with text identifiers (that is, in the name now we say in the name that this is an attribute name), then it would be more convenient to output the identifier as a name, so that the user can choose the length of the node himself.
This is my quick example of this
P3170

Can this option be considered more general for nodes that work with text identifiers? [2022-09-04 01-54-14.mp4](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F13456794/2022-09-04_01-54-14.mp4) The logic is that if nodes work with text identifiers (that is, in the name now we say in the name that this is an attribute name), then it would be more convenient to output the identifier as a name, so that the user can choose the length of the node himself. This is my quick example of this [P3170](https://archive.blender.org/developer/P3170.txt)
Member

Hmm, I don't think we should label nodes dynamically like that. It's mixing "instructions" with "data" in a way that isn't separated clearly like the existing overlays and warnings.
It works okay in that situation, but in more complicated cases I think it would give us trouble.

Hmm, I don't think we should label nodes dynamically like that. It's mixing "instructions" with "data" in a way that isn't separated clearly like the existing overlays and warnings. It works okay in that situation, but in more complicated cases I think it would give us trouble.

Added subscriber: @Erindale

Added subscriber: @Erindale

My 2 cents is you don't need to see the node label all the time. You just added the node so you know what you're getting. All nodes should be a common width. The UI inconsistencies in Blenders nodes is already extremely frustrating for keeping graphs tidy like how node sockets don't match to grid and UI scaling is different between grid and nodes which leads to further offsetting.

My 2 cents is you don't need to see the node label all the time. You just added the node so you know what you're getting. All nodes should be a common width. The UI inconsistencies in Blenders nodes is already extremely frustrating for keeping graphs tidy like how node sockets don't match to grid and UI scaling is different between grid and nodes which leads to further offsetting.

In #97512#1412103, @mod_moder wrote:
The logic is that if nodes work with text identifiers (that is, in the name now we say in the name that this is an attribute name), then it would be more convenient to output the identifier as a name, so that the user can choose the length of the node himself.

This is something I want to see when nodes are collapsed as you only see the header. Similarly for Object info nodes, they should display the name of the object when collapsed instead of "Object Info" which at that point is not useful.

> In #97512#1412103, @mod_moder wrote: > The logic is that if nodes work with text identifiers (that is, in the name now we say in the name that this is an attribute name), then it would be more convenient to output the identifier as a name, so that the user can choose the length of the node himself. This is something I want to see when nodes are collapsed as you only see the header. Similarly for Object info nodes, they should display the name of the object when collapsed instead of "Object Info" which at that point is not useful.
Author
Member

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Resolved'

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Resolved'
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#97512
No description provided.