REDESIGNED LAYERS TAB

[Luca Ippoliti]

38 minutes ago, fde101 said:

How do you anticipate those corner arrows fitting in the row when they are collapsed?  They are all expanded in your example and are in a spot that would basically disappear if they were collapsed...

You also seem to have lost the layer type and FX indicator icons?

Yes, they disappear when collapsed. Clicking the Folder Icon would open them. I might add a side arrow to the icon themselves.

I find the layer type to be kinda redundant, and adds unecessary visual clutter. It could easily be an option.

I forgot to add the fx indicator as that wasn't the goal of the latest post.

 

[fde101]

1 hour ago, Luca Ippoliti said:

Clicking the Folder Icon would open them

That will not generalize well.  Practically any layer type may have child layers, and many of us (myself included) have thumbnails in place of the folder icons, so there would be nothing to indicate that action.  I find the large folder icons to be a pointless waste of space, while the thumbnails help with identifying what the layer contains, including the groups.

 

1 hour ago, Luca Ippoliti said:

I find the layer type to be kinda redundant, and adds unecessary visual clutter

They are not.  For example, an image layer and a pixel layer look very similar superficially but behave very differently, so it is important to be able to distinguish them.

[Luca Ippoliti]

8 hours ago, fde101 said:

That will not generalize well.  Practically any layer type may have child layers, and many of us (myself included) have thumbnails in place of the folder icons, so there would be nothing to indicate that action.  I find the large folder icons to be a pointless waste of space, while the thumbnails help with identifying what the layer contains, including the groups.

 

They are not.  For example, an image layer and a pixel layer look very similar superficially but behave very differently, so it is important to be able to distinguish them.

I see, this is valuable feedback. I did not know you can disable thumbnails. I'll take that into consideration.

Obviously my UI is just a suggestion of the general direction I think it should take, it's not meant as an ultimate solution, especially when there are so many customizable pieces I don't know about. I'd love to work with developers in order to account for every option, but yeah, just take my UI as a general idea.

 

By image and pixel layer, you mean unrasterized and rasterised image? Or something else

[fde101]

12 hours ago, Luca Ippoliti said:

image and pixel layer, you mean unrasterized and rasterised image? Or something else

A pixel layer is what you are likely accustomed to working with given the comparison with Photoshop and the apparent use of Photo as the primary example.  Pixel layers are editable grids of raster data which you can directly draw on.

Image layers hold images which may be raster or vector (or a mixture of these), possibly compressed, in some format that they were imported in, but which do not support direct editing of the data.  The data may be embedded directly into the file, or may be linked to a file outside of the Affinity document itself in order to allow it to be used in multiple documents without storing the entire file within them (saving space) as well as to allow the linked files to be edited externally (then updated in the Affinity document without needing to redo the import).  These are more commonly used for placed images in Publisher, for example, but can also be used in Photo and Designer.

If you import a picture it may initially be placed as an image layer, and remain stored in its original format, but if you want to paint on it, it will be converted into a pixel layer first.  Conversion to a pixel layer may cause some data loss depending on scale and other factors as it will typically be rasterized at the document resolution (DPI) instead of the original resolution; it may also cause the document to become larger as it will lose the compression of the original format.

Each of these types of layers has benefits and drawbacks compared to the other, but they would look very similar in the Layers panel if not clearly marked in some way.

[Luca Ippoliti]

11 hours ago, fde101 said:

A pixel layer is what you are likely accustomed to working with given the comparison with Photoshop and the apparent use of Photo as the primary example.  Pixel layers are editable grids of raster data which you can directly draw on.

Image layers hold images which may be raster or vector (or a mixture of these), possibly compressed, in some format that they were imported in, but which do not support direct editing of the data.  The data may be embedded directly into the file, or may be linked to a file outside of the Affinity document itself in order to allow it to be used in multiple documents without storing the entire file within them (saving space) as well as to allow the linked files to be edited externally (then updated in the Affinity document without needing to redo the import).  These are more commonly used for placed images in Publisher, for example, but can also be used in Photo and Designer.

If you import a picture it may initially be placed as an image layer, and remain stored in its original format, but if you want to paint on it, it will be converted into a pixel layer first.  Conversion to a pixel layer may cause some data loss depending on scale and other factors as it will typically be rasterized at the document resolution (DPI) instead of the original resolution; it may also cause the document to become larger as it will lose the compression of the original format.

Each of these types of layers has benefits and drawbacks compared to the other, but they would look very similar in the Layers panel if not clearly marked in some way.

Ok, thanks for the thorough clarification 👍.

Yes, it was just a matter of a different naming scheme, but I was assuming correctly, I work with both a lot so thankfully I know them well enough 😉

 

The one you mentioned is a very good reason for having thumbnails on, but I still see value in having the option to turn them off, mostly in sake of visual minimalism, and to make space for other elements that absolutely necessitate an icon.

I'm sure I'll figure out a way to differentiate them with the use of outlines, internal icons or some other visual element that takes up less visual space.

Edited June 21 by Luca Ippoliti

[smadell]

Rather than add to this thread, I have started a new topic. I am linking to it here, since it also concerns the Layers panel. However, it is not a stem-to-stern redesign. It is about the addition and/or consolidation of some existing layer panel choices. Click the link below, and please comment…