After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 329282 - Move "lock layer's transparency" beside layer's visibility icon.
Move "lock layer's transparency" beside layer's visibility icon.
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 61019
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: User Interface
unspecified
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
GIMP Bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-01-31 00:01 UTC by Casey Stanley
Modified: 2006-01-31 11:48 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Casey Stanley 2006-01-31 00:01:05 UTC
My apologies if this is a bit hard to understand, i'm still lousy at bugs. ^^;

From looking at the new placement of the "lock layer's transparency" from the 
2.3 dev version of gimp, i'd like to suggest on how to improve it.
While i do understand the new location and look makes it easier to notice, but 
i think the new setup takes up much more unusable space than needed, especially 
if your using a resolution of 1024x768.
Wouldn't a more better way be to move the "lock layer's transparency" into the 
layers window beside each layer's visibility icon, something like a padlock 
icon? ^_^

Other information:
Comment 1 Michael Schumacher 2006-01-31 00:27:01 UTC
We might get more lock types in future, see bug 61019. How would you integrate your suggestion there? 
Comment 2 Casey Stanley 2006-01-31 01:19:18 UTC
Now that i think about it, the space might actually be usable if a dropdown menu the same as the layer blend modes was added instead, that could allow the user to select what type of a lock a layer has. ^^
Oops. sorry, this bug of mine does seems to be a duplicate of bug 61019 in a way, (suprised i didn't notice it) should this bug be marked as a duplicate of it? ^^;
Comment 3 Sven Neumann 2006-01-31 11:48:13 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 61019 ***