On an equal note, it's extremely annoying that the priority of animations is determined at creation time.
Why can't I, as user, determine in what order I want animations to take precedence? On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:20:19PM -0400, Glen Canaday wrote: > Actually, I don't mind "undies, shirt, and jacket." What I'm really referring > to is maybe 3 undies layers numbered 1,2,3. Creators can still specify which > of > those three as they do now, but the user would choose the 1, 2, 3 bit. The > creator doesn't lose the ability to choose which of the three upper layers (or > two lower), so they can still specify on which layer the items would look as > intended... but the user doesn't have to stick to "gee, do I wear the garter, > the undies, or the tattoos? But I still want to wear the glitchpants that came > with the skirt..." > > I think 1,2,3 is probably fine.. that gives 9 uppers and 6 lowers. There > should > be a limit to keep the code simple, it's just a way bigger limit! > > There are content creators that give transfer on items.. and I like it that > way. There are some (ok, one that I can name) that doesn't give multiple > layers > because she gives them xfer, which I can understand. It all comes down to > smart > permissions for the next person. But that's a key issue for the creators I > think. > > However, they'd still get to choose that their pants go on the pants layer - > just not choose WHICH pants layer. The user would get that, and that might > curb > some people's bitching at the creators! Kind of a win-win imo... > > --GC > > On 03/24/2010 09:48 PM, Brent Tubbs wrote: > > I like this idea a lot. While we're talking about about increasing > flexibility though, why have a low hardcoded limit to the number of > layers? > The new tattoo and alpha layers are great, but what comes next, and how > long do we keep hardcoding more specific layers? If someone wants to > layer > on ten tattoos at once, let's let them! At some point it makes sense to > throw away the pre-defined layers and just call them 1 through n. > > On the other hand, some content creators sell items in separate > under-layer > and tattoo friendly over-layer packs. I imagine some of them would be > pretty upset if the layer restrictions on all the products they've sold > were suddenly removed. > > Brent > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Glen Canaday <gcana...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nyx, > > Oh, I actually do have one functionality idea / request: rather than > allowing the creator to dictate the clothing layer of a wearable, can > we allow the wearer themselves choose where it goes? I can't tell you > how many times I've had to not wear something because the original > creator did not have the foresight to put it on a layer that makes > sense for that wearable, nor include a copy that goes onto the desired > layer. > > We might have a tattoo layer now, but most places are not offering > that, nor are very many people using 2.0. It would be nice to be able > to choose that a tattoo goes *under* the underpants since most people > sell tats on the unders layer and will until 2.1 or 2.2 is widely > used. > If we get to choose which of which multiple-wearable goes on top at > wear time and not creation time, it allows for far more flexibility in > customizing an avatar's look. > > Just my $0.02, but it's hard to justify having multiple layers in my > mind without doing it this way. > > > --GC > > On 03/23/2010 12:58 PM, Nyx Linden wrote: > > The current iteration of the appearance floater needs to go > away. The > current implementation has been held together with chicken wire, > bubble > gum, and duct tape. It works for now, but it won't hold up to the > addition of multiple wearables of a given type. The currently > designed > plan is to extend the appearance sidebar to pick up the extra > functionality of editing a saved outfit and editing of individual > wearables. I think the flow between the different stages > (selecting your > outfit, editing your outfit, editing a wearable item) should be > pretty > useful and intuitive. I'll be posting our initial design thoughts > once > we get the appropriate channels set up (forums most likely). > > I will remind you, however, that this project is specifically > about > extending the avatar functionality. Yes there is a UI element > here, and > I'm open to discussion of various ways of presenting the UI for > these > specific features, given that the ideas are 1) easy to use and > intuitive > and 2) still able to be done within the given timeframe. > > It sounds, however that you're asking for the ability to "tear > off" any > of the sidepanels into independent floaters. This is good > feedback, and > a perspective that a number of residents share, but this project > is not > the one that is capable of doing that. We have a design team and a > "Viewer interactive" team that is in charge of the overall design > and > GUI implementation of the major elements of the viewer. I'm > pretty sure > that they're already aware of this feedback, but I'll send it > their way > again. > > Let's keep discussion of the multi-wearables functionality > on-target, > please :) > > -Nyx > > Bryon Ruxton wrote: > > > Could you please stop putting everything into that sidebar as > the only > way to access stuff. You’ve kept wanting to make this > “communicator > window “ before into a single un-detachable block. And > despite many of > use hating it and asking for you to make separate floaters, > (or at > least give us that option), you keep attaching everything all > together > again in that sidebar. This is an ill conceived approach for > many of > us, who are used to identify specific panels at a specific > position of > our choice on the screen just like . Blending it all together > makes it > harder in that sense. > > I recall LL hiring a guy who worked on the Tivo interface > which is a > great one for its purpose. But the viewer is a much more > complex > interface. I see too much of the Tivo formula into this > “drawer”. The > worse part is that the sidebar buttons are stuck on the left > side and > actual move with the sidebar panel itself. That seems wrong. > Button > should stay at the same place on the right in an Adobe > fashion for > distinction purpose. > > I wish you had studied and adopted the approach of the Adobe > UIs with > stackable and detachable panels and buttons on the right side > (which > always stay there). Their approach is a much better solution > in my > view that this drawer type, which is a huge waste of space > right now > and adding to the required amount of clicks to get somewhere. > > In short, please reserve an option for detachable floaters as > much as > possible, and please > consider the Adobe approach for a more flexible and > customizable > sidebar(s) for Version 2.x.x > > Thank you > > On 3/22/10 8:06 PM, "Nyx Linden" <n...@lindenlab.com> wrote: > > Good question! There is still a lot of detail left out of > these > descriptions, but we are planning on moving the UI in the > appearance editor into the sidebar, along with creating a > new > outfit editor UI. You will still see the results of the > changes > you are making on your avatar in-world in real time. > There will > still be an "editing appearance" mode as you have now, it > will > just be accompanied by a panel in the sidebar instead of a > separate floater. > > - Nyx > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Argent Stonecutter > <secret.arg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2010-03-22, at 12:45, Nyx Linden wrote: > > 1) A new panel to edit what is stored in your > saved outfit > without > creating a new one. > This will include both an inventory view and a > view of > your outfit > itself, so you can drag items from your inventory > to your > outfit without > having an extra floater open > 2) Editing of wearable items (body parts and/or > clothing > objects) in the > sidebar, selectable from the outfit editor > 3) Removal of the appearance floater > > > I have a concern about this, where it comes to > editing outfits > containing prim parts. You have to see them in world, > you > can't just edit them in a sidebar window, because you > may need > to edit them with reference to objects in world. > > If I'm mistaken about what "removal of the appearance > floater" > means, in the context of a UI designed to allow you > to edit > outfits without having to wear them, then I'll be > happy to be > corrected. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep > unmoderated > posting privileges > > > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated > posting privileges > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges -- Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
