[opensource-dev] Open Development project: extending avatar wearables
Carlo Wood
carlo at alinoe.com
Thu Mar 25 05:12:25 PDT 2010
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 <gcanaday at 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" <nyx at 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.argent at 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 <carlo at alinoe.com>
More information about the opensource-dev
mailing list