Is this radical redesign of GIMP possible now?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

GIMP’s long‑criticized user interface is back in focus as designers propose a Blender‑style overhaul with universal search, command palettes and clearer interaction hints to tame its sprawling menus. Commenters split between seeing this as essential modernization to match tools like Photoshop or Photopea, and warning that radical changes risk alienating existing users while offering little gain without more core features and funding. Underneath the UI debate lie broader frustrations with GTK’s evolution, limited developer resources in open source projects, and GIMP’s struggle to balance power‑user workflows, discoverability for newcomers, and long‑term maintainability.

GIMP’s Technical Status and GTK Migration

  • GIMP has long been stuck on GTK2, which many see as outdated; some argue newer GTK versions have lost useful features and regress in keyboard-centric workflows.
  • Others attribute missing functionality and bugs more to low manpower than to malice, though there’s frustration about long‑standing issues not being fixed.
  • The GTK3 port for GIMP 3.0 is reported as “officially done” in recent 2.99.x releases, though full modernization is still ongoing.

Feasibility of a Radical Redesign

  • Porting to a different toolkit (e.g., QML) is estimated as multiple person‑years with little immediate benefit to users.
  • Large “toolkit ports” tend to balloon because devs are tempted to redesign everything at once. A strict 1:1 port would be faster but hard to stick to.
  • Some argue open source should “just do the work,” others counter that with so few contributors, massive rewrites are unrealistic.

UI/UX: Criticism and Defense

  • Many find GIMP’s UI confusing, inconsistent, and hostile to workflows learned in Photoshop and other tools. Complaints include: scattered commands, multiple overlapping access paths, odd shortcuts, and long‑standing Windows focus bugs.
  • Others say the UI is logical once learned, and that much criticism is really “it’s not Photoshop.” A minority calls GIMP one of the better FOSS UIs.
  • There’s debate over copying Photoshop’s layout versus preserving GIMP’s own paradigms; some recall earlier forks/skins that tried to mimic Photoshop.

Menus, Search, and Discoverability

  • The article’s “universal search/command palette” idea is widely liked for speed and power use.
  • Many insist it must not replace menus, which provide structure, consistent keyboard access, and visual discoverability.
  • Some argue search helps rediscover features, but not discover ones you don’t know exist. Others note you can still show a full catalog via an empty search and add synonyms.
  • Alternate paradigms (pie menus, HUDs, command boxes à la Blender, Rhino, Unity HUD) are cited as promising if well-integrated and configurable.

Comparisons to Other Projects

  • Blender is a recurring benchmark: it successfully overhauled a once‑maligned UI, funded by industry adoption and careful dogfooding, while preserving workflows.
  • Many see Blender’s responsiveness to users as a sharp contrast to GIMP’s perceived resistance to UX feedback.
  • Krita, Inkscape, Photopea, Paint.NET, and others are referenced as either more usable in some workflows or having their own serious UX issues.

Project Culture, Naming, and Architecture

  • Some claim maintainers are gatekeeping and dismissing usability research; others say they’re simply overwhelmed and ask for concrete, argued proposals.
  • The project’s name is criticized as offensive by some; refusal to change it is framed as emblematic of stubbornness.
  • Several propose separating a core image engine from the UI so multiple frontends can coexist, but others note the contributor base is likely too small for that.
  • Ideas for integrated LLM/chat assistants or AI‑driven features appear, with some seeing them as the future and others treating “needing a copilot” as evidence of poor UI.