@ghevan:

It's not just my mental model of how a program should work. I have a friend who's a complete beginner as a digital artist. He was using Krita because it was free, but struggling a lot with it and ready to give up. I suggested he try SAI and the next day he thanked me for it, saying that he found it a lot simpler to use for creating outlines. When PaintStorm came out, it was a very new kind of UI. I was still able to handle it and learned it within a a couple of days. Corel Painter, no problem either. Maybe sometime I'll dedicate more time to learning how Krita works, but at the moment it's a frustrating tool.

And as for the layer menu button, yes, that was my one of my points. It's very useful if you're only on say - a surface pro 4 or a tablet PC with no keyboard handy.

I still believe some of her points in the video are also valid, such as being frustrated with the location of the pallet windows in the main menu being inside Settings > Dockers. Windows are a concept everybody is familiar with, going way back to when computers first became popular in the 70's through the 90's. Settings are usually something done to the core functionality of a program or the way it works. I'm not saying "thou salt put thy core functions in thy settings menu", but in general, a lot of programs shove those kind of things in that menu

Here's a comparison of the way a few programs do it:
https://imgur.com/CFlIc6b
There's Paintstorm, Photoshop, SAI, Krita, ClipStudioPaint, and Sketchup

Paintstorm kinda threw a curve ball sticking their pallets in the View menu because they're reinventing the wheel, but all the others use some variation of the Window menu. The window menu is usually something like "hey, I got some stuff I can show you here". SketchUp was confusing because they called all of that a 'tray" - of all things, which is usually a small thing that sits up top or down below like in Mac or Windows. But apparently it's the container for all their pallet windows. I did take me a while to wrap my brain around 'dockers' with Krita. It's not very obvious at all really. The other menu items in the settings menu make sense though. Just going to that small empty windows menu with no pallets, then having to wake myself up to switch over to settings....then go down to dockers, it gets a bit cumbersome if I need to quickly hide or show a pallet. And I'm not a fan of the way SAI nests it's "user interface panels" inside of it's own menu within the windows menu either, but I rarely change those. With Krita, I guess I'm just not sold on the 'dockers' name for those things. I understand what they do as little windows that dock to each other, but I've never seen them called that in other programs. It feels like something you wanted to hide away or make less obvious to the user by that using that name and also burying it under Settings.

No, we're not going to change the name docker .

If people are going to be confused on a perfectly normal name for a dockable window I am afraid they are too dumb to use Krita or indeed use the English language.

I am sorry, but this in combination with that you start dismissing someone's comments about sai's relevancy even though you talk about it constantly yourself has convinced me that I should proceed to ignore this thread.

@TheraHedwig:

I dismissed boudewijn's comment because he was attacking users of SAI, first calling it unpopular, then saying it's only used by a " subset of amateur artists" - implying that
those artists don't use it professionally (to make money) and that it's audience is very small.

You're going to be dealing with new users of Krita constantly over the years, I'm just giving my two cents as a relatively "new" user but still experienced in other programs. Anything you can do to make the transition to Krita smoother for these new users will further the popularity and adoption of Krita by all artists. And yeah, I'm not a fan of "dockers" as a name. I understand what they are. I just think it could be relocated to a better menu section.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have started with posting that youtube video. She is rather harsh in her assessment and I could see that you guys reacted to me as if I was that person. But I only got inspired to post from it is all.

tubwoo wrote:@ghevan:

It's not just my mental model of how a program should work. I have a friend who's a complete beginner as a digital artist. He was using Krita because it was free, but struggling a lot with it and ready to give up. I suggested he try SAI and the next day he thanked me for it, saying that he found it a lot simpler to use for creating outlines. When PaintStorm came out, it was a very new kind of UI. I was still able to handle it and learned it within a a couple of days. Corel Painter, no problem either. Maybe sometime I'll dedicate more time to learning how Krita works, but at the moment it's a frustrating tool.

And as for the layer menu button, yes, that was my one of my points. It's very useful if you're only on say - a surface pro 4 or a tablet PC with no keyboard handy.

I still believe some of her points in the video are also valid, such as being frustrated with the location of the pallet windows in the main menu being inside Settings > Dockers. Windows are a concept everybody is familiar with, going way back to when computers first became popular in the 70's through the 90's. Settings are usually something done to the core functionality of a program or the way it works. I'm not saying "thou salt put thy core functions in thy settings menu", but in general, a lot of programs shove those kind of things in that menu

Here's a comparison of the way a few programs do it:
https://imgur.com/CFlIc6b
There's Paintstorm, Photoshop, SAI, Krita, ClipStudioPaint, and Sketchup

Paintstorm kinda threw a curve ball sticking their pallets in the View menu because they're reinventing the wheel, but all the others use some variation of the Window menu. The window menu is usually something like "hey, I got some stuff I can show you here". SketchUp was confusing because they called all of that a 'tray" - of all things, which is usually a small thing that sits up top or down below like in Mac or Windows. But apparently it's the container for all their pallet windows. I did take me a while to wrap my brain around 'dockers' with Krita. It's not very obvious at all really. The other menu items in the settings menu make sense though. Just going to that small empty windows menu with no pallets, then having to wake myself up to switch over to settings....then go down to dockers, it gets a bit cumbersome if I need to quickly hide or show a pallet. And I'm not a fan of the way SAI nests it's "user interface panels" inside of it's own menu within the windows menu either, but I rarely change those. With Krita, I guess I'm just not sold on the 'dockers' name for those things. I understand what they do as little windows that dock to each other, but I've never seen them called that in other programs. It feels like something you wanted to hide away or make less obvious to the user by that using that name and also burying it under Settings.

Okay, I used to be a PaintToolSai user, and every time I needed to color my picture, I got into huge trouble. Selecting and filling means you have to close all gaps in your lineart, and it is quite frustrating. Using a brush would be a disaster.

And I would love Krita's colorize mask, which will fill in colors automatically and I would only need to draw a few colored lines on it, plus you don't need to close the gaps, lol.

On Dockers:
Just right click on the Tool Bar. Isn't it the same practice as many applications (say, MS Office)?

tubwoo wrote:...In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have started with posting that youtube video. She is rather harsh in her assessment and I could see that you guys reacted to me as if I was that person. But I only got inspired to post from it is all.

Well, the thing is, every time that video (or similar vids, comments) comes to the light, we can't help but to think that a)people don't understand FOSS, and b)people is not serious about using Krita. And because those two points are fundamental for a good communication with the developers (I'm just a simple foss user btw), thus saying "this doesn't work", "this is not professional" or "this single and only one feature is a deal breaker", and the like, without a sincere usage background, will be taken just as an opinion that can't be taken at heart.

This is not the first time comments like this come around, (we have the eraser, not too long ago, etc) and unfortunately not the last one we will have, are there any productive? nop, just think it this way: how many organizations out there are willing to hear one persons opinion to completely "overhaul" their service/product? that I'm afraid is simply unrealistic. Would be a bit (and I really meant just a "bit") different if a person comes with the big cash, the infrastructure, and a well set plan, and just then ask for a significant change to be done, just then a serious look can be taken on.

As a last note (don't want to wonder too much into production philosophies ) the whole issue boils down to something very simple: "willingness" to learn. Is not the tool, but the artist who ultimately needs the skills to produce what she/he/they want, its obvious that if you had use and get-used-to specific software, you always will feel out of place trying something new, heck that's with everything in life! I for example almost never use sophisticated methods to paint, and never felt the many features were on the way or that is over complicated to use Krita because is a robust piece of software, I feel it very "ergonomic" actually, is not perfect, but neither any other piece of software, I bet that if anyone had used Krita before anything else and get the hang on it, once they try other software they will feel out of place on them too. Good luck complaining to those companies...

"The only legitimate pro that I could find is that it's free and that you can draw in it."
I mean seriously, devs, is it too much to ask for Krita to be able to drive me to and from work, file my taxes, and brew me a white mocha latte in the morning?

I too would like to point out how the video is heavily biased and opinionated. The Overview Docker/Navigator is far from essential, since a lot of artist have little to no use of it, and some art software doesn't have one at all. I personally found Krita's default brushes (back in 2016) to be a lot more useful and easy to browse than SAI and Photoshop's default ones. And if you find 4 or 5 settings for the stabilizer "overcomplicated", then the Brush Editor's gonna make you feel like the Minotaur in the Labyrinth of Crete, haha.

That being said, there are some criticisms I can sympathize with to some extent:

• Coming from other software, I too expected the Docker settings to be located under "Window" or possibly "View". I still find myself going over to "Window" occasionally for hide or view a particular docker, even, and I would approve of moving the Dockers settings over to "Window". It might've taken me another 10 seconds to try looking under "Settings" and the (to me) pretty self-explanatory "Dockers" pop-out list. Even if you disagree with me about it being self-explanatory, this is incredibly easy to grasp going forward with Krita. Something I'd like to point out is that I think it's a bit peculiar that Dockers and Workspaces are located separate from each other, though.
  
• I disagree with the statement that the stabilizer options would be "overcomplicated". I don't use a stabilizer myself, but from what I've understood by talking with artists who use SAI and CSP, they pick one stabilizer setting and roll with it. If that's the case, looking over the default stabilizer settings in Krita once, making adjustments to your liking, and then forgetting about it isn't too much to ask of the user. If plenty of people like to change their settings a lot, then I would propose having exportable Stabilizer Presets similar to other features of Krita.
  
• I too have a bit of a gripe with how the tools are organized in the Toolbox Docker. Boud is adamant about not putting tools in pop-out collections, and I think Krita doesn't have enough tools in the toolbar to warrant that either. I do however think that you could come up with better a better hierarchy of categories and sub-categories to organize the tools by, via some good ol'-fashioned trial and error. For example, I think it'd make more sense if the Freehand Brush Tool, Multibrush Tool, and Dynamic Brush Tool were coupled together since they're the most like each other. Additionally, you could list all tools for raster graphics together, and then all the tools for vector graphics, and then further organize things inside those groups by maybe coupling free-hand tools, shape tools, and so on.
  
  Hell, maybe the Toolbox could be contextualized to display tools based on the type of layer that's currently selected? If you have a vector layer selected, it only shows tools relevant to vectors, and vice versa for raster layers.
  
• Kind of related to the previous paragraph, but I'm curious if some tools couldn't be turned into options of a primary one. For example, having a single "Shape Tool" and make buttons for Rectangle, Ellipse, and Polygon/Polyline (are these two really different enough to warrant separate tools?). Dynamic Brush tool feels like it could be turned into a 'Dynamic' stabilizer mode inside of the regular Freehand Brush Tool. Note that I have no clue about how these things work under the hood, and there might be (probably is) good reasons for things to be the way they are.
  
• I have no quarrels with how Masking and Clipping Groups work in Krita. It's unique, but not complicated. It might be worth considering some way of clarifying the relationship between clipping layers and their respective clipped layers. I know PhotoShop shows clipping by indenting the clipped layers and have an arrow point toward the layer below:
  
  
  
  I'm not saying to copy exactly what PhotoShop does, but something similar might be helpful to new transferring users!

The video posted in OP is horrible. This is the worst video about Krita I've ever seen, the "cons" sound really forced.

The no navigator window a the start - wtf really? I don't use navigator at all, I don't know even why I would use it. To pan the view I just use spacebar, it's enough.
This was very egoistic "con" to add, if the interface layout doesn't work for you, you can easily customize it. It just requires few clicks to get oriented in it.

Many useless brushes. So you like to use only the hard circle brush, ok? But that doesn't mean everyone will use only brushes that you want to use.

Toolbar is good, it's organized enough to not get lost in it. I HATE Photoshop's tools under other tools. Like what the hell, gradient under fill bucket? I'm glad Krita keeps toolbar flexible, without stacked icons.

I like clipping layers. I can add paint layer, then clipping layer, then again paint layer over it and another clip layer. It's more flexible, than Photoshop's hard linking, that looks more confusing, if I want do this described thing.

Krita is really well designed software, out of many others programs I use, Krita looks like one of the most well thought software, where I don't have to scratch my teeth on how ridiculous is a certain thing to achieve.
Same time I hate Photoshop, every time I've approached painting in it, it punched me so hard. Hardcoded key shortcuts, messy brush editor that allows to do less, cluttered brush preset browser, lack of color wheel, no ability to quickly switch between eraser and painting on current brush.

Something I find weird about UI
https://i.imgur.com/2D7c6Ww.png
Edit: The Gap is for Color History.

- I used Krita when I first started Digital Painting so When I want to move to Photoshop or others
it gives me headache. because of Krita usage flow is totally different and I am too used to it.
Some Krita features are not on others. And I am stucking on Krita.

- Steep learning Curve is not good thing to proud. The UI needs to be also facilitate users that move
to Krita from another Software. Meaning UI needs to be identical in some area to other software when needed

-Bug reporting website is too complex. I don't know what is going around. There seems to be mixing with other kde software

-I don't understand about animation feature because of Opentoonz which is studio level software is released as open source and free
I also don't mind about it.

Krita is not completed. It's still growing. A little of hope of becoming Blender of 2D.

I was able to transition from Photoshop to Krita with ease after setting up my Krita to be more similar to a interface I know. Like stock Photoshop with the difference that tool options are on the right. It didn't take me more than 4 days to transition from Photoshop to Krita, and I was surprised at what Krita can do. I can use Krita for image-editing and painting, and in some way, I would argue it is so much better than Photoshop in some way as in you can actually perform some Photoshop actions thanks to the existence of instanced layer, and adjustment masks. And for painting, I find it okay for painting, but I still find it a bit slow at times, and I would rather go back and use the traditional method of drawing for those things. Performance is really the only downside of Krita, and I can understand why other people would prefer less feature-rich painting softwares than Krita.

Also, I find it so odd that the user is complaining about many features of Krita. There is absolutely no way to keep a software neatly and seamlined as something like Paint.NET when the software is on the level of Krita in terms of Krita. You have to design with compartmentalization in mind, and grouping features. Also, non-destructive features tend to be unknown to users that lacks expertise in using softwares with those features. Thera explained these pretty much.

As for clipping mask, I can see why people would want to have clipping mask in Krita, but right now I don't see a big issue with the absence of clipping mask. Everything you can with clipping masks on Photoshop can be done with Krita although with complications.

As for the guy mentioning animation features on Krita. I have absolutely no idea why Krita even thinks of supporting animators when OpenToon exists, but it's there anyway, but I would much rather not see development on it and more focus on other areas.

And then, brushes. I'll admit when I'm painting with Krita, I only use 3-4 brushes at most, but honestly, I wouldn't really miss a good amount of brush engine if they were suddenly removed from Krita. When I'm painting, I want them to behave like actual brushes, but in reality, I understand the amount of processing power needed to stimulate actual brushes, and thus I see more points into seeing artificial brushes that are more natural and predictable, and the simplest one is obviously circular brushes which suits most people just fine. I can see myself using only pixel brush engine, filter brush engine, and deform engine. Maybe spray brush engine, but rarely.

Animation function in Kirta is pretty useful for me.
I have OpenToonz too, but Krita allows me to make animations that look more traditional, using my favorite brushes.

I personally think it is good to have feedback from different people. It can bring what other people think the reality is of a product. We all have an opinion. And it is worth listening to what everyone has to say and feel. Maybe it gets tiring to hear some of the same things over and over again. But maybe there is a reason for their thoughts.
As a former teacher, I have found out, the easier something is to learn, the more enjoyable that product is to use. I've seen some software were there is no help or manuals. Can you imagine using that software and enjoying it?
Just some thoughts to share.

P.S. - And of course, if you think of a problem, think of a solution. Also, bashing something does not solve anything.

Everyone can have his own opinion, look at that comparison from Jazza, on the youtube channel "Draw with Jazza" that's the result for Krita but you can check for the other programs, he is a "professional" who use mostly Photoshop and Flash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5NLG4MtJ10

Krita ★★★★☆ Surprisingly Fantastic!
PRICE
★★★★★
It’s FREE!
UI/UX
★★★★☆
Sometimes unintuitive, but overall comfortable and enjoyable. Solid performance and loads to explore.
LEARNING CURVE
★★★★☆
Easy to pick up though quite different in control Scheme to photoshop, it’s easy to customize, learning resources were simple.
ENJOYMENT
★★★★☆
Great fun, especially exploring the brushes and features, although the transform and manipulation tools are frustrating.
PRO POTENTIAL
★★★★☆
Capable of pro results with time and practice, solid program!

As a newbee here with the Krita community, give the developers of Krita a lot of Bell's (whiskey for their great work!!

I am no professor, no politician, no doctor, no engineer, neither no ARTIST, but; i have been with computers since the 80's - hardware and software.
As all ways i like to explore and check out new stuff and compair them to other with a BIG magnifier , specially software and i am pretty sure i am not alone.

Like any software, either big or small, it is impossible to provide a "perfect" software/tool/application for each individual on earth. Simply because we all don't eat meat!

To master anything in life, there are only 2 things to do, learn and practice, learn and practice, learn and practice!

Each computer software bundle/package is a "thing" on it's own, so, to master a specific software, START LEARNING AND PRACTICE!!

You might get the biggest surprise of your life!

Excellent work all developers!!

A lot of what I had to say about the video has been said already, but I'd like to point out a few things:
-The default layout isn't to my liking either, but Krita provides several. Big paint 2 works well for me.

-Rotating the canvas to view it differently is not an edit tool. You specifically don't want to do actual pixel transforms on the canvas to do that, you just want to display the canvas in a different orientation, and Krita does this very well, with a keyboard shortcut. If you do actually want to transform pixels, press 'ctrl-r' to enable rectangular selection, 't' to transform or 'ctrl-t' to enable the free transform where you can rotate etc.

-overall, looking at the video, the reviewer doesn't appear to use keyboard shortcuts, but picks tools from the tool menu with the cursor. That's a pretty frustrating way to work for sure. IMO you don't ideally want to touch the tool docker at all when working, it's too cumbersome in any application. Adding keyboard shortcut reminders to tooltips would be great to help users learn the shortcuts!

-As far as brush selection goes, Krita does seem to err on the side of excess choice, but the default tool selection was recently overhauled and is now very good, IMO. This is an area where community efforts would help a lot, by curating different toolsets for different purposes.

-masking/clipping layers is a bit confusing, as is clear from the discussion in this thread as well. That said, I don't quite see how to do what Krita allows you to do with layers while keeping the workflow intuitive to someone who's never used the program before, and I prefer having the more powerful functionality.

Reptorian wrote: ...As for clipping mask, I can see why people would want to have clipping mask in Krita, but right now I don't see a big issue with the absence of clipping mask. Everything you can with clipping masks on Photoshop can be done with Krita although with complications...

The clipping mask function in Krita is not hard to use. But it is the one only one that does not follow "the industry standard" like in Photoshop or in any other graphic software that I know of.

If I as an example I work on-the-go on my Android or iOS tablet using any of the software there that has clipping layers, the clipping function in Krita does not recognise the psd files i export from them. Nor does it function if I export a psd file from any of my Windows software that uses clipping layers / masks. If I open such psd file in Krita, the clipping mask is gone. So I never use Krita to open up those files. What a shame! Krita is sooo goood!

It is also the other way around, exporting a psd file from Krita to open it in any other program, it ruins the Krita clipping mask.

To stick to a "industry standard" by using the same kind of Clipping mask / Clipping layers as every other program got would be the last hinder of using Krita as my one and only and the best illustration software I know of.