Default Keymap Update to improve tool access #83693

New Issue

Motivation

Improve efficiency of using tools, without sacrificing the existing workflow (using keys to immediately activate tools).

This is based on a proposal by Julien Kaspar from the Blender Studio.

Proposed Changes

#83689 (Default Keymap Update: Improve tool access using Alt-LMB).
#83690 (Default Keymap Update: Support Fallback tools with RMB Selection ).
#83692 (Default Keymap Update: Preference to keys to activate tools instead of modal operators).

### Motivation Improve efficiency of using tools, without sacrificing the existing workflow (using keys to immediately activate tools). This is based on a [proposal by Julien Kaspar](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jrCepOjKkTnBckSVeSLh3FfEgiXNuxfj/view) from the Blender Studio. ### Proposed Changes - #83689 (Default Keymap Update: Improve tool access using Alt-LMB). - #83690 (Default Keymap Update: Support Fallback tools with RMB Selection ). - #83692 (Default Keymap Update: Preference to keys to activate tools instead of modal operators).

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'

Added subscribers: @ideasman42, @JulianEisel

Added subscriber: @JulienKaspar

There are more topics that need to be discussed/designed to get the Tools up to speed. Some don't quite fit into the keymap task but since they were part of the discussion I will add them here:

Test time based drag thresholds or improve pixel based drag thresholds
Fix the behaviour of the Tweak Tool in RCS
Improve or redesign the Circle Select Tool
Improve the Gizmo drawing of the Loop Cut & Knife Tools

There are more topics that need to be discussed/designed to get the Tools up to speed. Some don't quite fit into the keymap task but since they were part of the discussion I will add them here: - Test time based drag thresholds or improve pixel based drag thresholds - Fix the behaviour of the Tweak Tool in RCS - Improve or redesign the Circle Select Tool - Improve the Gizmo drawing of the Loop Cut & Knife Tools

We also need to investigate and weigh options for adding or fully supporting Active Tools in other editors and workflows such as the animation editors, node editors & video editing editors.
#83692 would already help a lot for users to test the Tools in their own workflows and give feedback but most editors don't have Tools or they are not a viable alternative to the current operator shortcuts.

We also need to investigate and weigh options for adding or fully supporting Active Tools in other editors and workflows such as the animation editors, node editors & video editing editors. #83692 would already help a lot for users to test the Tools in their own workflows and give feedback but most editors don't have Tools or they are not a viable alternative to the current operator shortcuts.

I also added the video presentation I gave at the Blender Studio to the description. This was based on my personal experience and feedback after using and testing the Active Tools for a year.
Some of my opinions have shifted a bit but overall the video is still very much on point. But the video is also showing that there is still strong opposition to the Tools becoming mandatory or the default.
Unless the Tools system can fully or mostly surpass the current shortcuts it cannot become the default in Blender.

I also added the video presentation I gave at the Blender Studio to the description. This was based on my personal experience and feedback after using and testing the Active Tools for a year. Some of my opinions have shifted a bit but overall the video is still very much on point. But the video is also showing that there is still strong opposition to the Tools becoming mandatory or the default. Unless the Tools system can fully or mostly surpass the current shortcuts it cannot become the default in Blender.

Added subscriber: @RedMser

Added subscriber: @FelixKutt

Added subscriber: @APEC

@ideasman42 All of these tasks are done so maybe we can archive this parent task as well.
Tbh I don't really see a good solution to the Circle select issues for now. We can leave that as a known issue.

@ideasman42 All of these tasks are done so maybe we can archive this parent task as well. Tbh I don't really see a good solution to the Circle select issues for now. We can leave that as a known issue.

Added subscriber: @1D_Inc

Interesting video, lots of fair points (knife, circle selection, drag threshold tradeoff, etc)
I am familiar with lots of context and different realizations and can probably say a lot about that, but I want to avoid walls of text.
In short about RCS/LCS.

Rightclick originally was supposed to justify using gizmos because of a differentiation of an access to gizmo and to mesh by using different mouse keys.
Leftclick is supposed to be used without gizmos - in modal GX5 RZ30 input way - because of a predictable workflow collisions with gizmos (drag threshold, partial mesh blocking, etc), some of them are mentioned in the video.
Industry standards has gone quite rough third way - there is supposed to use LCS with gismos and just have those collisions all the time.
It is quite possible to work like that if it is the only way you learned - for example, this is the way I personally worked in 3dsmax because there were no other options available, so for a long time I thought that it was ok.

Interesting video, lots of fair points (knife, circle selection, drag threshold tradeoff, etc) I am familiar with lots of context and different realizations and can probably say a lot about that, but I want to avoid walls of text. In short about RCS/LCS. - Rightclick originally was supposed to justify using gizmos because of a differentiation of an access to gizmo and to mesh by using different mouse keys. - Leftclick is supposed to be used without gizmos - in modal `GX5 RZ30` input way - because of a predictable workflow collisions with gizmos (drag threshold, partial mesh blocking, etc), some of them are mentioned in the video. Industry standards has gone quite rough third way - there is supposed to use LCS **with** gismos and just have those collisions all the time. It is quite possible to work like that if it is the only way you learned - for example, this is the way I personally worked in 3dsmax because there were no other options available, so for a long time I thought that it was ok.

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Archived'

I think it is needed to clarify the historical aspect of active tool and modal systems for a better understanding of a difference between them.

As usual, their history starts from the greatest CG software ancestors.
They are

Autocad - the ancestor of the entire 3D CG software industry (y-forward, z-up domain, command aliases, origin point systems)
And Photoshop - the ancestor of a 2D CG software industry (y-up, x-right, z-buffer/depth of a canvas domain, hotkeys, pivot point systems)
Originally rudiments of both active tool and modal system was presented in Autocad, as a noun/verb selection type which is presented there till today.
Noun/verb selection define an order of a selection and operation.
Noun stands for operation/tool activation at first and then picking up a selection to operate with (the origin of an active tool system)
and Verb stands for picking a selection first and then activating operation (the origin of a modals system).

Both systems was presented there simultaneously because instead of direct hotkeys system Autocad has command aliases system based on commands which are indifferent to the order in which the operation is called - a command can be a tool or an operation or both depending on how you will design it.

Then software was mixed with photoshop in order to get a bit more artistic 3D software paradigm, as a result they has got hotkeys which disallow to have noun/verb behaviour simultaneously because hotkeys are not indifferent to the order of an operation and you have to chose which one (tool selection or operation call) will prevail at the moment, and such kind of a system design derivatives got a workflow differentiation.

3dsmax and its derivatives has got pure hotkeys and, as a result it has chosen active tools (noun) way.
Blender has got both hotkeys and command aliases (presented as a spacebar search menu) and has gone modals (verb) way which is listed in its basic paradigms.

Both systems has their own benefits, downsides, parameters (immediacy, expandability) and so one.
These original domains still continue to mix, the emergence of the Substance painter is a good example of this process.

I think it is needed to clarify the historical aspect of active tool and modal systems for a better understanding of a difference between them. As usual, their history starts from the greatest CG software ancestors. They are - **Autocad** - the ancestor of the entire 3D CG software industry (y-forward, z-up domain, command aliases, origin point systems) - And **Photoshop** - the ancestor of a 2D CG software industry (y-up, x-right, z-buffer/depth of a canvas domain, hotkeys, pivot point systems) Originally rudiments of both active tool and modal system was presented in Autocad, as a noun/verb selection type which is presented there till today. Noun/verb selection define an order of a selection and operation. - **Noun** stands for operation/tool activation at first and then picking up a selection to operate with (the origin of an active tool system) - and **Verb** stands for picking a selection first and then activating operation (the origin of a modals system). Both systems was presented there simultaneously because instead of direct **hotkeys system** Autocad has **command aliases system** based on commands which are indifferent to the order in which the operation is called - a command can be a tool or an operation or both depending on how you will design it. Then software was mixed with photoshop in order to get a bit more artistic 3D software paradigm, as a result they has got hotkeys which disallow to have noun/verb behaviour simultaneously because hotkeys are not indifferent to the order of an operation and you have to chose which one (tool selection or operation call) will prevail at the moment, and such kind of a system design derivatives got a workflow differentiation. - **3dsmax** and its derivatives has got pure hotkeys and, as a result it has chosen active tools (noun) way. - **Blender** has got both hotkeys and command aliases (presented as a spacebar search menu) and has gone modals (verb) way which is listed in its basic paradigms. Both systems has their own benefits, downsides, parameters (immediacy, expandability) and so one. These original domains still continue to mix, the emergence of the Substance painter is a good example of this process.

@JulienKaspar I hope my explanations sounds clear or at least logical. Are they?

I assume that there are lots of devs familiar with Photoshop and its principles, but it seems like there are no devs that has Autocad background, so it makes it hard to explain principles from it clearly, even if they and its system design derivatives shaped the entire software industry.
Such a principles are sometimes reinvented from scratch by people who are not familiar with them.

@JulienKaspar I hope my explanations sounds clear or at least logical. Are they? I assume that there are lots of devs familiar with Photoshop and its principles, but it seems like there are no devs that has Autocad background, so it makes it hard to explain principles from it clearly, even if they and its system design derivatives shaped the entire software industry. Such a principles are sometimes reinvented from scratch by people who are not familiar with them.

@1D_Inc Thanks for the insightful context. If you have any specific remarks, let me know.

Thank you for the feedback. Silence always is a bit hard to interpret.

The point is that after 3dsmax switch to hotkeys in noun way, it was assumed that it was because stable solution in the verb way is not physically possible.
Before Blender proved it is wrong. It was completely unexpected that it is not just possible, but in mesh editing software paradigm also has a massive practical benefits in operations speed call, supports for sequence flexibility and toolset expandability, including possibility of a conditional operations (over active element that set the condition or "the context").

For sure, for people who learned only 3dsmax or similar software with its system design derivatives, noun way is the only known and possible, and verb way is strange, weird and incomprehensible.

Since then there are two types of a people who switched to Blender - people who already reached noun way limitations and need something more effective and flexible in conditions of a growing industry demands, and people who are okay with noun way yet, and want a free substitution of a software they already learned.

The point is that after 3dsmax switch to hotkeys in noun way, it was assumed that it was because stable solution in the verb way is not physically possible. Before Blender proved it is wrong. It was completely unexpected that it is not just possible, but in mesh editing software paradigm also has a massive practical benefits in operations speed call, supports for sequence flexibility and toolset expandability, including possibility of a conditional operations (over active element that set the condition or "the context"). For sure, for people who learned only 3dsmax or similar software with its system design derivatives, noun way is the only known and possible, and verb way is strange, weird and incomprehensible. Since then there are two types of a people who switched to Blender - people who already reached noun way limitations and need something more effective and flexible in conditions of a growing industry demands, and people who are okay with noun way yet, and want a free substitution of a software they already learned.

@JulienKaspar In terms of a system design, it is possible to roughly say that 3dsmax realization is an AutCAD chassis with 30% Photoshop, while Blender is an AutCAD chassis with 15% Photoshop.

When we came to Blender the first time 15 years ago, we also expected to get max/maya substitution, but discovered that at the system design level it was built around the verb way (which benefits was familiar to us from using Autocad) but applied in the context of an artistic mesh-based software approach. We understood that we found something more essential than it was originally expected)

So, before switching we decided to learn, analyse and compare the presented realization of a system in practice with known to us to make sure getting used to it will be worthwhile. The results was very positive, we has got the following of lists of a benefits:

Benefits of a noun way (active tools - operation first, selection second)

single-handed (pen tablet compatible)
primitive (explicit, easy to learn)
brush-like behaviour (strong with non-alternating repetitive operations)
strong with selection-free actions (creating entities)

Benefits of a verb way (modals - selection first, operation second)

two-handed (fast to invoke)
operational flexibility (strong with sequences of alternating operations).
structural flexibility (strong with operator modals call volatility).
rich functional expandability (less dependent from widgets/UI)
capacity (lesser hotkeys limitation)
compatible with non-alternating repetitive operations.
snapping relevance (no idle snapping required before operation call)
selection flexibility (compatible with large and complex selections - since the selection is always set first, a flexible selection process is provided).
contextual flexibility (is compatible, utilises and complements the benefits of an active element paradigm. Is able to use the active element to provide the context for an operation)

By the way, do you have something to add to those lists from your experience?

@JulienKaspar In terms of a system design, it is possible to roughly say that 3dsmax realization is an AutCAD chassis with 30% Photoshop, while Blender is an AutCAD chassis with 15% Photoshop. When we came to Blender the first time 15 years ago, we also expected to get max/maya substitution, but discovered that at the system design level it was built around the verb way (which benefits was familiar to us from using Autocad) but applied in the context of an artistic mesh-based software approach. We understood that we found something more essential than it was originally expected) So, before switching we decided to learn, analyse and compare the presented realization of a system in practice with known to us to make sure getting used to it will be worthwhile. The results was very positive, we has got the following of lists of a benefits: Benefits of a noun way (active tools - operation first, selection second) - single-handed (pen tablet compatible) - primitive (explicit, easy to learn) - brush-like behaviour (strong with non-alternating repetitive operations) - strong with selection-free actions (creating entities) Benefits of a verb way (modals - selection first, operation second) - two-handed (fast to invoke) - operational flexibility (strong with sequences of alternating operations). - structural flexibility (strong with operator modals call volatility). - rich functional expandability (less dependent from widgets/UI) - capacity (lesser hotkeys limitation) - compatible with non-alternating repetitive operations. - snapping relevance (no idle snapping required before operation call) - selection flexibility (compatible with large and complex selections - since the selection is always set first, a flexible selection process is provided). - contextual flexibility (is compatible, utilises and complements the benefits of an active element paradigm. Is able to use the active element to provide the context for an operation) By the way, do you have something to add to those lists from your experience?

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Default Keymap Update to improve tool access #83693

Motivation

Proposed Changes