Yes, 1.9 shows a whole list of which attachments go where :)

Buncha Resis asked... this is another one of those longtime annoyances. Say you're wearing an attachment to one point, and then you attach something else and it REPLACES that attachment when you totally didn't want it to. ARGH!!!

Fear no more. While not brought up visibly yet, in Second Life 1.9, you'll be able to:

1. see a whole list of attachments and WHERE they're attached to from EDIT menu.
   
2. when you try to attach one thing to a spot that already has a wearable, it'll warn you first!
   

Just wanted to mention.

The attachment point of an object is also listed in the inventory next to the object

Great!

Will it still say "worn)"?

I search for worn to see both clothes and attachments.

It says "worn on skull)" etc

This is a great thing that I didn't even know I always wanted.

Great, yet more cluttered text in object names. Why not use icons (with tooltips) or something that doesn't interfered with an object's name and can be easily duplicated: "object (no copy) (no copy)"

Tooltips should also appear when an inventory item/folder name is cut off without having to widen the inventory window (or doubleclick the item) to see what it is.

Lose the bottom button bar's text and use icons that will take up FAR less space and make them movable/positionable wherever one wants--like under the menubar and let any command be added there as a convienence. This is fairly common in Windows GUI...

But Papa Smurf approved this change! So you have no basis for your complaints

Seriously, if LL starts replacing text with icons, I'll scream more than you do.

Um, why? Tooltips still show the text anyway but text isn't forced down your throat--and that saves GUI space. Obviously these things should be optional, too, of course.

Exactly the same sentiments here.

You can't search on tooltips.

If you mean searching for no-copy/-mod/-xfer and/or worn objects, that can be easily implemented as search option checkboxes...

Oh, that'll help cut down on user interface clutter! Instead of seaching for "arm" you'll have 40 or so checkboxes for searching and pick one for each of the "arm" attachment points...

Um, no. First, how often do people search their attachments? Not often, I suspect. Regardless, a simple "attachments" checkbox is all that'd be needed:

[ ] attachments
[ ] no-copy
[ ] no-mod
[ ] no-xfer

Could even combine the permissions into a single checkbox but it's only 3. And, guess what? Could even use icons for checkbox text too (with tooltips, of course)!

Efficient GUI design--it ain't THAT hard.

Stop being argumentative and think before replying, please.

/me cheers!

Or even just have the search automatically treat no-transfer items as featuring the keyword 'transfer'?

This is a nice new feature, but I still would rather have multiple attachments per attachment point

Layers or better categorisation would help. Look at it right now, hand attachment points could be gloves or something thats held in hand, you wouldn't want to wear two sets of gloves but a glove and something in your hand like a gun makes sense.

At least a couple of times a day, AND I frequently want to search for them by location so that I can check whether the hat I'm about to wear is going to blow off my glasses or something... being able to search by location is a BIG win, and here you are wanting to take it away before it's eben mainstreamed.

Yes it is. Good GUI design is very hard, and in many case plain text is the most efficient GUI. In fact the tendency to take interfaces that worked well as plain text and convert them to GUIs that have less functionality and are actually less convenient is a horrible trend that's made my work harder and harder with every passing year.

Instead of scripting something, or just searching for lines in a file or cells in a spreadsheet or records in a database I have to work through what some "designer" thought was a "more efficient" GUI design, to the point where I'm actually spending more time clicking on boxes to buy a toner cartridge than I used to spend filling out a form on paper *and* typing it in.

There's a "Center 2" HUD point. That was a real simple solution to the problem of HUDs conflicting with crosshairs.

I think ALL the attachment points should have "... 2" alternatives.

I search for "worn" many times a day. I like the new way of doing it. I can still search for "worn", don't have to jack with check boxes and can search for a specific attachment point just by typing a short phrase in the search box. One step. Keep it simple.

How often do people search for everything in their inventory that's "no-mod", etc.?

That sounds silly to me just as searching for attachments seems silly to you.

Different strokes for different folks, mang.

Amen.

zOMG no more cabinheads!
This will change the nature of SL as we know it.

Moot point since SL 1.9 will show you the location of ALL attachments. Regardless, an expandable/breanching attachment search option checkbox list could be implemented for more detailed, specific attachment searches (however rare they would be).

Actually, I doubt people search for no-* objects that often too--and I never implied people DO search for them any more than attachments. However, text is clearly not a good design implementation since, as I've already stated, ANY object's name can have "no copy)" added to it. Oops...confusion then! I'll take the checkboxes--thanks.

Er, yes, AFTER you esearch for them... now you can have up to 40 attachments to page through... or you can search on "upper arm" or "stomach" and get exactly what you want.
If you can't search on them textually it doesn't matter whether they're icons, tooltips, or anything else.

And no, I'm not overexaggerating when I describe GUIs as being inefficient. On my Macintosh right now I have two browser windows and four Terminal windows open, and I'm using "screen" to connect to a dozen different servers through those Terminal windows to manage them. I routinely edit the raw plist files of some apps to set my preferences instead of using the preferences menus. On Windows, I use Interix to give me a command line, and one of the servers I'm working on in a Terminal is a Windows box.

There are situations where GUIs are efficient, yes, but even the best of them can occasionally drive me to dumping the content to a DBMS or a text file so I can script them. On the Mac, Applescript is a really handy tool, it lets me avoid the GUI when it gets in the way, but since you can't script the UI in SL that's no help.

Give me a real 3d UI like SL all the time, or give me text. These halfway house 2d windowed things are at best a stopgap thrust on us by the temporary shortage of CPU power between the Industrial Revolution and the Singularity.