About the N-panel, Actually it have two problems
No, you can use ctrl+0 on any object and lock the camera to the object to do alignement. So limiting it to cameras would break this possibility.
when selecting or double clicking a collection in the outliner i think it would be natural that the objects inside would be selected. currently its a bit clumsy to select content of a collection.
Usually when I create a new collection I have to click on the name and rename it. Wouldn’t it be better if it was already “edited” for renaming after its creation?
Other Papercut
Recover the Normal Tools panel in the N-Shelf
Old Custom Normals Panel
Maybe It’s something for @Howard_Trickey or @RohanRathi
I happen to have just been discussing with others devs what to do about the mess that is the current UI for custom normal tools.
Not sure that the best idea is to reproduce this panel in the N panel – not sure about adding clutter there.
One thought would be to use the “Item” subpanel that currently shows vertex position, bevel weights, etc., to show custom normals too, and editing that box would change the normals. Much of the rest could probably be supplied by better menu options (?).
Menu options are a option for modal tools and learn the shortcut or to configura a shortcut. When a modeler works with normals need to access hundred of times to that controls, constantly. For example, average normals weight., merge, split… It’s a pain.
If they were modal tools coud understand a few the problem, but actually all are tools that you click to obtain an effect. And that tools need inputs from a vector field or menus.
All these controls, multiply, copy, paste, add,… needs the Vector input, so you can’t hide it inside the menu. They are correlated. This vector is not the actual vector of the selected items. Is the vector that you want to use to make an operation. So it cannot be in “item” field.
This controls is used like a bucle, you made, one, other time, until you smooth enough. So hide in a menu where you need to repeat the search 4-5 times each time…
This controls only work with that menu, so they need to be placed in same site. And these are more used controls of the Custom Normals, By far. Could be that in Item field? I see some problems with that, first that then we divide the custom noral tools in three places (menus + Custom Normals Panel + Items)
Same here, menu input that don’t work with the menus or item panel, so need to be in the Custom normals panel.
The only controls that could go in the menu are the these. And in this point, where you need all the rest of tools and controls in the panel… I don’t see logic in put it outside, but yes, it could go out.
Maybe the toolkit could need some redesign, but it’s is needed in the N-panel, at least the main parts. @Howard_Trickey If you like I can do some mockups. Could be great the @cgstrive pov about this
Trying the custom normals in 2.8 I have found a bug using point To… If you try to use with Ctrl+RMB (Point to cursor) it made extrude to mouse (Yeah, inside the modal “point to” tool). And if you try only RMB it crash.
Thanks for your long response, Alberto. A lot to think about there. It may indeed be best to make a panel.
But some thoughts that went into what I previously said, addressing some of the things you said:
For the vector input: it is already the case that some things in the item panel can be used for input: e.g., to change a vertex location you can enter new values there. So Copy/Paste kinds of things seem like they could fit into that usage. Add and Multiply are a bit more problematic. I wonder how much these are really used though. Seems like most of what they are good for could be gotten by other means like the commands that point at things or in certain directions. And/or maybe there are more intuitive ways to get the effects people use them for than adding and multiplying by other vectors. E.g., if multiply is used to zero out the vector on certain dimensions, maybe there is a more natural way to say that that doesn’t require so much of a math mind to understand. Or one could try to force it into the item panel by using “*” and"+" buttons to modify the entry? I don’t know. I really would like to know if anyone actually uses the add and multiply features.
For the face strength issue: I was thinking of changing the menus to be cascading, with separate entries for “set to weak”, “set to medium”, “set to strong”. These could be bound to keys for people who execute these over and over, and this is likely to be even faster than having to change a dropdown and hit a button.
Multiply and add are used in cartoon shading, for example.
The face strengh could be good if you add in face menu, for example. But then, how make the user to see the face strengh or select all face with same strengh like actually it do?
This plugin would be awesome 
Actually we have all that controls in blender2.8, hide in a menu. 
are perhaps 10 years that no more I have used softimage xsi … I had forgotten how softimage and blender seems to me that they vaguely have a similar soul
Any word on this? Has anyone been able to locate the proposal?
Set active camera with a click on the top triangle
Right now you can change the camera’s focal length by dragging the front rectangle (which is nice) but you can’t set the active camera with a click on the camera’s top triangle (which would be nice 
)…
Duplicating a node should offset the location of the new node in all node editors. I was having fun trying to adjust values on an unconnected duplicate sitting exactly on top of the original node.
Every new Modifier is created at the bottom of the list. Shouldn’t it be at top? Because you’re stacking them on TOP of each other.
When you create for example Bevel Modifier, you can’t see all settings.
Like this
Blender modifier system need a complete revamp, but like it will change with Everything nodes… I don’t think that they will change it now.
It is a constant debate in the computer world about what metaphor applies when things are arranged vertically. Does the newer/descendant/derivative/subsequent go above or below? Thinking about trees, for instance: in the real world, roots are on the bottom and the newer leaves are above. But we often (usually) draw trees in computer science with the roots at the top. Why? I might guess it is because the word “descendant” implies below; also, the natural reading order in most countries is top-to-bottom, so an older->newer direction would also be top to bottom.
What if modifiers were laid out horizontally instead of vertically? I suspect you might agree that the natural order would be: first applied goes on the left, last applied goes on the right. Again, because most languages get read left-to-right. So by the reading order metaphor, the current first-applied-modifier-at-the-top makes sense. On the other hand, if you think of adding new modifiers as like adding new layers of paint on top of old, then the reverse order would make sense. As you can see, there is no obviously, universally right order.
You do have a point about the practical aspect, however: it would be nice to have newly added ones at the top just because you have more space (without some strange artificial scrolling) to put all the options for the newly-added modifier.
And, as Alberto said, “Everything nodes” moves away from the idea of a straight linear ordering of modifiers anyway, so this problem may go away naturally because of that.
You can also think of the modifier list as a recipe. In that context it makes sense to go top -> bottom. In western languages we read top to bottom and left to right.
