On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:20:48 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Robert L Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The problem is that "custom tables" seems very confusing -- it sounds > > like the user's going to be asked to input something she knows nothing > > about. One could argue that "Use existing image quality settings" [...] > My only comment on this issue is that the term "image" is consistently > employed within the GIMP vocabulary to mean the "in-memory" copy of > the picture being edited [...]
I think that using the terms "original image" would avoid this problem. We are basically left with two options: 1) "Use custom quality settings" - Hard to understand for most users - Technically correct description - No need to change the code; this is what we have now 2) "Use quality settings from original image" - Easier to understand for most users - Correct description for the most common usage scenario - Requires some small changes to the code - Breaks the string freeze before 2.4 It seems that going for (2) would be better for the users but would annoy some translators. But I got several requests to go for something like option (2), so I would like to know if it is worth breaking the string freeze. Opinions? -Raphaël P.S.: please do not mention bikesheds. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
