Someone will have to write a patch or eventually a fork to make this
happen. The argument is dead.
The implementation and behaviors are somewhat inconsistent. You can
"open" any format you want, you just can "save" any format you want. It
has to be "export." Why not have the only way to get flat image files
into GiMP "import"? Then it would be consistent. "Sorry, you can only
open XCF files. You must use import."
People expect consistency and are comfortable with it. If you can open
it, you should be able to save it. If you can import it, you should be
able to export it.
And the "Save As" dialog showing files which shows other file format and
all that. The argument was made about being able to see filenames.
Really? That just doesn't make sense. If you are saving a file under
"Save as" then you already know what you want to save it as and if you
don't, open a file browser to figure it out. This is am image
manipulation program, not a file browser. Let the UI indicate to the
user what he can do instead of misleading the user as this behavior
does. At the very least, set the default filter to "All GiMP file"
rather than "All Images." People can still do the other thing, but if
the UI is to convey what a user can do effectively, it should send a
consistent message. "Intuitive" means a user can infer or guess what
they can do without always consulting a manual or learning the hard way.
I just don't get why it can't be an optional behavior rather than
"you've got no choice in the matter." After all, the one-window versus
multiple windows is an option. Lots of people welcomed the change... I
did too until I realized I liked multiple windows and turned that option
back off. Why does it have to be locked in like that?
My wife uses Photoshop professionally. She doesn't get the reason for
this behavior either. The following describes Photoshop's behavior.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7783a.html
This reminds me of GNOME Shell and Unity... where someone pushed a new
"great idea" as an exclusive thing, not as an option and it upset a
larger community. GNOME/RedHat essentially took the same stance as
being taken with GiMP today. "The decision is made." Now there are
other projects helping to repair the damage and Fedora is now scrambling
to support MATE in order to repair the damage and bad press. The
majority of people asking "If GNOME3/GNOME Shell is the answer, what was
the question?"
If some people want a new behavior, why not "test it first" by making it
an option to let people see if they can get comfortable with it?
Instead we got "by the way, in addition to all the features and
improvements you wanted, we also took off the steering wheel and
replaced it with some levers... you are now driving a bulldozer."
And yes, there will ALWAYS be people who won't be satisfied. There will
always be people who cheer for change too. Let's have a poll?
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZH3LH9R
That took me about a minute to set up. It's a simple question: Which do
you prefer?
On 08/13/2012 05:27 AM, maderios wrote:
Hi
This thread supplements " Gimp-2.8_Save and save as bad behavior "
discussion
As I explained, I want to keep choice with save and save as, that's
why I left gimp-2.8 and went back in Gimp-2.6
Comparison Gimp-2.8 Krita & Photoshop is interesting.
http://userbase.kde.org/Krita/Manual/ImportExport
http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/photoshop/save/
Regards
Maderios (Gimp lover)
_______________________________________________
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
