Hi jimmac,
Jakub Steiner wrote:
> It's an interesting task that indeed exposes a problem of the current
> UI. I have one usage pattern that would suffer if we implement the
> behavior you propose though:
>
> 1) Select A4 from templates. Millimeters is selected as a unit (makes
> sense).
> 2) Change to pixels as units to see how much that is really (me no maths
> please)
> 3) Oops, 210x297 pixels?
>
> The change you propose does make sense in the workflow you propose. The
> above + consistency with how units behave elsewhere in the interface
> speak against the change.
Good point - speaking for myself, what I understood was on the
table was the following:
Template: [A4 (300dpi)]
Units: [mm]
Width: [210]
Height: [297]
Now if I change the unit to px, the width and height will change,
as you expect.
However, if I am starting from the defaults:
Template: [(None)]
Units: [px]
Width: [377]
Height: [233]
Now, if I want an image 130x100 mm in size, I set unit mm
(changes width and height), then set the width and height I want.
(forget for a moment that I could pick the template).
The point is, if I want to change all 3 boxes, the one which
changes the other two should be first. Otherwise I end up doing
Width: [130]
Height: [100] [px]
(change unit to mm)
Width: [45.86]
Height: [35.28] [mm]
and I have to change width & height again.
Cheers,
Dave.
PS. Just for the record, I think this is a pretty superficial
thing, I'm not passionnate about it either way. I can see the
point of Nathan and the original bug reporter, because this has
happened to me a few times too. But if the decision is "no
change", well, I guess that's OK.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CV: http://dneary.free.fr/CV/
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
