Nathan Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Consistancy is a good thing, of course, and in all the other places
> where units are used, this is a very nice behavior to have.  But the
> new image dialog is different in that there really are no
> pre-existing sizes or units, really.  You are entering new ones from
> scratch.

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you here. You are seldomly
entering new dimensions from scratch in this dialog. What you do is
you start with the last values or the ones from the image you opened
the dialog from. Or you are using a template. So what you usually do
is to accept or modify the values that are present already. I don't
think that entering new dimensions completely from scratch is a common
use case.

> It's not absurd to think of a case where having unit conversion in
> the dialog box is useful, but most of the time it's not a desirable
> behavior.  Actually, that's being polite.  In reality, it's the kind
> of frustrating, annoying thing that I make fun of the stupidity of
> the developers when I run across in propriatary code.

Since you admit that it is useful, I don't understand why you don't
want to learn that you need to select the unit first. Seems like you
behave like the kind of frustrating, annoying users who aren't willing
to learn. It is certainly a desirable goal to make things intuitive
but I don't think that useful features should be removed for the sake
of intuitivity. I also very much doubt that users will find it
intuitive if the size entry in the New Image dialog doesn't behave
like other size entries.

> There are a couple of ways to fix it that we've discussed on the
> bugzilla.  None of them are completely satisfactory.  Does anyone
> here have a better idea, or, if not, which of the existing solutions
> do you think is best?

IMO there are two solutions, none of them involve any change in the
dialog layout:

 (a) Don't set a resolution on the size entry. Changing the unit won't
     affect the size then. That would IMHO be a major regression since
     you wouldn't any longer be able to find out how many pixels a DIN
     A4 paper has in 300 dpi or how large your 1600x1200 image will
     turn out when being printed at 100 dpi. I don't know about you
     but I use this feature very often and would miss it a lot.

 (b) Explain the behaviour in the documentation, close as WONTFIX.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to