On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 16:50 +0200, peter sikking wrote:

> The choice it to make either the dialog or 'no dialog' a tricky power
> feature. I choose, without a doubt, the former.

I explained you why that choice is not acceptable. If you did not
understand my last mail, why don't you just ask?

> When I look fundamentally at what layers are, the optional character  
> of all functionality (name, size, fill) offered by the dialog,  
> combining that
> to realise the percentage of times that each will be useful and the
> alternatives to reach the same goal, take into account that this is
> part of user request #5, then dealing with this dialog dozens of times
> a day is a burden on GIMP's user experience.

Please stop reiterating these buzz-words; it starts to become annoying
after a while.

By removing the dialog you add an extra step to the workflow. The user
will now have to fill the layer or add/remove the alpha channel. That
does sounds like an extra burden. We need to look at this in more
details. You can't just claim that the dialog would be useless and
remove it. But I am sure that there are ways to improve the work-flow.

> Try this in an early development version (like 2.5.2) and wait for
> the learning effect (you changed it!) to go away. Then after a while
> evaluate.

We would first have to find ways to evaluate such changes.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to