On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:58:17 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Indeed it may be best if this only gets shown when relevant. If there  
>> are
>> no indexed layers present (which will often be the case) it is  
>> irrelevant
>> and just slows the user by feeding him unneeded info to parse.
> It is very unlikely that an indexed image doesn't contain any layers.
> Why do you claim that this will often be the case? Do I miss
> sometig obvious here?

Sorry, I was not intending to emphasise layers, although I was trying to  
cover the case where an indexed layer was added. The basic point is that  
this message is great if there is an indexed element in the image,  
otherwise it's clutter and we could prefer to avoid displaying this for  
non indexed images.

It's often the case that image is non indexed.

> I also don't follow your other suggestions:
>> c/affect channels and masks only/only affect separate colour channels
>> and transparency masks/
> We should probably change it to say "layer masks" since that's what we
> use throughout the user interface. But we never call them transparency
> masks and the term "color channel" is quite misleading. What's meant
> here is a saved selection and we call that a Channel.
> Sven

OK, then it's me that was interpreting those terms to mean something else.  
I thought this was a reference to RGB colour channels and alpha  
transparency. If these terms have another established meaning in the  
interface that's fine.

layer masks would be clearer, if you think "channel" is unambiguous no  
need to change that term.

corrected suggestion:
c/affect channels and masks only/only affects channels and layer masks/

dont display on non indexed images.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to