On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:08:47 +0200, Øyvind Kolås <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 6/22/07, Nemes Ioan Sorin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the correct behavior ( exporting layout for web ) can be seen on
>> Macromedia / Adobe Fireworks. Let say Firefox 8 ( I dont try yet CS
>> version ).
>> They had a proven model that already got the general acceptance. If some
>> similar model ( to cut in slices - to rename every slice in your way -
>> to choose export format individual for each slice [ this can be a killer
>> feature ] - to hide or show some layers / objects / slices depending on
>> your needs ) - well that will be a major / expected move.
> Personally I think the slicing a grid approaches encourages a habit in
> web-design that should be strongly discouraged. The habit to use
> pixels as measurement unit for interfaces / designs, never displays
> _will_ have higher resolution, and designs created need to accommodate
> wider ranges of resolutions.
> It should be possible to create elements for such designs with tools
> provided; but this is a very narrow use case; that I personally would
> hope wouldn't be a focal point for how to use GIMP when creating
> designs for the web.
> /Øyvind K.

I dont think a msg that starts "the correct behavior" will carry much  
weight, especially when it continues "as can be seen on Macromedia".

>> They had a proven model that already got the general acceptance.

Outlook Express and FrontPage have general acceptance as well , hardly a  
sound basis for recommendation or adopting something as a design model.

I would expect that someome who decides to use an image processor for  
complex page layout is likely to be aiming a notch higher than your  
average WYSIWYG FrontPage Express or Dreamweaver user.

I agree that the tools should aimed towards "top end" users not splicing.  
Gimp's declared aim is to provide tools for creating elements for web  
design not page layout.

Thanks Øyvind.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to