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.
Gimp-developer mailing list