On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:20:48 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Robert L Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The problem is that "custom tables" seems very confusing -- it sounds
> > like the user's going to be asked to input something she knows nothing
> > about.  One could argue that "Use existing image quality settings" [...]
> My only comment on this issue is that the term "image" is consistently  
> employed within the GIMP vocabulary to mean the "in-memory" copy of  
> the picture being edited [...]

I think that using the terms "original image" would avoid this problem.

We are basically left with two options:

1) "Use custom quality settings"
   - Hard to understand for most users
   - Technically correct description
   - No need to change the code; this is what we have now

2) "Use quality settings from original image"
   - Easier to understand for most users
   - Correct description for the most common usage scenario
   - Requires some small changes to the code
   - Breaks the string freeze before 2.4

It seems that going for (2) would be better for the users but would
annoy some translators.  But I got several requests to go for something
like option (2), so I would like to know if it is worth breaking the
string freeze.  Opinions?


P.S.: please do not mention bikesheds.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to