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