peter (yahvuu) wrote: > peter sikking schrieb: >> foo.png was never inside GIMP. it was an xcf that had foo.png as a >> starting point. we try to reflect this in every way. one way that >> came >> up during LGM discussions was that the layer should be always >> (even for "background") be named after the image that was imported as >> its starting point. I think we should do that. > > that's a really good idea! Regarding export/import, GIMP's document > model > is much like Inkscape's, with the difference that for the latter, it > is > immediately understandable why... > > Still, i very much hate to send users into one-way streets, and for > the > open=import case, this is not planned.
right, that is an obvious optimisation. > I wonder if we can't somehow > ease the case where export=save? Perhaps via a shortcut like > 'export to PNG & close document & discard data'? > > When export is just a branch in the workflow and editing continues > on the > GIMP document in RAM, it might be beneficial to offer one-click Save > into a backup-directory without having to choose a filename. > Perhaps 'export to PNG & save backup'? it is absolutely a design goal that after we have helped users so much to open(/import) foo.png, make some edits and do a 'Export to foo.png' in one click, without dialogs, users must be fully aware that they are throwing away the GIMP document (LGM discussion result: call it a composition) that they used to reach their goal. we cannot have accident with GIMP compositions not being saved because we offered a too-clever-by-half shortcut. and to show again our priorities: at LGM Hylke Bons (works on visual design all day long) said: "of course all my work is in project-type files." enough said. --ps founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer