Martin Nordholts wrote:
> On 08/03/2009 11:19 PM, Jay Smith wrote:
>> _I_ would want my "workflow interrupted" if the program was not going to
>> do what I had asked it to do. Maybe that's just me.
> Hi Jay
> When you do a File -> Save you want to make sure that your changes is
> safely written to disk, right? If you have made no changes, what is then
> the point in writing the file again? The user should be able to trust
> that GIMP does the right thing and it is unfortunate whenever GIMP
> doesn't. But showing a modal dialog whenever the user presses Ctrl+S
> twice is to me a really bad idea UI-wise.
I completely agree that is good not to have unnecessary dialogues and
appreciate the work that Peter and others have done in that direction ,
but Jay sums up well the points I originally made.
I generally know when I have not made at least one change. I do not
blindly hit cntl_S every 30s just in case. If I save a saved image I'm
probably making a mistake and I want to know about it. Maybe the mouse
is not over the window I think or the window I'm looking at is not the
current one I have altered . Again I am mistaken and need to know.
When we can close down bugzilla because gimp no longer has any bugs ,
your argument about trusting gimp will have more weight. The minor bug I
picked up here proves it is too soon to apply that rationale.
This feature (unobtrusive messaging) may well be useful in an auto save
situation . This may even be the reason it was done this way. In that
case I would suggest adding a means for auto save to have an execution
path that does not produce unneeded save operations nor warn about the
My contention here only applies to a direct user action.
Gimp-developer mailing list