Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some weeks now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.

Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and contra "Making the new open/save/export behavior of GIMP 2.8 optional" by giving argument abstracts and links to good arguments, i.e. giving references!

If there is a good argument, you don't have to fully repeat it, just give a short link and a short abstract (especially if the argument is too bloated or its core is hard to recognize).

This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong):


There is no "the user". There are all kinds of folks with different habits, workflows.

On the one hand, there are "heavy-weight workflows". The main characteristic of this kind of workflow is the requirement of closing and re-opening one "high quality" working copy, and tasks like saving/exporting frequently as both JPEG and XCF, exporting JPEGs for comparisons, possibility to go back and alter steps throughout the whole workflow. The most important aspects of this kind of workflow is preserving image quality and preserving flexibility."

On the other hand, there are "lightweight workflows". The main characteristic of this kind of workflow is that there is no need for closing and re-opening the image. The most important aspect of this kind of workflow is efficiency.

The following are the arguments I found so far. Everybody is invited to replace weak arguments by stronger ones or to add missing arguments --just don't forget to give references.

## PRO:

* Abstract: "The previous file open/save/export behavior met the needs of all users."

* Abstract: "If the Save/Export separation would be the default setting and could be disabled, then every GIMP user could be happy. The "heavy-weight workflow" users just leave the default setting enabled, and the "lightweight workflow" users disable it at their own risk."

* Abstract: "There is no convincing argument so far to _not_ make this separation optional. It not even seems complicated to implement a switch for this behavior on the technical level."

* Abstract: "A GIMP fork because of such a little change that can be made optional makes no sense."


* Abstract: "No."

* Abstract: "Users who don't like the new open/save/export behavior can use another software than GIMP."

* Abstract: "Open-source software is a meritocracy, not a democracy. Users who do not implement, should not complain. Stating and explaining opinions is no merit."

* Abstract: "The PRO arguments only reflect the opinion of a few. Therefore this is not important."

* Abstract: "Everything convincing has been said elsewhere."

* Abstract: "not the often touted ‘prosumer photo jpeg–to–jpeg’ workflow, because for complying with the GIMP product vision there is no need for optimising this"

Of course, the mere count of links doesn't say anything. Therefore the argument abstracts should be preferred.

If it appears too circumstantial even to give a link to a good argument, this is a direct contradiction to the "everything convincing has been said elsewhere" argument.

A good starting point for finding arguments is the GIMP mailing list archive ("haystack"):

- or Google ("needle finder") --try it with the
"site:mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/" or
"site:mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/" options.


gimp-user-list mailing list

Reply via email to