>>>User: uh, I just exported it, oh yeah right exporting is not saving. But
>>>it's exported, so my changes are safe. Agree!
>>And this is where your use case is wrong! The whole point of
>>separating save and export is that ONLY save is "safe". An export is
>>NOT guaranteed to be either safe or lossless. It may be, depending
>>on the source image. Your example exactly demonstrates the purpose of
>>the new paradigm.
> Its wrong because users don't think that way? Not even a chance? :-/ I think
> they do.
> An export is guaranteed to be safe in 98% cases for people not using
> intermediate xcfs, thus this paradigm is irrelevant and confusing for them.
I'd love to know where you got that number from as my experience tells
- Loading, modifying then saving a jpeg back is never "safe", just
because of jpeg compression, with the possible exception of rotation
and cropping, assuming the software does it correctly.
- Under 2.6, saving in most non xcf file formats would loose many
things such as saved selections and paths,
- Under 2.6, saving as a psd would loose text layers rasterizing them
instead as well as paths, without a warning,
On top of that, I have read countless posts on many forums that go
along the lines of "I added the text 'I can has z cheezburger' to my
funny picture and saved it. Now I want to change the text and I can't
select it any more. Attached is the jpeg. Help!" or "I spent hours
making a selection so I could make my car purple in this picture but
really wanted it green. I How do I get that selection back. Attached
is the jpeg."
Personally, I think that people will always use hammers to pound in
screws, screwdrivers to pry things open, and pry-bars to hammer in
nails, cause it is the tool they happen to have in hand. A part of
using a tool is learning how to use that tool in the manner it is
intended. I see the save/export distinction one small way to help
educate users, and make them better users in the long run.
gimp-user-list mailing list