date:20120807

2012/8/6 Anoko for...@gimpusers.com:

 I've seen the new you have to use export messagebox about 20 times now, 
 very annoying ;-). Why is it not OK to allow saving to e.g. png (especially 
 when not using layers!), but keep the export function ALSO as it is? That 
 way, everyone will be happy I think?

Is it soo difficult to change one's habits a little, and to
learn simple shortcuts? Ctrl-E or Shift-Ctrl-E to export the image to
any format you wish, Ctrl-W Alt-W to close the image without saving
it. Seeing a warning message 20 times was clearly enough for teaching
me that I should use Ctrl-E instead of Ctrl-S.

Well habbits or not, I still wonder why it is explicitly disallowed to save as 
something other than xcf. As I said, allowing that+keeping the export option 
makes all users happy. Now, a way that apparently some part of the users like 
and some don't is forced to all, while it is not necessary to force it.

GIMP is not the only program I use, so yeah I keep pressing CTRL+S thinking 
that should save whatever I'm editting to whatever file extension I gave it, 
just like in Inkscape, Libreoffice, KDevelop, etc. To me, exporting to a png 
does not feel like exporting at all. If the original image is something 
bitmappy without layers, there is no loss, and I use GIMP mostly for that. If 
it did have layers, GIMP would already warn. I don't use GIMP often enough to 
get used to learn the fact that it's the only program I have where CTRL+S does 
not save, but rather wants me to make a temporary projectfile. 

-- 
 Anoko (via gimpusers.com)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

2012-08-07 Thread Gfxuser


On 07.08.12 at 11:23, Anoko wrote:

2012/8/6 Anoko for...@gimpusers.com:

I've seen the new you have to use export messagebox about 20 times now, very 
annoying ;-). Why is it not OK to allow saving to e.g. png (especially when not using 
layers!), but keep the export function ALSO as it is? That way, everyone will be happy I 
think?

Is it soo difficult to change one's habits a little, and to
learn simple shortcuts? Ctrl-E or Shift-Ctrl-E to export the image to
any format you wish, Ctrl-W Alt-W to close the image without saving
it. Seeing a warning message 20 times was clearly enough for teaching
me that I should use Ctrl-E instead of Ctrl-S.

Well habbits or not, I still wonder why it is explicitly disallowed to save as 
something other than xcf. As I said, allowing that+keeping the export option 
makes all users happy. Now, a way that apparently some part of the users like 
and some don't is forced to all, while it is not necessary to force it.
...

Hi Anoko,

this question has been widely discussed before and like many others I 
think, all that has to be said about it is already said. So don't be 
surprised if some answers sound annoyed.
Usually advanced users have problems with the new behaviour, not experts 
and not beginners. If you can't live without Ctrl+S you can easily 
change the shortcuts via the Edit menu.
If you like to know more about this change and why things have changed 
this way, you find some explanations at
http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/gimp-2.8-understanding-ui-changes. 
At least the last sentence in the 'Save and export' chapter is very 
important.

I hope this helps you.

Best regards,

grafxuser





___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Anoko wrote:

 GIMP is not the only program I use, so yeah I keep pressing CTRL+S
 thinking that should save whatever I'm editting to whatever file extension
 I gave it, just like in Inkscape, Libreoffice, KDevelop, etc.

Inkscape does it wrong too, and the plan is to save only what it can
open as a native file. It just hasn't been done yet. Which means that
eventually Inkscape will work much like GIMP 2.8 in that respect.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

2012-08-07 Thread Patrick Shanahan

* Anoko for...@gimpusers.com [08-07-12 05:25]:
 2012/8/6 Anoko for...@gimpusers.com:
 
  I've seen the new you have to use export messagebox about 20 times
  now, very annoying ;-).  Why is it not OK to allow saving to e.g. 
  png (especially when not using layers!), but keep the export function
  ALSO as it is?  That way, everyone will be happy I think?
 
 Is it soo difficult to change one's habits a little, and to
 learn simple shortcuts? Ctrl-E or Shift-Ctrl-E to export the image to
 any format you wish, Ctrl-W Alt-W to close the image without saving
 it. Seeing a warning message 20 times was clearly enough for teaching
 me that I should use Ctrl-E instead of Ctrl-S.
 
 Well habbits or not, I still wonder why it is explicitly disallowed to
 save as something other than xcf.  As I said, allowing that+keeping the
 export option makes all users happy.  Now, a way that apparently some
 part of the users like and some don't is forced to all, while it is not
 necessary to force it.
 

You are hung up* on a single word, save vs export.   Change your key
bindings to match what *you* want.

-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
http://en.opensuse.org   openSUSE Community Member
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

2012-08-07 Thread Richard Gitschlag

 Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:23:49 +0200
 From: for...@gimpusers.com
 To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
 CC: t...@gimpusers.com
 Subject: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

 Well habbits or not, I still wonder why it is explicitly disallowed to 
save as something other than xcf. As I said, allowing that+keeping the

 export option makes all users happy. Now, a way that apparently 
some part of the users like and some don't is forced to all, while it is

 not necessary to force it.

Translation:  Why the existing message can/may not be converted into an 
Export/Cancel prompt, which would be a have-cake-eat-it-too solution.  That 
the developers insist the cake being a lie is ... mystifying, to say the least.

 ... I don't use GIMP often enough to get used to learn the 
fact that it's the only program I have where CTRL+S does not save,
 but 
rather wants me to make a temporary projectfile. 

 -- 
  Anoko (via gimpusers.com)

In my experience, I only have a few such programs:  GIMP 2.8, Visual Studio, 
and FontForge.  Visual Studio, being a win32 program compiler, is pretty 
obvious:  Save saves the project source code, and Compile writes the 
finished executable.  FontForge's documentation makes clear that real font 
files are extremely optimized for small file sizes and don't include a lot of 
helpful metadata that is saved with your project (.sfd) file; the Generate 
Fonts command is what writes actual font files.

In my experience I've also personally written a program used to design mods for 
one specific game, where the Save command stored a project file and a 
separate Compile... command packaged it into the actual mod file.  
(Coincidentally, all three of these share another thing in common:  Needing to 
perform a validation/error check before compiling the file.)

By contrast, GIMP is the only program I use where the majority of my work 
involves outputting to a standard file format, and I've only used XCF for 
situations where other formats simply cannot handle it (i.e. multilayer 
arrangements).

-- Stratadrake
strata_ran...@hotmail.com

Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

  ___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

2012-08-07 Thread bruno

  

 You are hung up* on a single word, save vs export. Change
your key
 bindings to match what *you* want.

Totally agreed. The
criticism to the new behaviour is quite bureaucratic. 
  ___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

2012-08-07 Thread Ken Warner


We have found that logic does not apply here.  The only allowed interactions 
are those approved by the developers.

On 8/7/2012 2:23 AM, Anoko wrote:

2012/8/6 Anokofor...@gimpusers.com:



I've seen the new you have to use export messagebox about 20 times now, very 
annoying ;-). Why is it not OK to allow saving to e.g. png (especially when not using 
layers!), but keep the export function ALSO as it is? That way, everyone will be happy I 
think?



Is it soo difficult to change one's habits a little, and to
learn simple shortcuts? Ctrl-E or Shift-Ctrl-E to export the image to
any format you wish, Ctrl-W Alt-W to close the image without saving
it. Seeing a warning message 20 times was clearly enough for teaching
me that I should use Ctrl-E instead of Ctrl-S.


Well habbits or not, I still wonder why it is explicitly disallowed to save as 
something other than xcf. As I said, allowing that+keeping the export option 
makes all users happy. Now, a way that apparently some part of the users like 
and some don't is forced to all, while it is not necessary to force it.

GIMP is not the only program I use, so yeah I keep pressing CTRL+S thinking that should 
save whatever I'm editting to whatever file extension I gave it, just like in Inkscape, 
Libreoffice, KDevelop, etc. To me, exporting to a png does not feel like 
exporting at all. If the original image is something bitmappy without layers, there is no 
loss, and I use GIMP mostly for that. If it did have layers, GIMP would already warn. I 
don't use GIMP often enough to get used to learn the fact that it's the only program I 
have where CTRL+S does not save, but rather wants me to make a temporary projectfile.


___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] How to round all square corners?

2012-08-07 Thread erroneus

Hi!

Suppose we have a standard QR code composed of hundreds of squares and 
their hundreds of square corners. (e.g., 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code)

How can I get Gimp to round all of the internal and external square 
corners - let's say to a 10 pixel radius?

Thank you.

Using an example image found on the page indicated above 
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Qr-4.svg) I imported the 
image into GiMP 2.6.x.  (The latest version available to me as a CentOS user)

I imported it at 5x the original size (1100x1100) so that I could manipulate 
details as needed with less quality loss.

I did a Select - By Color, then selected any of the black.  All black areas 
are selected while the transparent areas are not.

I then did a Select - Shrink... and set the pixel value to 5.  Note that the 
selection is already rounding the corners, but now the selected area is too 
small.

Next I did a Select - Grow... and set the pixel value to 5.  Now the 
selection is back to where it was but the corners are now more rounded though 
not quite what I think you want in terms of accuracy.

So next, I go to the layers panel and into the paths tab.  I then do a 
Selection to path  by clicking the button at the bottom of that tab. 
(Highlight the buttons to see what their function name/description is)  Now 
there should exist a path with rounded corners added to your paths list.  Go 
ahead and make it visible by clicking the little eye to the left of the path 
item in the list.  (Not needed but makes the path visible so you can see what 
you are working with.)

Now I make the original background layer invisible by clicking the eye to turn 
it off in the layers tab and then add a new transparent layer.  It should be 
selected.  

Now back to the paths tab and with the rounded QR code path selected, I do a 
Path to selection (the opposite of selection to path) to create a new 
selection based on the path with rounded corners.

Now I go to the Bucket fill tool and set the option Fill whole selection.  I 
can choose any color I want, but black is already selected so that's the one I 
will use.  I click in the selected area to fill in my new selection.

You should now see a QR code with rounded corners.

Now if the corners aren't rounded enough for you, you can play with the pixel 
size when shrinking and growing the initial seleciton.  The effect will be the 
same but with more roundness if you choose a larger number or less if you 
choose a smaller number.

Hope this was helpful.






-- 
erroneus (via gimpusers.com)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] How to round all square corners?

2012-08-07 Thread erroneus

Hi!

Suppose we have a standard QR code composed of hundreds of squares and 
their hundreds of square corners. (e.g., 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code)

How can I get Gimp to round all of the internal and external square 
corners - let's say to a 10 pixel radius?

Thank you.

Oh, just to add to this... I realized that the result was outside corners were 
rounded but inside corners were not.  So instead of shrink x5, grow x5 do a 
shrink x5, grow x10, shrink x5 to get better results.  Continue as before 
with everything else.

You will not that by creating a path from selection and then a selection from 
path, you will get a smoother corner.  Otherwise I get a blocky corner.  There 
may be some other manipulations to the path which could result better as well.


-- 
erroneus (via gimpusers.com)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior



 You are hung up* on a single word, save vs export. Change
your key
 bindings to match what *you* want.

Totally agreed. The
criticism to the new behaviour is quite bureaucratic.

I'm not sure how this remark helps the discussion (nor the other personal 
remarks about developers in other posts). I understand the discussion is 
heated, but please refrain from making inconstructive remarks (everyone). I 
just noticed this new GIMP behaviour, as Debian has only recently pushed 2.8 
into testing. As will many other of the (probably less sofisticated) users.

Fact is that there are people who don't like the feature. Actually, I suppose 
this forum holds most of the people doing advanced stuff with GIMP, which in 
ratio will probably more often use the new feature compared to others. All 
people in my surroundings use GIMP for simpler tasks, and I suspect they will 
all dislike the new feature.

I read the explanation about the new feature. It basically tells me that GIMP 
users not liking the feature are not the intended audience of future GIMP 
versions. Personally, I doubt whether all intended users want to be enforced in 
a specific (project for each image) way of working, but of course, the 
intended audience of GIMP are a choice of the developers, and there's not much 
to argue against it. However, I do not understand why no one discusses a 
compromise that does neither enforce nor burden exporting. Are the developers 
really willing to give up a part of their users for something which I think 
can be compromised in a way both sides are happy??

The explanation page says In other words, GIMP used to assume that you don't 
mind accidental loss of unrecoverable project data and bothered you with 
confirmation dialogs. It was a convoluted logic, but people got used to it.

I do not see why this is solved. Someone who is not familair with GIMP, that 
wants to store something as a png file, clicks save, finds it needs to export, 
clicks export and has lost their layered data nevertheless, now basically 
without a warning saying layers got lost. 

-- 
Anoko (via gimpusers.com)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

2012-08-07 Thread Øyvind Kolås

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Anoko for...@gimpusers.com wrote:
 I do not see why this is solved. Someone who is not familair with GIMP, that 
 wants to store something as a png file, clicks save, finds it needs to 
 export, clicks export and has lost their layered data nevertheless, now 
 basically without a warning saying layers got lost.

GIMP knows that your project only has been exported not saved, it will
thus ask you to save later when you try to quit GIMP - giving you a
chance to preserve the layer structure (higher bit depth, and more)
that was discarded in the export to PNG.

/Ø
-- 
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
 -- William Gibson
http://twitter.com/hodefoting
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Anoko for...@gimpusers.com wrote:
 I do not see why this is solved. Someone who is not familair with GIMP, that 
 wants to store something as a png file, clicks save, finds it needs to 
 export, clicks export and has lost their layered data nevertheless, now 
 basically without a warning saying layers got lost.

GIMP knows that your project only has been exported not saved, it will
thus ask you to save later when you try to quit GIMP - giving you a
chance to preserve the layer structure (higher bit depth, and more)
that was discarded in the export to PNG.

It does not help: The exit conformation does not say anything explicitly about 
layers. It will thus confuse people not understanding the difference between 
export, save, and what layers are about, and people that do know the 
difference, already knew they were saving to png and it does not help. If they 
exported to jpg and forgot about their transparancy layer, they are no longer 
warned.

-- 
Anoko (via gimpusers.com)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Anoko wrote:

 The explanation page says In other words, GIMP used to assume
 that you don't mind accidental loss of unrecoverable project data and
 bothered you with confirmation dialogs. It was a convoluted logic,
 but people got used to it.

 I do not see why this is solved.

Yes, you don't see it :)

I understand that you are bored of the discussion, but by suggesting that it is 
my problem alone of seeing it wrong, I think that's a bit insulting and really 
unnecessary. I was at least trying to be constructive. I suspect though that 
you have misunderstood my use case.

User: lets say he wants so save image with transparance as jpg, clicks save
Gimp: you have to use export
User: Export to jpg
Gimp: ok! (no message that transparance got lost)
User: click exit
Gimp: Sure? not saved!
User: uh, I just exported it, oh yeah right exporting is not saving. But it's 
exported, so my changes are safe. Agree!
Transparancy lost. This is something I already encountered once, so it is a 
realistic use case (whether it is a probable is something else, but whether the 
previous problem was much larger is to be seen as well).

Since in the old workflow, everyone who used to use save for exporting to 
png/jpg etc., will with some annoyance now use export, but no longer get 
flatten layers? messages, and he/she has to remember that indeed unsaved 
changes are unrelated to exporting.

Since such people will always get a you have unsaved changes message when 
exitting the GIMP, this message becomes useless for this workflow. Thus, the 
only way to use GIMP without major annoyance, is to follow the forced xcf route.

-- 
Anoko (via gimpusers.com)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Anoko wrote:

 I understand that you are bored of the discussion, but by
 suggesting that it is my problem alone of seeing it wrong,
 I think that's a bit insulting and really unnecessary.

Well, what if it _is_ your problem alone? I could wrap that up in a
cheerful marketing language. Should I?

 I was at least trying to be constructive.

I did provide an explanation why nobody loses anything unless
specifically willing to do that. If you want to have an argument about
who was trying to be constructive, please don't count me in, otherwise
we'll never hear the end of it.

 I suspect though that you have misunderstood my use case.

 User: lets say he wants so save image with transparance as jpg

Excuse me, but can you see the target group of users really trying that?

http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Vision_briefing#GIMP_and_its_core_users

 User: uh, I just exported it, oh yeah right exporting is not saving.
 But it's exported, so my changes are safe. Agree!

Nope. Exporting is never safe. That's the whole point of exporting as
opposed to saving.

You see, no matter how many times we repeat who this is done for,
people keep trying to dumb the argumentation down to but what if you
take a complete newbie who knows nothing?. Now that is really boring.
And quite possibly insulting.

You make your use case sound like something horrible happens when
transparency is lost. But GIMP insists that you save the project data
to XCF so that at any time later you could redo exporting the right
way or whatever it is that you wish to adjust. That's the point of
saving in GIMP, see?

Let me reinstate that: nothing is ever lost until you wish so.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Rob Antonishen wrote:

 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.

The main problem I see with the suggested use case is here:
Transparancy lost. This is something I already encountered once, so
it is a realistic use case.

Excuse me, Anoko, but there's no way I'm going to believe that a
mistake that is only ever done once is going to completely ruin
everything. Especially since GIMP asks to save project data.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

[..]
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. 
Then, yes, there's another lot of people for who the export is relevant. But 
both sides exist, I think this discussion is enough prove of that.

-- 
Anoko (via gimpusers.com)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Anoko wrote:

 Its wrong because users don't think that way?

What users? :)

The are no users in general. There are all sorts of workflows and
uses for applications. There are all kinds of users too.

The kind of users we are targeting, mostly understand and accept the
distinction between saving and exporting.

The usability team spent quite a while writing all the reasoning down
at gui.gimp.org. I don't really understand why we need yet another
long thread to go through all these things yet again.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On 08/07/2012 04:59 PM, Anoko wrote:

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Anoko wrote:

The explanation page says In other words, GIMP used to assume
that you don't mind accidental loss of unrecoverable project data and
bothered you with confirmation dialogs. It was a convoluted logic,
but people got used to it.

I do not see why this is solved.

Yes, you don't see it :)

I understand that you are bored of the discussion, but by suggesting that it is
my problem alone of seeing it wrong, I think that's a bit insulting and really
unnecessary. I was at least trying to be constructive. I suspect though that
you have misunderstood my use case.

User: lets say he wants so save image with transparance as jpg, clicks save
Gimp: you have to use export
User: Export to jpg
Gimp: ok! (no message that transparance got lost)
User: click exit
Gimp: Sure? not saved!
User: uh, I just exported it, oh yeah right exporting is not saving. But it's
exported, so my changes are safe. Agree!
Transparancy lost. This is something I already encountered once, so it is a realistic use
case (whether it is a probable is something else, but whether the previous
problem was much larger is to be seen as well).

Since in the old workflow, everyone who used to use save for exporting to png/jpg etc., will
with some annoyance now use export, but no longer get flatten layers? messages, and he/she has to remember
that indeed unsaved changes are unrelated to exporting.

Since such people will always get a you have unsaved changes message when
exitting the GIMP, this message becomes useless for this workflow. Thus, the only way to
use GIMP without major annoyance, is to follow the forced xcf route.

Hi Anoko,

I am just another user like you. I also don't like the new save/export
model.

I wish that a mechanism could be found that solves these save/export
issues for _both_ types of workflows. However, the answer to that from
the developers seems to have been that it is too hard and causes too
much potential confusion / logic branching in the code, thus making
future coding more difficult. (So instead the users of one workflow
type or the other have to do the work instead of the computer doing the
work.)

However, IMHO the developers have _not_ misunderstood your use case and
are _not_ overlooking the use case you describe.

Instead, IMHO they are not concerned about that use case.

It is all very strange to me. On one hand, they developers were trying
to avoid accidental loss of data by making the change that they made.

However, the use case you describe (which I can see happening to many
people) does not, IMHO, seem to concern the developers because they
_may_ be thinking that only an amateur would make that mistake and
thus that is not of concern for Gimp because Gimp is really not an
appropriate tool for amateurs and amateurs are not in the target user
group that the developers are making Gimp for.

So, on one hand, the developers make a change to prevent users from
losing data as a result of their own lack of knowledge or bad
procedures. On the other hand, the developers seem to ignore a
situation (that you have described) which has the same result.

Either Gimp is for advanced users who won't have these problems (and
don't need to be protected from themselves) or it is for a broader group
of users that do need to have some protection from themselves. Pick one.

IMHO, the loss of data situation that the developers were trying to
prevent with this change was not serious problem for the Gimp target
user group (advanced users). I doubt those advanced users were having a
problem before this change. I suspect that the people who were having
the problem is the very group that are still going to have a problem in
the use case you described.

When all the arguments about this got loud, I expressed my opinion
that protecting users from their own ignorance and bad procedures just
enabled users to be ignorant and use bad procedures. My opinion was/is
that learning is (along with many other factors) a result of making
errors, paying the price and thus learning.

We evolve by learning. We learn as the result of experiences. Take
away some of the bad experiences and you reduce the opportunities for
learning.

The developers jumped on me like I had five horns growing out of my
head. I got emails that called me bad names and suggested that I was a
terrible person because I would allow somebody to suffer just so that
they would learn something. (In response, I say that a person will
suffer a whole lifetime if they don't learn some hard lessons -- the
faster they do that learning, the sooner their life will get easier.)

In the end, however, I wish that a mechanism could be found that solves
these save/export issues for _both_ types of workflows.

99% of my use is open TIFF, edit TIFF, save TIFF, close TIFF. 99% of
the time, I have absolutely no need for retaining any data that

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior


On 08/07/2012 05:52 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
snip

The usability team spent quite a while writing all the reasoning down
at gui.gimp.org. I don't really understand why we need yet another
long thread to go through all these things yet again.

Alexandre Prokoudine


Alexandre,

IMHO the answers to your (probably rhetorical) statement (which I take 
as more of a question) are fairly obvious...


Either the writing process was not complete and/or the needs and 
preferences of some users/workflows were either not considered, were 
considered and ignored as unimportant, or viewed as outside the target 
group of users.


As many husbands have taken decades to learn (or else they are no longer 
married), sometimes writing all the reasoning down won't make the wife 
feel better.  Right now, the developers are responding to an emotional 
situation by saying something like but we did what was logical, we even 
wrote it down first.  In the recorded history of human relations, I 
doubt that response has worked on a regular, consistent basis.


Users become very attached to the software they use.  They start to 
think of it as theirs.  They have made a very real investment in time, 
energy, learning, etc. to use the software.  Users also develop a brand 
attachment that is deeper than most product makers comprehend (users of 
products will often stick by a product that even they themselves 
complain about as being inferior -- sort of a Stockholm Syndrome in a 
different kind of way).


Software must evolve over time.  If the users need the features in the 
new software versions, then the users must evolve with it.  (Otherwise, 
the users have to set up Vmware and run old software on old operating 
systems -- I am still running one such program that I obtained in 1984 
because I still have not been able to find anything better for the very 
specialized task I use it for.)


When software evolves in a direction different from that user/workflow, 
the user experiences *very personal* feelings of *loss*.


The strong feelings expressed in all these yet another long threads 
are users expressing their feelings of _loss_.


And it is not just their _feelings_.  Some of them will decide that they 
will have to migrate to other software which does include them it its 
target user group.  That migration comes at a very real cost of time, 
effort, learning, and perhaps money.


Every product, probably especially including software, must over time 
re-evaluate who its target user group is.  In doing so, if changes are 
made, then some previous _loyal_ users will be excluded.  Those users 
have done nothing wrong -- they just woke up one morning and found 
that they now live outside the walls of the city and there is nothing 
they can do about it.


If the developers have made a mistake, it was possibly overlooking these 
feelings issues and not expecting such a strong reaction.  That is not 
to say that the developers did not have to do what they did.  However, 
they should not have been surprised by the reaction.


*If* I recall correctly, for a short period of time before you 
(Alexandre) took on your current role of attempting to soften and 
humanize the communication, there was some rather harsh communication 
from the developer side that just poured salt in users' wounds.  Your 
involvement has made things better, though it seems that you are 
(understandably) getting tired.  shoutTHANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN 
DOING!/shout


I just wish the developers would be open to conversation of how both 
types of workflows could be accommodated efficiently (both efficient for 
users and in the code).  Closing off that possibility of conversation is 
perhaps what hurts most of all.  I wish I had enough knowledge to 
contribute ideas of how to accomplish this while meeting the needs of all.


Jay
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] Definition of project data .... vs image data vs workspace data


On 08/07/2012 05:32 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Rob Antonishen wrote:


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.


The main problem I see with the suggested use case is here:
Transparancy lost. This is something I already encountered once, so
it is a realistic use case.

Excuse me, Anoko, but there's no way I'm going to believe that a
mistake that is only ever done once is going to completely ruin
everything. Especially since GIMP asks to save project data.

Alexandre Prokoudine



Splitting off to a different thread.

I have seen the term project data used in regard to XCF file format, 
as Alexandre has above.


However, to me, the XCF does not _currently_ really save what I consider 
to be the _project_ data.


Gimp does not save, to my knowledge (please excuse any errors), the 
following (and more, I am sure):


- window positions or sizes
- visible dialogs
- viewing magnification magnification
- active tool
- most recently applied filter
- most recently used settings in dialogs (such as Image Size settings
 such as inch vs mm etc.)
etc., etc.

Maybe these things are on the horizon, which would be great.

Still, when I think of a project, I usually think of multiple images 
open at the same time, etc.


I don't know that project is a good word in this situation.  I would 
prefer workspace.  But even if it is to be project it is more than 
just one image.


What I hope to see in the years to come is:

- Saving image includes saving the items listed above (and others) for 
a single image.


- Saving workspace (or project) saves all image stuff mentioned 
above, for multiple images and whatever else is going on in Gimp at that 
moment.  Opening workspace [name] would open multiple images and 
everything would look exactly like it did when the workspace was saved.


(Or maybe project and workspace are completely different things??)

Jay
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

2012-08-07 Thread Rob Antonishen

 [..]
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
me otherwise.

- 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.

-Rob A
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Jay Smith wrote:

As many husbands have taken decades to learn (or else they are no longer
married), sometimes writing all the reasoning down won't make the wife
feel better. Right now, the developers are responding to an emotional
situation by saying something like but we did what was logical, we even
wrote it down first. In the recorded history of human relations, I doubt
that response has worked on a regular, consistent basis.

Jay,

Let's not try fooling each other. The only thing the former community
is really going to accept is Sorry, we screwed up, and you were right
all the time. We are going to revert, sorry again.

The former community will probably also accept OK, we are going to
make this optional, except no two people so far agreed on how exactly
this should be done, and noone so far seems to have understood how
badly it would affect usability and code maintenance.

People just want the old stuff back at any cost. Not gonna happen.

Users become very attached to the software they use.

You make it sound like there are generations of people who passed the
habit of Ctrl+S for saving to PNG from father to son, whereas personal
digital image editing is barely 30 years old :)

When software evolves in a direction different from that user/workflow, the
user experiences *very personal* feelings of *loss*.

The strong feelings expressed in all these yet another long threads are
users expressing their feelings of _loss_.

And it is not just their _feelings_. Some of them will decide that they
will have to migrate to other software which does include them it its
target user group. That migration comes at a very real cost of time,
effort, learning, and perhaps money.

Excuse me, but what is wrong with that picture? Human civilization
always needs time to adapt to new things. It was ever so.

Would you tell Wright brothers that they shouldn't have had come up
with their Flyer, because, ye gods, a hundred years later people still
got to spend some time to learn how to get the bloody thing take off?
:)

If the developers have made a mistake, it was possibly overlooking these
feelings issues and not expecting such a strong reaction. That is not to
say that the developers did not have to do what they did. However, they
should not have been surprised by the reaction.

We knew it was going to be crying and moaning all over the place. We
had early warnings of that, too. And actually we made few adjustments
to the new model to clarify things, e.g.

http://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?h=gimp-2-8id=f4ce57aa9709e492666c16259e81625a3e4a7796

http://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?h=gimp-2-8id=c3e904fab1b29224b7dd55bb5b4af49f34c3b335

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

2012-08-07 Thread Ken Warner


Alexandre,

Just because you write something down doesn't make it right.

Mein Kampf comes to mind.



On 8/7/2012 2:52 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Anoko wrote:


Its wrong because users don't think that way?


What users? :)

The are no users in general. There are all sorts of workflows and
uses for applications. There are all kinds of users too.

The kind of users we are targeting, mostly understand and accept the
distinction between saving and exporting.

The usability team spent quite a while writing all the reasoning down
at gui.gimp.org. I don't really understand why we need yet another
long thread to go through all these things yet again.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list


___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] Definition of project data .... vs image data vs workspace data

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Jay Smith wrote:

 However, to me, the XCF does not _currently_ really save what I consider to
 be the _project_ data.

 Gimp does not save, to my knowledge (please excuse any errors), the
 following (and more, I am sure):

 - window positions or sizes
 - visible dialogs
 - viewing magnification magnification
 - active tool
 - most recently applied filter
 - most recently used settings in dialogs (such as Image Size settings
  such as inch vs mm etc.)
 etc., etc.

OK, fair point. I can see how a project could have several related
images and certain workspace preferences preserved (i.e. restore as I
left it). Maybe Peter would be interested to have a go at this in the
future.

Of all the items listed above only the latter is kinda being addressed
so far. Right now, in Git master, some of the former GIMP filters that
have been ported to GEGL use the skeleton of the experimental GEGL
tool and thus save recent settings automatically. I use it a lot for
applying the unsharp mask filter (but I only scale down and clean-up
stuff with this version, really -- it's not ready for prime time use).

 (Or maybe project and workspace are completely different things??)

To me, they overlap. At least, a little bit.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On 08/07/2012 06:53 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Jay Smith wrote:

Jay,

Let's not try fooling each other. The only thing the former community
is really going to accept is Sorry, we screwed up, and you were right
all the time. We are going to revert, sorry again.

People just want the old stuff back at any cost. Not gonna happen.

Users become very attached to the software they use.

You make it sound like there are generations of people who passed the
habit of Ctrl+S for saving to PNG from father to son, whereas personal
digital image editing is barely 30 years old :)

When software evolves in a direction different from that user/workflow, the
user experiences *very personal* feelings of *loss*.

The strong feelings expressed in all these yet another long threads are
users expressing their feelings of _loss_.

Excuse me, but what is wrong with that picture? Human civilization
always needs time to adapt to new things. It was ever so.

We knew it was going to be crying and moaning all over the place. We
had early warnings of that, too. And actually we made few adjustments
to the new model to clarify things, e.g.

http://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?h=gimp-2-8id=f4ce57aa9709e492666c16259e81625a3e4a7796

http://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?h=gimp-2-8id=c3e904fab1b29224b7dd55bb5b4af49f34c3b335

Alexandre Prokoudine

Alexandre,

You made a very specific statement:

I don't really understand why we need yet another
long thread to go through all these things yet again.

I attempted to explain my opinion of the situation, specifically in
regard to what you claimed you did not understand.

In return, I got back a dismissive reply that IMHO completely ignored
the intent of what I was trying to say. Your response has seriously
tested my respect for you -- I tried very hard to show my respect for you.

I was not trying to say that users _should or should not_ do/think/feel
this or that for whatever reason.

I was giving my opinion of the dynamics behind **WHY** they DO
think/feel this or that.

Either you read my words too quickly without taking time to understand
what I was getting at or you completely misunderstood what I was saying.
Your response does not jive with the intent of what I was writing.

In fact, you just got out a bigger hammer to try and pound the problem
down.

From this I am starting to get the idea that you don't actually _want_
to understand the problem; you just want the problem to go away. If
that is the case, and as long as that is the case, the problem will not
go away.

The users are writing from their feelings. Until you respond to those
feelings, you will get nowhere.

In summary, IF nearly every one of the developers responses included
some version of the following statement, nearly half of your long
threads would vanish and life would be good:

We understand _ presents a difficult situation for some
users and we regret the impact that this has had on you.
Unfortunately, we had to make difficult choices in the subject
of ___ and the result is that the program will no longer
fit the workflow of some users. We feel that the changes we
have made will be to the benefit of the majority of the user
community and we are dedicated to continuing the improvement
of Gimp for the target user community. We appreciate your
loyalty to Gimp and hope that you will find a way to adjust
your workflows so that Gimp's new behavior will work well
for you. Thank you for expressing your concern. Please know

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Jay Smith wrote:

 In return, I got back a dismissive reply

You didn't :)

 that IMHO completely ignored the
 intent of what I was trying to say.

If I skip some bits, it doesn't mean that I don't read them or
disagree. It also can mean that I agree and merely reply to the bits
that I disagree or want to clarify (otherwise goddamn long threads get
even longer :)). Which is exactly the case here.

 In summary, IF nearly every one of the developers responses included some
 version of the following statement, nearly half of your long threads would
 vanish and life would be good:


  We understand _ presents a difficult situation for some
   users and we regret the impact that this has had on you.
   Unfortunately, we had to make difficult choices in the subject
   of ___ and the result is that the program will no longer
   fit the workflow of some users.  We feel that the changes we
   have made will be to the benefit of the majority of the user
   community and we are dedicated to continuing the improvement
   of Gimp for the target user community.  We appreciate your
   loyalty to Gimp and hope that you will find a way to adjust
   your workflows so that Gimp's new behavior will work well
   for you.  Thank you for expressing your concern.  Please know
   that we have heard you, even if the changes we have had to make
   are not favorable for you, and that we will continue to work
   on improving the program to be the best that it can be for
   the target user community.

I can use that in the new FAQ with your permission. How about that?

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Ken Warner wrote:
 So you acknowledge that your developer's design decisions might be wrong?

Ken,

This is not a perfect world where perfect people make perfect decisions.

I really wish you stopped making monsters out of us.

Everyone can be wrong. We cannot possibly be an exclusion.

But we have a strong opinion on the matter and we stand by it.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior