Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Olivier wrote: > 2012/8/6 Anoko : >> I just want to add I'm also not happy with the new export vs save feature. I >> use GIMP for all my edit tasks; from complex foto editting to really simple >> screenshot taking and trimming it slightly. I used to love it for both, >> especially since it GIMP can do both small and complex tasks very easy. In >> 98% of the edits, I'm not using layers. I already almost always save >> everything in formats that do not lose information, often png, often for >> e.g. mailing. I don't want a xcf for screen shots or photographs... >> >> 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. Old dog and new tricks? ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] gimp definition
On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Kevin Cozens wrote: After you have talked with Linus, let us know what he said. :-) If I recall correctly he claimed that his projects are named after himself due to his 'egocentricness'. Hence 'Linux' and 'git' =p This is certainly going on my fortune collection. ;) ___ 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
>2012/8/6 Anoko : >> 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
On 07.08.12 at 11:23, Anoko wrote: 2012/8/6 Anoko : 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
* Anoko [08-07-12 05:25]: > >2012/8/6 Anoko : > > >> 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
> 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
> 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
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 Anoko: 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?
>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?
>>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
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Anoko 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 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
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Anoko wrote: > However, I do not understand why no one discusses a compromise > that does neither enforce nor burden exporting. The secondary workflow _is_ the compromise. > 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?? Implementing behavior options _isn't_ a compromise, it's just another way of crippling user experience. > 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 :) > 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. Absolutely not. No one loses anything until confirming that by closing the project without saving as XCF. 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
>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
> 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! 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. -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 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 retai
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On 08/07/2012 05:52 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: 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. THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING! 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
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Jay Smith wrote: > 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. Jay, Since you are talking about IMHOs, I consider myself an advanced user. In a number of cases I already benefitted from the save/export separation, because it forced me to save XCF which I thought I probably didn't need and then ended up needing it to avoid redoing some layer compositions from scratch. I also have compositions that I will probably never recover in a multilayered version, because I thought I knew better, and I was wrong. > The developers jumped on me like I had five horns growing out of my head. Nobody really jumps on people round here. Besides, folks with five horns growing out of their heads have very few chances to be human, have they not? :) > In any case, it has been said very clearly many times that this change to > Gimp is permanent and that no amount of complaining and no amount of other > use cases or other logic will change anything. I understand what the > developers mean by saying that, but it makes it sound like they will not > ever consider thinking about a mechanism that satisfies both groups. > Blocking out the possibility of thinking about hard problems is sad. Jay, we are thinking about hard problems all the time. Whether you accept the results is an entirely different question. 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
> [..] >>>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-2-8&id=f4ce57aa9709e492666c16259e81625a3e4a7796 http://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?h=gimp-2-8&id=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
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 Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Ken Warner wrote: > Alexandre, > > Just because you write something down doesn't make it right. > > Mein Kampf comes to mind. Ken, Your unwillingness to try understanding the text you are commenting on is amusing, but doesn not really encourage a constructive discussion. We never said we are right and everybody else is wrong. We never said things are right because we write them down. You just made it up, and if you were a fair person, you'd apologize, but I cannot possibly insist on that. What we did say is that we make decisions that seem right to us, and we are responsible for making these decisions. Surely you are intelligent enough to see the difference. 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: 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-2-8&id=f4ce57aa9709e492666c16259e81625a3e4a7796 http://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?h=gimp-2-8&id=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
Re: [Gimp-user] Definition of "project data" .... vs "image data" vs "workspace data"
On 08/07/2012 07:11 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: 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 Alexandre, Thank you for your very constructive and helpful reply. See, I _feel_ heard. And I am a happy camper. Clarification: I made the statement "Gimp does not save". I should have said "Gimp does not save in the _image_ file when saving an image". [The program 'workspace' does remember things like what dialogs were open when the program was closed.] 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
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
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Ken Warner wrote: > Your opinions need moderation and you need to be more inclusive rather than > exclusive. This is our mailing list. It's not up to you to decide what needs moderation here. > The preferences of the developers should always be secondary to the > preferences of the user community No, and there's a 1000 page long argument for that "no" called "Atlas shrugged". Besides you are (dis)missing the whole point of having a usability architect in the project. This is not about our preferences vs. user community's preferences. We make decisions based on analysis of the needs by the target user group. For that we study how they work, what they really need (which is not always what they say they need) etc., write functional specs and them implement them (time permitting). So actually while we have the final saying, we happen to work for the benefit of the target user group after all. Would you credit it? :) Yes, you are free to question our approach. If you think that doing whatever the community says is going to make an excellent product, I personally encourage you to prove that by creating a more successful rival image editor from scratch. But so far telling people to bow down to wishes of non-contributors is the worst encouragement ever. > and where possible, compromise and optionality should be the operative > methodology. GIMP is already packed with radio buttons and checkboxes. Fancy you not having noticed that :) > You are being stubborn. That's unproductive. If being decisive is called stubborn these days, then I _love_ being stubborn. As for "unproductive", let's see you deliver a rival product first. That's the only way of proving that your approach is more viable. Everything else is just talking. 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 8 Aug 2012 07:24, "Jay Smith" wrote: > > 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." > > You may think that you have said this thousands of times, but I have not seen it. Bits and pieces of it had been said, but until you respond to the FEELINGS people are having, every time, you won't get any change in their behavior. Responding to the people with a repetition of the facts without expressing any empathy for what they are going through will get you nowhere. > > I've got nothing more to contribute to this subject. Please don't feel the need to reply, especially not if it is like the last reply. > > Jay Don't think that's going to help, everyone thinks they're representative of "the majority of the community". I'm not sure how being a user of open source software brings with it such a sense of entitlement. Gimp works like the kernel, like gnome, like KDE. Summary - the developers decide. Open source is very rarely a democracy like most of the detractors seem to think. None of the developers gain anything if you use their software, nor do they lose anything if you don't. ___ 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 4:47 AM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: > None of the developers gain anything if you use their software, nor do they > lose anything if you don't. This is not entirely correct. We gain recognition from publicity when someone does great work available in public. Recognition of achievements is generally good for self-esteem. Unfortunately there is very little publicly available awesome work done with GIMP. So anyone trying to order the team around better impresses us first :) There seems to be a widely adopted strange notion that we work for the good of the public and hence are subservient to it. I won't speak for the rest of the team, but personally I think it's bogus. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list