Re: [Gimp-developer] proposed solution for: protection from protection from data loss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looking from outside, i've gotten the impression that the GIMP project has been beaten by similar issues before. I feel like too many GUI changes got discussed to death, because no one managed to come up with solutions which fit all user groups (let alone the coding perspective). At times, the project gets partially paralyzed by the lack of usability input. Sven's unanswered calls for specs are strewn throughout the archives. [...] Is it imaginable to have multiple GUIs for the GIMP? peter Hi Peter First of all, thanks for showing enthusiasm in hepling GIMP UI wise. It seems however that you have not noticed the UI progress that has been put into GIMP through the work of mailny Peter Sikking. In fact, several UI related specifications has been written by Peter Sikking and implemented by the core developers. I suggest you check out the UI wiki [1] to get a view of the current GIMP UI state, and then coordinate with the existing UI people. Regarding multiple UIs, the big problem with that is that it multiplies the required efforts in several areas: coding, documentation, knowledge when giving help, and so on. Best regards, Martin Nordholts ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] proposed solution for: protection from protection from data loss
Hi, On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 23:56 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quite paradoxically, splitting UI development into GIMP-Pro and GIMP-Standard could be beneficial for the GIMP as a project. I don't think so. Such a split would make coding a lot more difficult and less fun. Since our product vision clearly targets the pro user, I don't see why we should go through the hassle of adding an extra user interface for the people who actually don't need a professional image editor. This is not saying that such a split is desirable or unavoidable, the point is that it may speed up UI development by not hunting for the one unified GUI anymore. In case of the Export/Save logic such a solution may even be impossible due to problem roots outside the GIMP. I see the current state of Export/Save as the result of a not-untangled development process. The Pro users, in utter need of Export workflow automation features, get thwarted by useless dialogs (from their perspective), while Standard users are confused and usability measures are shurely subterraneous. No one is happy with that. It is up to the user interaction designers to solve this. But I doubt that the whole user interface needs to be split in order to do that. If there's really a need for a pro mode when it comes to saving (and I very much doubt that), then we can add that. But I would like to see a complete spec first. The corresponding arguments in turn have been ping-ponged for years. Every now and then, someone new comes by and restarts the whole cycle, like myself. Well, we had these discussions because we didn't have a clear product vision until recently. If all this energy could be freed for speccing coding less universal UIs, i guess GIMP would make quick advances towards both an efficient Pro interface and a reasonably conforming Standard UI. You are making the wrong assumption here that the same people that write the specs would also implement them. That is not any longer true and it has shown to be a good thing to split this. So there is absolutely no waste of energy if the user interaction architects and user interface designers talk about the changes that should be done in the next development cycle while the developers are busy implementing what needs to be done for the next release. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] proposed solution for: protection from protection from data loss
Hi, thank you all for taking the time to consider and being patient with me. It seems what's lacking most is the virtue of patience on my side... I understand now that multiple UIs are too expensive. (As a sidenote, the forking idea doesn't imply to anticipate the UI team's work. More appropriate labels would have been GIMP and GIMP-dirty-and-feature-ladden). The issue of Export/Save/data-loss-protection is in my regard more of a bug which should be fixed as soon as possible than part of UI redesign. As with any fix this might be superseded by a more general solution later on. Now it's not clear to me where to draw the line between useful discussion of potential fixes and uselessly anticipating the UI redesign. Probably by the severity of changes, seen a from user perspective. Any guidance? peter -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] proposed solution for: protection from protection from data loss
Hi, On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 18:21 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The issue of Export/Save/data-loss-protection is in my regard more of a bug which should be fixed as soon as possible than part of UI redesign. As with any fix this might be superseded by a more general solution later on. It's definitely too late to introduce larger changes in trunk as we are closing in on the GIMP 2.6 release and the tree can be considered tentatively feature-frozen. On the other hand that should give us enough time to come up with a proper solution that can be implemented in the next development cycle. Preferably a complete spec would be ready when 2.6 is released. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] proposed solution for: protection from protection from data loss
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 18:21 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The issue of Export/Save/data-loss-protection is in my regard more of a bug which should be fixed as soon as possible than part of UI redesign. As with any fix this might be superseded by a more general solution later on. This is definately not a bug. If you chose to save to a lossy format like jpeg you opt to eliminate some information from your image, you reduce the data , it a trade-off choice for the compression you get. If you chose png or another non-layered format you won't get your layers saved, etc. If you save to gif you only get a palette of 256 colours. Gimp does all these things correctly. It is aimed at a competant user base, it does not try to be a beginner's guide using different formats. I see no sense in dramatising this as data loss. -- .*. /V\ (/ \) ( ) ^^_^^ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
