Re: [Gimp-developer] Save/export, option to go back to old behaviour

[Vincent Cadet <v_cadet yahoo fr>]

Hi Alexandre.

It looks to me you're one of the still most motivated developers to defend and explain the changes the developers made to Gimp 2.8, while Michael Natterer asked the debate to be over.. My deep respect for that. Far from me to throw gas where one needs water but I also feel, like you and other Gimp developers, probably, this discussion is likely to never end.

I'd just like to add my 2¢ again -- I haven't followed the whole discussion nor all the previous threads that relate to the topic, I'm sorry. However I have noticed what I think are a few inconsistencies that I would like to share.

First an example, fictional and stupid. Yet a plausible example.


-- Story 1 --

User: Gimp 2.6. I've saved my image as a JPG file. How do I recover my layers?
Alexandre: It's impossible. You should save in XCF to save your layers along.
User: Ah? Didn't know that. Thanks.

Morality:
- the project lost its layers
- but the user learnt one of the differences between XCF and JPG


-- Story 2 --

User picks an image on the net, does changes. Wants to save, presses Ctrl+S then sends the XCF file to his friend.

Friend: I can't open your file! Can't you simply send me a JPG?
User: Uh...? Sure, I will send you a JPG.

** Tries to find how to save as JPG ***

Variant 1: figures the export menu on his own. (Eventually ranting.)

Variant 2: asks another friend or Gimp forums or Gimp users list. Gets the answer: the Export menu.

User: Exports as JPG, deletes the XCF (useless anyway).

** Later **

User A: Gimp 2.8. I've saved my image as a JPG file. How do I recover my layers?
Alexandre: It's impossible. You should save in XCF to save your layers along.
User: Ah? Didn't know that. Thanks.

Morality:
- one project lost its layers
- but the user learnt one of the differences between XCF and JPG

My deductions:

- Did the new "Save" workflows help? No.
- Does the new "Save" menu workflow help learning the differences between XCF and JPG? No.
- Did Gimp behave as expected? Yes.
- Did the developers put every effort in making Gimp a lossless imaging application? Yes.
- Did the user miss anything? Yes.
- Did the developers miss anything? Yes.

You *will* run into such a life use-case. Will probably take time but you will.

If you want your users to make the difference between destructive and non-destructive file formats, why not just teach them directly so? Changing the UI won't for sure and it's not the prime requirement (the UI serves driving the softare, not teaching purposes). What changing the UI will do is raise questions, not necessarily the most appropriate ones.


Now.

Gimp is said to be a high-end [imaging] application. On the other hand there are people who don't read messages when prompted.

But [the developers of] a high-end application need to make at least a few assumptions. If one of these assumptions is «users have to understand the differences between destructive [JPG] and non-destructive [XCF]» then it is acceptable to me and to other people who have posted here, correct me if I'm wrong, guys.

I'm not saying Photoshop is right or wrong. It's just a different approach, similar to what Gimp 2.6 did. In PS there is «Save» and «Save As...» and also an Export function. Optionally there is a «Save for the web» option. There are hence less «Save» paths.

If you open a layer-less file, make changes but don't add a layer and then save the file, it's saved keeping the initial format, destroying quality even more, as expected. If you make changes and add one or more layers and save, PS suggests to save as a PSD. In both cases the internal structure is PS native. And Photoshop is also a high-end application used by many professionals. But you know that.

As a Gimp user, from what I have read so far, I have the impression you guys (developers) have wanted to conciliate two opposite goals: professional (high-end) imaging application and ready-for-everyone (or *any*one). It's only an impression so I could be wrong.

But there's at least two facts:

1 - there are too many paths to save an image to the user's perspective
2 - the new file > save menu workflow won't help people understand the implications between file formats.

If the reason was «people need to make the difference between destructive and non-destructive» then explaining that difference is always possible without a change in the UI: just *tell* them.

Now if people don't read the prompts...

-- Story 3 --

Dummy: but I wasn't told my cat would die if I put him in the microwave oven!
Whirlpool: make manuals and disclaimers!

** Later **

Dummy: but I wasn't told my cat would die if I put him in the microwave oven!
Whirlpool: didn't you read the manuals and disclaimers?
Dummy: what the...? Ma...?
Whirlpool: make ovens smaller.

(repeat with decreasing in size: chiuahua, guinea pig, mouse...)

** Later **

Cook: how come can't I put a cake in my microwave oven? It's too small and there's no bigger device!
Whirlpool: ...

Morality:
- pet dead. dummy unhappy.
- oven too small. cook unhappy.

Some people must learn the hard way.

Cheers,
Vince C.