Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp Export Properties Not Preserved

[Jason Simanek <jsimanek gmail com>]

Hi,

On 07/18/2013 10:09 AM, Guillermo Espertino (Gez) wrote:
> No need to feel dumb.

Thanks!

> However, I think it's a smart place to put them: Usually you realize the
> default is not suitable for your needs while you're changing the output
> options over and over again (pretty much what happened to you), so being
> able to save a new default from those settings comes quite handy.

Yeah, the placement is fine, but it seems like Preferences contains 
reference to the preferred scaling algorithm. Why wouldn’t it include 
these properties also?

> In my opinion, it's a reasonable compromise.

It's still frustrating that I have to click "Load Defaults" each time 
for every separate file I have open. Would be great if whatever I set as 
the "default" is just used as ... the default. As it is, it's not really 
a "default", but a "preset" or "profile". And in that case, it would be 
nice to be able to save multiple profiles.

One more thing that slows me down: The keyboard accessibility on these 
dialogs is not efficient. Why isn't the "OK" or "confirm" button set to 
be activated by hitting the Enter/Return button? And the tab-index-order 
can be annoyingly misguided at times. For example, the Scale dialog 
includes the proportion lock/unlock toggle in between the width and 
height values. For me it would make more sense for those to be AFTER all 
of the dimensional values in the tab order.

What's frustrating about these details is that they make using Gimp rely 
on constantly switching between the keyboard input and the mouse input.

Would it be helpful to go through these various dialogs and attempt to 
improve tab-index for them? Are any of the devs discussing this part of 
the UI?

> Batch processing and export aren't kind the things I'd do with GIMP
> (basically because it lacks the tools for that at the moment, I'd use
> Phatch or even darktable for things like that) so, until GIMP has a
> user-friendly macro system, I don't think batch exporting is essential.

Right, but the workflow I am describing (it's a common one in my 
experience) involves doing similar but unique work on a series of image 
files. This kind of work cannot be completely batch scripted.

> I mean, GIMP seems to be more oriented to complex manipulations rather
> than taking several images and apply repetitive tasks to them, and I
> don't think it's wise to work on several complex manipulations
> simultaneously without saving, to make "save/export all" necessary :-)

Right. The Gimp devs seem to be describing an intended workflow. It 
assumes extended work on solitary, complex xcf files that are repeatedly 
exported.

That sounds to me like illustration/complex photo manipulation and 
possibly web design – though I've completely switched to Inkscape for 
web design the last few years.

There's nothing wrong with this concept of primary workflow.

But what I am describing is also what I would guess is a big part of 
Gimp's usefulness for many people.

Thanks for the feedback and discussion!

Jason Simanek