Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP-2.8, SAVE and SAVE AS : why complicate things so that everything could be simpler ?

[Daniel Hauck <daniel yacg com>]

Someone will have to write a patch or eventually a fork to make this 
happen.  The argument is dead.

The implementation and behaviors are somewhat inconsistent.  You can 
"open" any format you want, you just can "save" any format you want.  It 
has to be "export."  Why not have the only way to get flat image files 
into GiMP "import"?  Then it would be consistent.  "Sorry, you can only 
open XCF files.  You must use import."

People expect consistency and are comfortable with it.  If you can open 
it, you should be able to save it.  If you can import it, you should be 
able to export it.

And the "Save As" dialog showing files which shows other file format and 
all that.  The argument was made about being able to see filenames.  
Really?  That just doesn't make sense.  If you are saving a file under 
"Save as" then you already know what you want to save it as and if you 
don't, open a file browser to figure it out.  This is am image 
manipulation program, not a file browser. Let the UI indicate to the 
user what he can do instead of misleading the user as this behavior 
does.  At the very least, set the default filter to "All GiMP file" 
rather than "All Images." People can still do the other thing, but if 
the UI is to convey what a user can do effectively, it should send a 
consistent message.  "Intuitive" means a user can infer or guess what 
they can do without always consulting a manual or learning the hard way.

I just don't get why it can't be an optional behavior rather than 
"you've got no choice in the matter."  After all, the one-window versus 
multiple windows is an option.  Lots of people welcomed the change... I 
did too until I realized I liked multiple windows and turned that option 
back off.  Why does it have to be locked in like that?

My wife uses Photoshop professionally.  She doesn't get the reason for 
this behavior either.  The following describes Photoshop's behavior.

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7783a.html

This reminds me of GNOME Shell and Unity... where someone pushed a new 
"great idea" as an exclusive thing, not as an option and it upset a 
larger community.  GNOME/RedHat essentially took the same stance as 
being taken with GiMP today.  "The decision is made." Now there are 
other projects helping to repair the damage and Fedora is now scrambling 
to support MATE in order to repair the damage and bad press.  The 
majority of people asking "If GNOME3/GNOME Shell is the answer, what was 
the question?"

If some people want a new behavior, why not "test it first" by making it 
an option to let people see if they can get comfortable with it?  
Instead we got "by the way, in addition to all the features and 
improvements you wanted, we also took off the steering wheel and 
replaced it with some levers... you are now driving a bulldozer."

And yes, there will ALWAYS be people who won't be satisfied. There will 
always be people who cheer for change too.  Let's have a poll?

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZH3LH9R

That took me about a minute to set up.  It's a simple question: Which do 
you prefer?


On 08/13/2012 05:27 AM, maderios wrote:
> Hi
> This thread supplements  " Gimp-2.8_Save and save as bad behavior " 
> discussion
> As I explained, I want to keep choice with save and save as, that's 
> why I left gimp-2.8 and  went back in Gimp-2.6
>
> Comparison Gimp-2.8  Krita & Photoshop is interesting.
>
> http://userbase.kde.org/Krita/Manual/ImportExport
>
> http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/photoshop/save/
>
> Regards
> Maderios (Gimp lover)