[Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing

[Johannes <anonforum gmx org>]

Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some 
weeks now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.

Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and 
contra "Making the new open/save/export behavior of GIMP 2.8 optional" 
by giving argument abstracts and links to good arguments, i.e. giving 
references!

If there is a good argument, you don't have to fully repeat it, just 
give a short link and a short abstract (especially if the argument is 
too bloated or its core is hard to recognize).



This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong):

### CONSENSUS:

There is no "the user". There are all kinds of folks with different 
habits, workflows.

On the one hand, there are "heavy-weight workflows". The main 
characteristic of this kind of workflow is the requirement of closing 
and re-opening one "high quality" working copy, and tasks like 
saving/exporting frequently as both JPEG and XCF, exporting JPEGs for 
comparisons, possibility to go back and alter steps throughout the whole 
workflow. The most important aspects of this kind of workflow is 
preserving image quality and preserving flexibility."

On the other hand, there are "lightweight workflows". The main 
characteristic of this kind of workflow is that there is no need for 
closing and re-opening the image. The most important aspect of this kind 
of workflow is efficiency.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00014.html



The following are the arguments I found so far. Everybody is invited to 
replace weak arguments by stronger ones or to add missing arguments 
--just don't forget to give references.

## PRO:

* Abstract: "The previous file open/save/export behavior met the needs 
of all users."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-June/msg00228.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00056.html

* Abstract: "If the Save/Export separation would be the default setting 
and could be disabled, then every GIMP user could be happy. The 
"heavy-weight workflow" users just leave the default setting enabled, 
and the "lightweight workflow" users disable it at their own risk."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00008.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00047.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00056.html

* Abstract: "There is no convincing argument so far to _not_ make this 
separation optional. It not even seems complicated to implement a switch 
for this behavior on the technical level."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00025.html

* Abstract: "A GIMP fork because of such a little change that can be 
made optional makes no sense."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00064.html


## CONTRA:

* Abstract: "No."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00009.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00057.html

* Abstract: "Users who don't like the new open/save/export behavior can 
use another software than GIMP."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00014.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00045.html

* Abstract: "Open-source software is a meritocracy, not a democracy. 
Users who do not implement, should not complain. Stating and explaining 
opinions is no merit."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00063.html

* Abstract: "The PRO arguments only reflect the opinion of a few. 
Therefore this is not important."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00011.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00063.html

* Abstract: "Everything convincing has been said elsewhere."
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00011.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00012.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00026.html

* Abstract: "not the often touted ‘prosumer photo jpeg–to–jpeg’ 
workflow, because for complying with the GIMP product vision there is no 
need for optimising this"
http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification



Of course, the mere count of links doesn't say anything. Therefore the 
argument abstracts should be preferred.

If it appears too circumstantial even to give a link to a good argument, 
this is a direct contradiction to the "everything convincing has been 
said elsewhere" argument.

A good starting point for finding arguments is the GIMP mailing list 
archive ("haystack"):
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/

- or Google ("needle finder") --try it with the
"site:mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/" or
"site:mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/" options.


--
Johannes