On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: > brix@xxxxxxxx (2002-12-18 at 1711.13 +0100): > > I agree with Alan and Raphaël (see the bug report) when it comes to the > > "What/How" statement. I can see how the term "alpha" may be unclear to > > new users, but I think it would be a pity to replace it all together, as > > this might cause users who are accustomed with the term to be confused. > > Another How: My image is RGB, how do I make it RGBA? :] > > Side effect, will be RGBA be named RGBT everywhere (in user visible > interface)? Is not a bit silly to start renaming basic concepts of a > field with something else (aka causing differences with reference docs > that existed long time ago)? Just wondering. I agree - that it would be better to consistently use the more modern, technical term 'Alpha' - and provide some simple cues to new users that 'Alpha' and 'Transparency' are related. Technically, the meaning of 'Alpha' is completely the opposite of 'Transparency'. An Alpha of 1.0 (Lots of alpha) means 'opaque' and an Alpha of 0.0 (no alpha at all) means totally transparent. Hence, "Lots of Transparency" and "Lots of Alpha" have opposite meanings and the terms are NOT completely interchangeable. Perhaps in the couple of places in the higher levels of the GIMP menu where you can access alpha, it would be better to say 'Alpha (Transparency)' - so that newbies would come to understand that the terms are related. Having established that relationship in their minds, you can drop the '(Transparency)' part in deeper menus and dialogs. You could also add a 'Tip of The Day' that explains this. As an alternative, you could talk about 'Opacity' as a synonym for Alpha - but there are definitely contexts where that would be confusing too. ---- Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: sjbaker@xxxxxxxx http://www.link.com Home: sjbaker1@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sjbaker.org
