peter (yahvuu) wrote:
> peter sikking schrieb:
>> foo.png was never inside GIMP. it was an xcf that had foo.png as a
>> starting point. we try to reflect this in every way. one way that
>> came
>> up during LGM discussions was that the layer should be always
>> (even for "background") be named after the image that was imported as
>> its starting point. I think we should do that.
>
> that's a really good idea! Regarding export/import, GIMP's document
> model
> is much like Inkscape's, with the difference that for the latter, it
> is
> immediately understandable why...
>
> Still, i very much hate to send users into one-way streets, and for
> the
> open=import case, this is not planned.
right, that is an obvious optimisation.
> I wonder if we can't somehow
> ease the case where export=save? Perhaps via a shortcut like
> 'export to PNG & close document & discard data'?
>
> When export is just a branch in the workflow and editing continues
> on the
> GIMP document in RAM, it might be beneficial to offer one-click Save
> into a backup-directory without having to choose a filename.
> Perhaps 'export to PNG & save backup'?
it is absolutely a design goal that after we have helped users
so much to open(/import) foo.png, make some edits and do a
'Export to foo.png' in one click, without dialogs, users must be
fully aware that they are throwing away the GIMP document
(LGM discussion result: call it a composition) that they used
to reach their goal.
we cannot have accident with GIMP compositions not being saved
because we offered a too-clever-by-half shortcut.
and to show again our priorities: at LGM Hylke Bons (works
on visual design all day long) said: "of course all my work
is in project-type files." enough said.
--ps
founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
