Martin Nordholts wrote: > On 08/03/2009 11:19 PM, Jay Smith wrote: >> _I_ would want my "workflow interrupted" if the program was not going to >> do what I had asked it to do. Maybe that's just me. > > Hi Jay > > When you do a File -> Save you want to make sure that your changes is > safely written to disk, right? If you have made no changes, what is then > the point in writing the file again? The user should be able to trust > that GIMP does the right thing and it is unfortunate whenever GIMP > doesn't. But showing a modal dialog whenever the user presses Ctrl+S > twice is to me a really bad idea UI-wise. > > Regards, > Martin > Martin, I completely agree that is good not to have unnecessary dialogues and appreciate the work that Peter and others have done in that direction , but Jay sums up well the points I originally made. I generally know when I have not made at least one change. I do not blindly hit cntl_S every 30s just in case. If I save a saved image I'm probably making a mistake and I want to know about it. Maybe the mouse is not over the window I think or the window I'm looking at is not the current one I have altered . Again I am mistaken and need to know. When we can close down bugzilla because gimp no longer has any bugs , your argument about trusting gimp will have more weight. The minor bug I picked up here proves it is too soon to apply that rationale. This feature (unobtrusive messaging) may well be useful in an auto save situation . This may even be the reason it was done this way. In that case I would suggest adding a means for auto save to have an execution path that does not produce unneeded save operations nor warn about the condition. My contention here only applies to a direct user action. regards. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
