Nicolas wrote:
> Peter:
> I think you misunderstood what gg is suggesting:
no I did not. I pointed out some facts that close many, many routes
in this kind of reasoning. closed and done, yes.
let me first make a statement:
_every_ time (yes, that is around a hundred times now) that I
see this kind of user feedback (that it is normal to open a
non-GIMP file, do some edits, then save it to the same format)
I start to think like interaction designers should:
let’s assume he is right. make it ‘just work.’
and every time I run into the same problems, that are giant
usability bloopers.
- to really Save the contents of the file has to match what is
on the screen (save, quit, restart, open file: no change--undo
history excepted). this is not just a good idea, this is the law.
breaking the law: usability blooper.
- this means that either all users would have to have intimate
knowledge of file formats to know why the option to save to them
disappear as edits are done (usability blooper. bit of alpha is
introduced? no more jpeg; any layers? no more png; paths and
layers? tiff is still there???) or one is doing the whole export thing
anyway, so what is the difference (exporting is not safe, remember?)
where are the extra hoops?
- the alternative would be to limit things:
> - it is 100% impossible to arrange it for popular non-GIMP files
> (png/jpeg/tiff) there would be a mode where one could Open one,
> make edits within the limits of the file format, and write the
> bits straight back to a file in the same format.
a multi-personality application: complete usability disaster.
and that is where it stops.
--ps
founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://blog.mmiworks.net: on interaction architecture
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
