El 31/08/12 16:12, Simon Budig escribió:
Well, it is not just about compatibility, it is also about trust of
our userbase.
My question is:
a) Does the existing userbase actually care about it?
b) Wouldn't doing a relevant change like that, but communicating it
properly wouldn't be enough to avoid problems and keep users happy? (if
such thing is possible :p)
GIMP has many users, but if you look for artists or designers using it
for complex artwork the list is rather short, and probably that kind of
artists will prefer linear blending because it does look better (just
place a blurred gray circle on a magenta background in gamma and linear
spaces and ask people which looks better, I bet no one will choose gamma).
I think it's about communication. If GIMP ditches gamma blending, but
every time you open an old file you get a notice saying that layer modes
appearance might change, and it is documented clearly that this change
was made for the better, I doubt anyone will feel betrayed by developers.
And if there's a strategy to "bake" the old look into a layered or
flattened image, then nobody will complain.
I'm asking some friends about this, and everyone seems to be fine with
an importer that warns about the appearance chance and offers the
alternative of baking the appearance losing some editability.
I'm not saying that asking a few friends is enough, but I'd really like
to know how other users feel about this.
I think it is important that we do not give the impression that we mess
around with the users data at the whim of the developers. Some people
probably have invested lots of time in complex artwork where it is not
exactly clear what to do to restore the original look, especially if you
don't know where to steer towards.
I think it's about communication. If GIMP ditches gamma blending, but
every time you open an old file you get a notice saying that layer modes
appearance might change, and if it is documented stating clearly that
this change was made for the better, I doubt anyone will feel betrayed
by developers.
It's like saying: "this is the right way to do it. Our old core didn't
let us do it this way, but now we can. Now composites will look as they
should, but perhaps that means that what you created with an old version
will now look a little different".
And if there's a strategy to "bake" the old look into a layered or
flattened image, then nobody will complain.
I'm asking some friends about this, and everyone seems to be fine with
an importer that warns about the appearance chance and offers the
alternative of baking the appearance losing some editability.
I'm not saying that asking a few friends is enough. I'd really like to
know how other users feel about this.
Anyway, I wouldn't be so worried about users feeling betrayed. Users do
that.
A lot of them felt the save/export separation as a betrayal and even
some of them claim that they won't be using GIMP anymore because of
that. Some people even complains about the bulky look of the new
sliders. Some people even complains about the no-image window introduced
in 2.6 saying the floating toolbox with a menu was better!
Anyway, it probably is not that bad. We already discussed the
possibility of legacy layer modes which would retain the old look but
are basically unavailable or hidden in the layers dialog.
At the same time new layer modes with the old names can be introduced.
I wonder what's the real benefit of doing such thing. Ok, old files will
be still functional and users will be able to work with them. But at the
same time it introduces complexity and odd behavior of the application.
For instance, a user may ask why the overlay mode works in that way in
his old files but not with the new files. If that happens, the user will
go to the forums, lists or IRC and ask. Somebody will have to answer why.
Somebody will have to answer why untagged 8bpc images and, say AdobeRGB
8bpc images look different when blended.
It will also mean that some users will create new files from scratch and
then say "I want to use the legacy-normal mode, why can't I do that?".
Keeping legacy visible will clutter the UI. Hiding it will mean more
people asking where is it.
It sounds either like a mess or like a lot of hard work to make those
situations co-exist, and the benefit is still only for the few guys that
need to open an overly complicated composition made with an old GIMP to
modify it, keeping the old look.
I'd prefer that all that effort is put on making GIMP a more powerful
application and I bet that keeping legacy is a huge PITA for developers
and it's far more interesting and fun to add new features and
streamlining the application.
BTW, all this legacy stuff seems to go against the product vision.
Making a tool for a specific audience means some compromises, and this
is certainly a compromise that "high-end image manipulation" audience
wouldn't mind.
Gez
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
