On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:11:45PM +0100, Simon Budig wrote: > > I also find the change frustrating for my workflow. I don't mind learning > > the export-instead-of-save command, but it's bad UI to always confirm on > > exit even after a file is saved -- and, for many actual real world user > > workflows, exported *is* saved for every practical purpose. > Well, there also are many actual real world user workflows, where the > export == save has resulted in loss of artwork. In its most trivial form > it is "help, I can no longer edit the text in my jpeg". Right, and that's fine. Put the option in "safe" by default. But right now, you're punishing everyone else. Forcing that workflow choice on everyone doesn't lead to a good user experience. > So unless you come up with a real usability study within our target user > group that shows that they can't handle this change we won't change > this. Can users "handle" the change? Sure. But it's still a worse user experience. I find it... almost shocking that you totally discount the fact that many users have been interested enough to go to the trouble of contacting you and asking for this fix to the regression as evidence that there's a need. Maybe the problem is that your target user group is too small. This is the only viable photo editor on Linux (other software exists, but is either primative, aimed at painting/design, or just raw conversion), and while it's fine that you don't care, because you're under no obligation, it's painful for many actual users of your software. I think the idea of a lightweight fork is a good one. It's the cheap, easy way to demonstrate user demand. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://mattdm.org/> _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
