Hi,

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 12:21 +0200, gib_mir_mehl@gmx.net wrote:

from the docs:
The export file dialog shows up if the image type does not match the format capabilites. If the user chooses 'Export', a suitably altered copy of the image is used for saving. If the user chooses 'Ignore', the image is fed directly to the save plugin instead.

Are there examples where choosing 'Ignore' benefits the user, other than being possibly able to save the current drawable alone?

Could make sense to ask on the gimp-user list. But as far as I can see, saving the current drawable is the only reasonable use case. We might want to consider to make this easier by adding "Save Layer" and removing the "Ignore" choice from the Export dialog.

Sven

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 23:46 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: [...]

Could make sense to ask on the gimp-user list. But as far as I can see, saving the current drawable is the only reasonable use case. We might want to consider to make this easier by adding "Save Layer" and removing the "Ignore" choice from the Export dialog.

Maybe also "Save Visible Layers" in that case?

Liam

Hi,

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 17:54 -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:

Could make sense to ask on the gimp-user list. But as far as I can see, saving the current drawable is the only reasonable use case. We might want to consider to make this easier by adding "Save Layer" and removing the "Ignore" choice from the Export dialog.

Maybe also "Save Visible Layers" in that case?

It's not clear what "Save Visible Layers" would do. Would it save the merged image of all visible layers into a single layer or would it ask you to specify a filename for each visible layer? Both options don't seem to be very useful in general. If someone needs this functionality, it can easily be added as a script.

Sven

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 17:54 -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:

Could make sense to ask on the gimp-user list. But as far as I can see, saving the current drawable is the only reasonable use case. We might want to consider to make this easier by adding "Save Layer" and removing the "Ignore" choice from the Export dialog.

Maybe also "Save Visible Layers" in that case?

It's not clear what "Save Visible Layers" would do. Would it save the merged image of all visible layers into a single layer or would it ask you to specify a filename for each visible layer? Both options don't seem to be very useful in general. If someone needs this functionality, it can easily be added as a script.

So basically the whole dialog is useless and could just as well be replaced by assuming that the user clicked "Export..." and maybe a notice in save dialog that any other format except xcf may cause some data loss. That should be simple to implement... Any chance that could be done before 2.6? Its a small change but would make a decent usability difference.

-- Alexia

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 09:14 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

So basically the whole dialog is useless and could just as well be replaced by assuming that the user clicked "Export..." and maybe a notice in save dialog that any other format except xcf may cause some data loss. That should be simple to implement... Any chance that could be done before 2.6? Its a small change but would make a decent usability difference.

I don't quite understand. What dialog is useless?

Sven

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 09:14 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

So basically the whole dialog is useless and could just as well be replaced by assuming that the user clicked "Export..." and maybe a notice in save dialog that any other format except xcf may cause some data loss. That should be simple to implement... Any chance that could be done before 2.6? Its a small change but would make a decent usability difference.

I don't quite understand. What dialog is useless?

"Export file..." dialog you get on saves to formats that are not xcf. It does ask in some formats for conversion options but I doubt many people have ever done anything else there than just clicked export. If someone wants to ie. flatten instead of merge they can do that beforehand.

-- Alexia

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 09:45 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

I don't quite understand. What dialog is useless?

"Export file..." dialog you get on saves to formats that are not xcf. It does ask in some formats for conversion options but I doubt many people have ever done anything else there than just clicked export. If someone wants to ie. flatten instead of merge they can do that beforehand.

I don't quite follow that argument. The choices are important. Imagine you are saving a multi-layered image to the GIF format. You get to choose between saving an animation, saving a flattened or a merged version. That choice is not trivial to avoid.

Changing these things is not trivial. Both from the user interface point of view (writing the spec) and from an implementation point of view. I don't think we want to address this for 2.6. But we can very well try to get it done for 2.8.

Sven

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 09:45 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

I don't quite understand. What dialog is useless?

"Export file..." dialog you get on saves to formats that are not xcf. It does ask in some formats for conversion options but I doubt many people have ever done anything else there than just clicked export. If someone wants to ie. flatten instead of merge they can do that beforehand.

I don't quite follow that argument. The choices are important. Imagine you are saving a multi-layered image to the GIF format. You get to choose between saving an animation, saving a flattened or a merged version. That choice is not trivial to avoid.

Changing these things is not trivial. Both from the user interface point of view (writing the spec) and from an implementation point of view. I don't think we want to address this for 2.6. But we can very well try to get it done for 2.8.

You are right... In case of gif it is not trivial and there are probably many other nontrivial cases. I was oversimplifying the issue. I still think that discussion and spec'ing of this matter should happen as soon as possible...

-- Alexia

From my user perspective, I'm ok with the save / export separation.

- Save only for XCF
- Export for other formats (using the current method, guess format by extension, or manual selection of the output format).

We users are used to save anything, despite if it's a lossy format or not, and that's bad for our workflow. I guess it will take some time to get used to the new method and break the habit of pressing CTRL+S to save when we are working on a jpeg file (for instance). But in the end it will be educative and possitive.
The right way to manage files is separating the native, loseless format from the lossy, export file formats. The benefit will be a reduction of accidental data loss and an improvement in the work flow.

I'm concerned about the "save a copy" command, though. It will certainly present a usability problem. Should it save, export, or both? Should it be removed?
My guess is that it should not be removed, because it provides a useful solution when working with different versions of the file. In my oppinion, it should do the same that the save command. It means that it will no longer export to different formats, just xcf. Again, that will force users to adopt a better workflow (much people uses "save a copy" for exporting to a lossy format keeping the original).

These changes can be quite traumatic for some users but in the long term will benefit the usability and interface coherence of the program, so in my honest oppinion, they have to be performed.
Guillermo Espertino

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 08:08 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

It's not clear what "Save Visible Layers" would do. Would it save the merged image of all visible layers into a single layer

Yes. I.e. like doing a flatten and then a save and then an undo.

I don't have strong feelings about it, but since most "end" formats don't have layers, it seems to me a common case.

Liam

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 13:17 -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 08:08 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

It's not clear what "Save Visible Layers" would do. Would it save the merged image of all visible layers into a single layer

Yes. I.e. like doing a flatten and then a save and then an undo.

I don't have strong feelings about it, but since most "end" formats don't have layers, it seems to me a common case.

It's what Export -> Merge Visible layers should give you. I don't see why we need an extra menu entry for it.

Regardless of that, the way this should be implemented is that file plug-ins should have a way to get read-only access to the projection. That would avoid the hassle of merging and it would guarantee that what is saved is what the user sees.

Sven