Re: [Inkscape-devel] Inkscape-devel Digest, Vol 14, Issue 39
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:58:00 +0200 From: David Christian Berg <david@...407...> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Changed bitmap handling
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 12:30 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
On 7/19/07, David Christian Berg <david@...407...> wrote:
Ok, sorry to disagree, but the always embed option is only good for home-use, not for professional use.
Not at all. Some professionals may sometimes want their images not embedded, but far from always.
Ok, maybe the "only" was exaggerated and should be a "mainly", but still my point is valid :)
Even with some bitmap capabilities
integrated in Inkscape people will continue to want to use GIMP or Photoshop to do sophisticated adjustments. Extracting and re-embedding is a little cumbersome.
OK, I think we can make this behavior settable in prefs, but with the default being to embed.
Actually I think it should just be a checkbox "embed" in the import dialog that is checked by default. (I'll have to figure about dragging files into the document still)
Or think of one image being used on a poster, a booklet and within some entrance ticket or the such. It's great to only have to change it at one place!
You're comparing some inconvenience (having to extract or change prefs) with a nasty surprise and frustration that may be caused when you e.g. crop the image for the poster and then discover that it got cropped in the booklet as well. The latter is much worse than the former, and is simply unacceptable as default behavior.
Why would you crop an image? You do that in Inkscape with the clip option :-D
I don't see a strong need for an image lying directly in an automatically created folder next to the SVG... these can almost just as well be embedded. However externally linked image are a must imho.
Sure, we need this option, but off by default.
Off by default, meaning, unless the user changes a setting, it will always embed images? For my purposes, i.e. permanent effects on bitmaps, I think I should keep the format that the image is already in. If the user wants to embed an image, he can do so easily with the python extension.
As for the editing problem: I believe that editing an image would be introduced by double-clicking the image. When the linked image has no write access, a message should show up:
Right now I'm using the Extensions menu. What is the advantage to double-clicking, and how do you picture the interface?
"The image cannot be edited because you do not have writing access to the linked file. Would you like to embed the image in the the document to continue editing?"
Yes, but only if the setting is changed to not embed. By default, it just gets silently embedded and no warning is needed.
I disagree! If in a document there is a non-embedded image, this warning should always appear! By default no images will be linked so therefore the dialogue will not appear. Acutally a similar dialogue should be shown for _all_ embedded image, as a warning that this changes the original image.
As far as writing over the original image, I would never do that. For image.jpeg, right now I'm creating a copied image at image_orig.jpg, unless image_orig.jpg is taken, at which point I ask the user for somewhere to save the new image, unless the image_orig.jpg which already exists is equivalent to image.jpeg. Back when I used Windows, that was how Picasa handled the issue, and I thought it would work for me too. (Also, I ask the user for a new location if image_orig.jpg and/or image.jpeg are unwriteable.)
Anyways, we basically agree on the topic.
Cheers!
David
These are mostly little things, but I'm curious about your idea of double-clicking of images to edit them.
-Christopher
Off by default, meaning, unless the user changes a setting, it will always embed images? For my purposes, i.e. permanent effects on bitmaps, I think I should keep the format that the image is already in. If the user wants to embed an image, he can do so easily with the python extension.
Python extension? I'm confused. Yes the idea is to embed images into the SVG by default. As far as I know that doesn't change anything about their format.
As for the editing problem: I believe that editing an image would be introduced by double-clicking the image. When the linked image has no write access, a message should show up:
Right now I'm using the Extensions menu. What is the advantage to double-clicking, and how do you picture the interface?
I thought introducing image editing capabilities meant embedding a little GIMP. Hence you need a interface with similar buttons as the GIMP. The most intuitive way to switching to such an interface (like adjusting the top toolbar) is a double-click (plus a menu item plus maybe something in the main toolbar).
"The image cannot be edited because you do not have writing access to the linked file. Would you like to embed the image in the the document to continue editing?"
Yes, but only if the setting is changed to not embed. By default, it just gets silently embedded and no warning is needed.
I disagree! If in a document there is a non-embedded image, this warning should always appear! By default no images will be linked so therefore the dialogue will not appear. Acutally a similar dialogue should be shown for _all_ embedded image, as a warning that this changes the original image.
As far as writing over the original image, I would never do that. For image.jpeg, right now I'm creating a copied image at image_orig.jpg, unless image_orig.jpg is taken, at which point I ask the user for somewhere to save the new image, unless the image_orig.jpg which already exists is equivalent to image.jpeg. Back when I used Windows, that was how Picasa handled the issue, and I thought it would work for me too. (Also, I ask the user for a new location if image_orig.jpg and/or image.jpeg are unwriteable.)
Why not, if you want to warn the user?
David
participants (2)
-
Christopher Brown -
David Christian Berg