Sign up now! · Forgot password?
RSS/Atom feed identi.ca Twitter

Script-Fu procedure blurb review

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

4 of 4 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

Script-Fu procedure blurb review saulgoode@brickfilms.com 02 Aug 21:50
  Script-Fu procedure blurb review Sven Neumann 14 Aug 21:12
   Script-Fu procedure blurb review Sven Neumann 31 Aug 09:28
    Script-Fu procedure blurb review Sven Neumann 13 Sep 10:26
saulgoode@brickfilms.com
2006-08-02 21:50:19 UTC (about 12 years ago)

Script-Fu procedure blurb review

My apologies for my preceding post which merely quoted Michael Natterer; I was using a new mail editor and it apparently expects me to only TAB between header fields.

Quoting Michael Natterer :

Unfortunatel not. You apparently diffed between modified scripts from 2.3 and original scripts from 2.2, therefore most of the patch is bogus :(

I haven't done much with 2.3 as I was reluctant to upgrade my glib in the midst of another project that was important to me. I should be able to upgrade in the coming weeks. I am willing to effect the necessary changes to the 2.3 source once a consensus is reached on blurb phrasings. I would also eliminate all of the "non-blurb" changes at that time.

... It mostly concerned the
'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'.

It's 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' that is deprecated, and gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' is the new function.

It also occurred when there was an out-dated usage of "SF-COLOR" as a text string (e.g., "white").

Likewise. "white" is the new version, '(255 255 255) the old one.

The next revision of the patch will not address any "non-blurb" issues; it was laziness on my part (and apparently ignorance of changes made in the dev branch) that I didn't remove my changes from this patch.

2. In a couple of places I employed the term "selection frame" in order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g., 'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as "Round the corners of the current selection frame"). I feel that "selection frame" is more intuitive than "selection mask" in these contexts.

But "selection mask" is the known term here. "selection frame" is imho totally unusual and will confuse people.

The important thing is to clearly and consistently distinguish selection masks from selection contents. It has been my experience that the vast majority of GIMP users (granted, neophytes) consider selections to be boolean. Any user who is aware of the true nature of selection masks will not be confused by a less precise terminology while those who are ignorant will likely be confused by the technically precise term.

I agree that "selection outline" or "selection border" are better choices than "selection frame" and think that Toby Speight explained the reasons well.

3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is nothing selected. I have termed these "alpha objects" and consistently employed the phrase "an alpha object or selection" to describe this situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it should be a simple matter to change these using "sed".

I'm not sure about this...

Nor am I. The two methods that the GIMP currently uses for "alpha objects" would seem to be "alpha channel" (in the "Add layermask" dialog) and "alpha" (in the "Alpha to selection" command). I tend to think of the alpha channel as being the transparent portion of a layer (since a layer with no alpha channel is opaque) and am hoping that a more intuitive terminology can be determined.

6) I used the word "widget" in some of the descriptions of scripts which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for avoiding the term "widget" has nothing to do with The Apple Company's opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term, I am open to suggestions. :-)

I haven't heared the word "widget" in the context of a web page. Actually, in GTK+ world it's pretty clearly reserved for GtkWidgets.

I don't wish to cause any confusion with GtkWidgets but I see no difference between a pixmap generated for a webpage and one generated for a GUI. I had considered leaving out the part of the blurbs which stated "for a webpage" as this was not precise; but, again, users who are aware of the difference will not be confused by its inclusion whereas those who are not might likely be confused by its absence.

You marked all menu paths for translation, which is wrong. They don't need to be marked any more.

The revised patch will address this.

Sven Neumann
2006-08-14 21:12:13 UTC (about 12 years ago)

Script-Fu procedure blurb review

Hi,

I have opened a bug-report for this and I would like to point out that we should not wait too much longer with this. We should give the translators enough time to deal with the new strings.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283

Sven

Sven Neumann
2006-08-31 09:28:42 UTC (almost 12 years ago)

Script-Fu procedure blurb review

Hi,

I'm talking about http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283

There hasn't been any further progress on this, we are still waiting for a patch that can be applied to CVS. This is really getting urgent now since we want to go into string freeze soon.

This thread has pointers to patches and comments on these patches that explain what needs to be changed before the change can go into CVS. Perhaps someone else wants to pick this up?

Sven

Sven Neumann
2006-09-13 10:26:29 UTC (almost 12 years ago)

Script-Fu procedure blurb review

Hi,

we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283

Come on, guys, this is almost done. Someone just needs to pick up the patch from Saulgoode
(http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs) and port just the changes to the blurbs to the CVS HEAD branch or the 2.3.11 release. This would really help us a lot to get ready for 2.4.

Sven