[Digikam-devel] Usage of metadata editor dialog

[Gilles Caulier]

On Friday 17 November 2006 20:54, Mikolaj Machowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> Now, when crashes had gone away we can really use metadata editor.
>
> 1. Isn't it possible to grey out empty textareas? It would give some
>    unity of look for all empty fields.

I think it's a bug in KDELib, especially in KTextEdit witch not grey-out 
widget if it's disable. If i use a QTexctEdit instead all work fine, but i 
can't use auto-completion and Spell-Checking in this case.

> 2. Stuff with greying out of unchecked fields isn't clear. Content of
>    field will stay for "session" with current image but whey you OK
>    changes it will be removed. What is a purpose of this checkbox?
>    Probably I don't understand something.

When the Exif dialog is started, if a checkbox is unchecked,  the tag is not 
available in metadata.

If you set on a checkbox, the tag will be add to metadata.

If you set off a checkbox of an existing tag, this one will be removed from 
metadata.

> 3. Exif metadata syncing of User comments. Great, great, great :)
>    *cough* Of course... *cough* ;)
>
>    a) "sync with host application". Is it possible to put there real
>       name? More user friendly.

Done.

>    b) Beside IPTC option should be warning about ASCII limitation

Done.

>    c) When I put some phrase there and edit later in Digikam comment
>       field at the end, later return to Exif editor I see some garbage
>       at the end of field. Only in Exif editor, in Digikam it is clean.
>       Correction: even without editing in Digikam when I return to Exif
>       editor I see garbage at the end.

i will check it.

>    d) Syncing IPTC caption -> Exif and Digikam (host)? While this is
>       definitely non interesting for non-ASCII users (and potentially
>       disastrous) for English natives it may be interesting possibility
>       (due to limitation it should be turned off by default)

Since there is a warning in dialog, user can take a care and unset this option 
if necessary.

>
> 4. Different implementation of mass editing between Exif and IPTC.
>
>    a) Choose four images.
>    b) Edit Exif.
>    c) Fill caption "asdf", and OK.
>
>    Only first image is described with "asdf". Repeat for IPTC, all
>    four images will be described.

Not reproductible here. Are you sure ?

>
> 5. Different behaviour when some images had previous descriptions:
>
>    a) You have four images: 1,2,3,4.
>    b) Add caption to 1: "asdf".
>    c) Add caption to 4: "qwer".
>    d) Select all four images.
>    e) Open editor, in 1 you see "asdf".
>    f) Go to 2, you still see "asdf".
>    g) Change caption to "zxcv".
>    i) Go to 3. You still see "zxvc", similar behaviour to editing with
>       empty fields, do nothing.
>    j) Go to 4. You see "qwer".
>    k) Click OK.
>
>    You could expect captions will be:
>
>    	1:"asdf", 2:"zxcv", 3:"zxcv", 4:"qwer".
>
>    But no, there are:
>
>    	1:"asdf", 2:"zxcv", 3:{empty}, 4:"qwer".
>
>    IMO 3 *should* be "zxcv".
>
>    WARNING: you should check this going through images individually,
>    when using multiple selection in caption will be value of previously
>    visited caption (2->3, "zxcv"; 4->3, "qwer").
>
>    Unfortunately I don't see good solution for this. Adding buttons
>    beside fields: "Apply to all", "Apply to all empty" would be the best
>    from functionality but it would have to be done for ALL buttons
>    - horrible interface.

New option to set only Comments is availble on svn. This is the only way to 
have a clean up interface for mass editing Comments. Try it.

Thanks for this report. I will check pending points later.

Gilles