[Digikam-devel] some comments on digiKam

[Arnd Baecker]

Hi Martin,

thanks for posting your thoughts on digiKam in your blog.
In order to start the discussion, let me
quote parts of it below together with some comments
mostly from an end-users perspective.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Martin Böhm wrote:

> Hello digiKam developers,
>
> I have written down a few ideas about possible bugs/shortcomings in
> digiKam. I would be delighted if you could read those and think a
> minute or two about them. Feel free either to ignore me or to disagree
> with me.
>
> http://mhb.ath.cx/blog/kubuntu/digikams-ui/
>
> On the other hand, I would try to help with some of the issues I
> mentioned if you consider them bugs like I do.

Of course, help with coding on digiKam is always welcome.
Have a look at the entries in the BKO, pick one
bug which bugs you as well, and provide a patch ... ;-)

> Thank you for your work on digiKam!
>
> Martin Böhm

Best, Arnd


From the Blog
=============

> 1.) Vertical tabs.
> KDE application developers tend to like them for some
> reason. Probably because it\u2019s handy to have menus on all sides :o)

Indeed, I very often have both side-bars open because I need
the information of both at the same time.

> DigiKam is one of the classic examples of KDE apps overloaded with menus,
> options and customizable parameters.

This is a rather general statement - does this refer
to more than just the side-bars?

> DigiKam does not use one vertical tab
> panel, it uses both sides to store additional widgets. I admit, some of
> them are useful even for a guy like me (basic Information on the right,
> for example). Still, I think the devs could consider doing it the Dolphin
> way instead. Inconsistency is bad. I really hope the KDE interface
> guidelines (once they arrive) will be respected by all.

Personally I don't care about the KDE interface, I don't use KDE.
What is the Dolphin way (I only saw screenshots...)?

> 2.) Icons. Using icons without descriptions is really bad if the icons
> aren\u2019t that easy to recognize. That is exactly the case of digiKam,
> yet it does not have the descriptions on by default.

As far as I remember that was a space consideration for smaller
screens. When you hover the mouse over them, you get an explanation.
After a few minutes of usage it is pretty clear what the
side-bars are good for.
The same applies to other icons, which I think are the
standard KDE ones anyway.
I don't think they are that bad.

> Well, it could be the
> KDE way to do things, but it confuses people, especially here. Look at the
> icons underneath and notice how similar they are.

Looks different enough for me.

> Perhaps the Oxygen ones
> will bring clarity to the digiKam icon bar. I hope so.

> 3.) Complexity. Come on, why do we need a separate view for looking at
> pictures and for rotating them

right-mouse-click gives a menu to rotate.

> or removing red eyes?

But that's a real edit operation, therefore it is found
in the image editor.

> I\u2019m sure photo
> professionals would like to have separate programs for that, but they
> wouldn\u2019t use DigiKam for their edits, they\u2019d use Photoshop or
> the like.

I am sorry, but this statement is incorrect.
DigiKam does have professionals as users.

> The target of KDE4 is the common user, so please do try and
> simplify the interface for them.

I think digiKam's aim is broader - it even supports raw files,
16 Bit and color management. This is something which many "common users"
would not want/use/...
(Actually, I am really not sure what a "common user" is ...)

> A possible solution for unifying the \u201cView\u201d view (phew) and the
> \u201cEdit\u201d view would be to integrate some editing features into the
> \u201cView\u201d view and call it a \u201cSimple view\u201d. That would be
> sufficient for me & my girlfriend who only need to rotate the pictures and
> remove the red eyes.

This sounds like introducing a lot of inconsistency:
where do you want to stop?
There are many further transforms like resize, aspect ratio crop,
shear, free rotation, perspective adjustment...
If they are also added, why not curves adjust or
color auto-corrections as well?
I am not convinced, as this would make
the main interface more complicated, which is what you would like
to avoid, right?

> For the amateur photomaniacs out there (who\u2019s
> the target user of digiKam, by the way?), the \u201cAdvanced view\u201d
> would be the view they\u2019d like. Or maybe just keep one view and make
> it Simpler, just keep the advanced options hidden to the simple eyes.

With hiding options, I see many problems in terms of
writing manuals, explanation of features
("oh digikam does not even have button for xxx"),
and bug reports.

> But wait, there\u2019s more! The \u201cEdit\u201d View and its dialogs are
> too complex even when you find the correct icon in the menu. All Joe wants
> to do is to click on the red eye and make it disappear, not stare at
> various colour pickers and complex graphs.

Well, why not just press OK and see how it looks?

> I would recommend hiding the
> \u201cSettings\u201d panel in the red-eye removal dialog by default. This
> could be a Kubuntu\u2019s fault, I don\u2019t know.

Hiding the settings might be an option, yes.
(In particular because the state is memorized from one
session to the next).

> I really think we should target both Joe Users and Jane Professionals with
> our software. DigiKam has the potential to become a power-photographers
> photo collection tool of choice. But it\u2019s a bit too complex for the
> people that like things to \u201cjust work\u201d like we do in Kubuntu.

Have you tried other programs?
In my opinion dealing with photos requires to tweak many settings
so it does get complex if the application is sufficiently capable.
One has to invest some time in learning any of these.
Did you have a look at the digikam handbook?
This is definitively worth a thorough read.

> Please, don\u2019t bash me too much for this rather critical review. I
> appreciate the hard work of digiKam\u2019s developers. I really tried to
> stay on the constructive level and suggest fixes for the issues I noticed.
> Please, do the same in your comments. Thanks!