[Digikam-users] User experience (or bugs, hopes and wishes)

[Peter Neubauer]

+1

Great job guys!

/peter

On 10/2/06, Pedro Venda <pjvenda at pjvenda.org> wrote:
> On Monday 02 October 2006 12:59, Gilles Caulier wrote:
> > On Monday 02 October 2006 13:45, Pedro Venda wrote:
> > > On Monday 02 October 2006 11:58, Birkir A. Barkarson wrote:
> > > > To those who made it all the way down here, thanks for reading.  Hope
> > > > you have comments to make. In my mind an application with these
> > > > features should be a real killer-app when it comes to applying metadata
> > > > to images especially with people who use services like Flickr.
> > > > I look forward to seeing Digikam go from strength to strength.
> > >
> > > Hello Birkir,
> > >
> > > That was a nice review and it takes some dedication and effort to do what
> > > you did (in my point of view).
> > >
> > > I too have been searching for a good photo organizer app. Before using
> > > digikam for everything, I used picasa, and don't get me wrong: picasa it
> > > is really really good.
> > >
> > > The issues that led me to abandon it were the following:
> > > 1. weak photo editor (cool but only useful for very small tweaks);
> > > 2. runs on Linux - good, but under wine (ARGH!!);
> > > 3. the windows client refused to use my data partition (ext3 - before you
> > > label me as "totally dumb", know that I'm using an ext3 IFS native driver
> > > for windows and it accesses the partition perfectly for all other
> > > applications); 4. slow development cycle, especially for the Linux port;
> > > 5. free but not opensource (yes, I'm a geek, but I sleep better like
> > > this); 6. runs under wine (did I already mention that?);
> > >
> > > Digikam, on the other side, lacks some other features that would make it
> > > much better than picasa:
> > > 1. a hand tool for progressively zooming photos (like picasa - sorry);
> >
> > There is a file in B.K.O about.
>
> cool! I'll check it out :)
>
> >
> > > 2. multiple tag search (this is possible but it's not that simple.
> > > something like a direct text form where we'd input space separated tags
> > > would be much nicer);
> >
> > idem.
>
> cool.
>
> >
> > > 3. reindexing tags from picture metadata;
> >
> > What do you mean exactly ?
>
> We've discussed this before (just now). It's about rebuilding the tag indexing
> from the pictures. Suppose I loose my digikam.db; I need to rebuild it from
> the picture's metadata themselves.
>
> > > 4. a slightly better album interface (a single click on a picture would
> > > simply do the "View..." action achieved by the right click menu. Then
> > > some visible Next and Previous (eventually with small thumbnails for
> > > visual guide) to navigate... like picasa - sorry!);
> >
> > see B.K.O
>
> cool!
>
> >
> > > 5. searching per date (across all albums, like already discussed in this
> > > list);
> >
> > already implemented...
>
> hmmm, I'm not sure you've understood what I meant.
> If I do a date search, the result I get is organized by album and by date; not
> only by date.
> If in two consecutive albums I have these two pictures:
> album 1:
> 2006-03-01.jpg
> 2006-09-01.jpg
> album 2:
> 2006-01-01.jpg
> 2006-06-01.jpg
>
> What I get from a date search is the following:
> album 2:
> 2006-01-01.jpg
> 2006-06-01.jpg
> album 1:
> 2006-03-01.jpg
> 2006-09-01.jpg
>
> What I'd like to get is the following:
> 2006-01-01.jpg
> 2006-03-01.jpg
> 2006-06-01.jpg
> 2006-09-01.jpg
>
> Two of the pictures ended up wrong in the search result due to being in
> different albums.
>
> >
> > > 6. picture versioning or meta-changes. picture edits would be made in the
> > > metadata database and would only be written on request (like picasa -
> > > sorry);
> >
> > Planed later than 0.9.0
>
> nice!
>
> >
> > > I'm trying to gather some time to research through the bugzilla to find
> > > similar feature requests and put some on my own (those not already
> > > found).
> > >
> > > Dont take the 6 improvement request as defects! Digikam is a great tool
> > > and better by far than all others that I've tried before! There are only
> > > a handfull of expensive commercial apps that top it.
> >
> > I would to said than if digiKam 0.9.0 do not include some new advanced
> > features like versionning, it's to prevent huge problems to the
> > implementation. There are a lots of changes between 0.8.x and 0.9.0, like
> > 16 bits/color/pixel support or Color Management for example witch are
> > require a lot of changes in digikam core and DigikamImagePlugins. We are
> > limited in time and ressources (developers). We cannot do all at the same
> > time.
>
> Absolutely! I (and many others) really appreciate your dedication and effort
> into developing this great software in the opensource model.
> A big thank you!
>
> Cheers,
> --
>
> Pedro João Lopes Venda
> email: pjvenda at pjvenda org
> http://www.pjvenda.org
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>