[Digikam-users] Folders, albums and collections

[Agustin Lobo]

I can see your point. Every option has advantages and disadvantages.
Perhaps, considering virtual Albums do exist in Digikam already, it
could be possible
offering the option of always making virtual Albums and never use "hard" Albums.
The decision would be up to the user.

What I would do for sure is not using the term "Albums" for "hard"
Albums as they
are just Folders. Using the term folder would make it clear that the
user is dealing with
the structure of its disk, not with something internal to Digikam. if
Album is identical to folder,
using that term increases complexity with no gain of information, thus
increases confusion.
Agus



On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Daniel Bauer <linux at daniel-bauer.com> wrote:
>
>
> Am 19.06.2015 um 09:41 schrieb Agustin Lobo:
>>
>> Very dangerous. I suggest that, in the future, all Albums be virtual.
>> That is, initially you get Albums matching folders, but removing
>> Albums should not
>> imply removing folders. Removing folders should be done by using the OS.
>> Digikam
>> should deal with managing its database only.
>> Note that for most users (specially novice users) having Albums and
>> Virtual Albums can be confusing,
>> and they could easily think that they are removing a virtual Album
>> while they are removing a folder... with its pictures.
>>
>> Agus
>>
>>
>
> No, I do not agree at all.
>
> That digikam reflects the directories and files just naturally, as they are
> in the file system, is one of its great advantages. It makes everything more
> transparent and easy to maintain. One can use/move/add/delete folders and
> files also outside of digikam using the file system or saving from an other
> application (like gimp etc.) into folders/albums. Backup is easy too, this
> way.
>
> If I delete an image or a folder I want to have it deleted. It's my
> computer, not facebook or google.
>
> I don't want "deleted" and deleted things, and in the end not knowing if
> something is really deleted or not, respectively having to use another
> application to clean up and synchronize file system with "virtual stuff". I
> don't want to have other folder names than those that physically appear on
> my HD.
>
> A virtual album view would be another layer, making things even more
> complicated. More database access, slower, more possibilities for errors and
> bad synchronization... no, thanks.
>
> No no, just keep it as is, digikam!
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona
> http://www.daniel-bauer.com
> room in Barcelona: https://www.airbnb.es/rooms/2416137
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users