[Digikam-users] Folders, albums and collections

[Gilles Caulier]

Very dangerous... really.

Not more than Another GUI abstraction layer which will be less
understandable by end users.

It's logic to see WHERE are files on computer. This is not a weird design,
but how computer users play with it since a lots of decades. This is also a
design that digiKam users want from the start.

Ex :

iPhoto/Aperture : where are files ??? Copied and cached into private
repository.
KPhotoAlbum : there is no FS view.

You don't care about FS view. No problem with digiKam. Create a collection,
put all images on the root as well, and start to sort/group items in
virtual albums named Tags.

Go to Tags album view and you will have same behaviors than iPhoto like
applications.

Gilles Caulier




2015-06-19 10:30 GMT+02:00 Agustin Lobo <alobolistas at gmail.com>:

> First, this is a design suggestion, yes. And designing according to
> user's experiences is the most fundamental advantage
> for developers of OSS. Your view of "you like it, you use it; you
> don't like it, use something else" is, besides being unnecessarily
> rude ,  totally opposed to OSS philosophy.
> Second, I was obviously referring to file management. Obviously, the
> editing tasks must change files. But this would rarely be
> an unintended action (although Digikam has the means of protecting the
> user of eventual errors in this case), while
> deleting an Album while thinking  you are deleting just something
> internal to Digikam can easily happen.
> Agus
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Remco Viëtor <remco.vietor at wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
> > On Friday 19 June 2015 09:41:30 Agustin Lobo wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Isn't that a design decision? And digikam went one way, you prefer
> > another... Perhaps Darktable would be more to your taste.
> >
> > And also, if Digikam 'deal[s] with managing its database only', how are
> you
> > going to cull the images that are blurred, or just not good enough to
> keep?
> >
> > Remco
> > _______________________________________________
> > Digikam-users mailing list
> > Digikam-users at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20150619/006a2c9b/attachment.html>