GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 124906
Better script-fu/Logo selection
Last modified: 2007-05-09 11:48:10 UTC
Description of Problem: In gimp, there is no way to know how script-fu/logo will look without trying it. due to the large number of logos, this is long procedure, and I tend to forgat wich image any name refer to. I would like to see in gimp a better Logo selection - I think that the best will be "logo" window, that look some like the "Gradiants" window, for exempale end will contain the name of the script and a small image of the logo with the default settings, either manualy or computer generated.
Interesting idea that has come up years ago already. Doesn't look like someone is interested enough to hack on this though.
I think Carol was/is looking at this.
Would a worthwhile solution be to implement a SF-THUMBNAIL option in the script-fu registration? SF-THUMBNAIL "Caption" "/path/name.ext" The dialog box could then display a thumbnail generated from the sample image file. (For other scripts, such as filters, there could be "before" and "after" thumbnails.)
My solution was to make it part of the web site. Perhaps making it part of the help documents would be good. As far as precalculated and/or sample images included with GIMP itself, this seems silly to me, as well as overly complicated. I can (and perhaps have) written scripts that make the logos and a web page to show them. This script can be included with the source or perhaps the documentation team can modify it to use their template....
I don't think that displaying a fixed thumbnail is going to help much. Also, since the script is able to generate such an image, why should it become an external resource?
Created attachment 60587 [details] Example Filter Demo (JPG, 14K) I agree that for this Bug Report the idea of adding graphic image capability to dialog boxes might be overkill (especially since the script would have to be invoked for the preview to be seen). Nonetheless, such a capability would be applicable to all script-fus and it might prove pleasing to the user to have a visual representation of what a filter does. It could also prove beneficial to script writers if they were able to graphically demonstrate the functionality of plugin (see attachment for image that could be used in an "Anti-crop" script). I agree about the comments regarding unneeded dependencies but if the script registration did nothing if image files were not present, where's the harm? This is not an important enhancement, it was just a thought. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.
For most scripts it would be easier and more versatile if the script registered a way to create the preview image. The result could be cached using the functionality in libgimpthumb. That way we wouldn't have to distribute a lot of images with the scripts and we would eliminate the need to update the image whenever a script changes.
Merging with bug #158980 as it's essentially the same idea. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 158980 ***