GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 792441
Better handling of default metadata
Last modified: 2018-05-24 19:00:19 UTC
Currently the only default metadata we can set is the comment, in the "Default Image" tab of Preferences. In bug 790552, comment 7, I note that we could add a few more generic metadata like author name, licensing, etc. which some people may want to set as their default (which can also be changed per image of course). Probably we should move these to an "Image Export" tab (separated from "Image Import") because it makes more sense than "Default Image" (which applies rather to new images, whereas the comment field is actually used for all exported images). Still in bug 790552, comment 9, Elle notes that this "Comment" field is used a bit randomly, for several different metadata fields (at least 3). Maybe we should straighten a bit the meaning of this field and how we should use it better. Also she notes that the metadata editor won't contain this default comment, which should be fixed. Finally I could imagine someone would want one's custom metadata to always override the imported image metadata. Maybe there could be some option for this? So proposed improvements: (1) Make a "Image Export" preferences tab separate from "Import Import", and move the "Comments" field over from "Default Image" to this tab. (2) Add a few generic metadata that one may want to always insert, like author name, licensing, URL, company, or whatnot. (3) Rethink a bit the "Comment" field: where it should be used best? Is it really necessary to duplicate it in several fields? Same for the new fields. (4) The generic fields should be written down by default and visible in the metadata viewer and editor. Of course, editing these overrides the generic fields. We should also decide what happens when metadata for one of these generic fields exist in an imported image. Which should have precedence? Is it an option?
Can be done anytime in 2.10.
I didn't know whether to reopen Bug 790552 or just post here. Using GIMP updated and compiled this AM, and setting the default export policy to not export any metadata, and then opening the Export dialog to export a jpeg to disk, after clicking on the little "+" (Advanced export options) sign, all the exporting metadata boxes were unchecked, which is good. However, there was a "test comment" in the Comment box, that I had totally forgotten that I had written, that I didn't see until I clicked the "+" sign to show the hidden "Advanced" export options. It would be better if information about what metadata might or might not be exported along with the image were not hidden by default behind the "Advanced" drop-down box in the export dialog. Could there/should there be an additional checkbox in the Image Export options in Preferences to not export a Comment? The "Comments" export seems to be handled by separate paths from other metadata, and there are too many cases: * Perhaps the user really does want every single XCF file to have the exact same default comment as per "Preferences/Default Image" (I can't imagine an actual use case, but the option is there in Preferences, so presumably someone finds this "by default" comment useful). But this doesn't mean the user necessarily wants the default comment exported in metadata when images are exported to disk. * Perhaps the user typed in a comment using the New Image dialog, and again, the user might or might not not want the comment exported along with the image. * Perhaps the image already has an embedded comment, as was the case with the image I opened and exported as a test image to see if any metadata were exported if the Preferences/Image Import and Export" options were set to not export metadata. And maybe the user doesn't want the comment exported when the image itself is edited and then exported to disk.
> I didn't know whether to reopen Bug 790552 or just post here. Well here is fine. It is exactly why I opened this report, to handle such more in-depth case. Seriously considering the state of this metadata editor anyway, a LOT will have to be done before our metadata handling can be considered optimal anyway. Right now, we have *something*, it's better than nothing, but seriously it's quite lacking in many ways (not talking about features). Anyway I think I will handle this all after 2.10 (anyone wanting to improve the metadata situation is welcome to do so now and provide us with patches of course!).
-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message -- This bug has been migrated to GNOME's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity. You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/issues/1281.