helmut wrote:Some options are really problematic. Or have become problematic since XnView has changed from a MDI application to a more or less non-MDI application with tabs.
The bad sign I see is that author does not fix the problems that appear all the time. The first that come to mind- related to MDI interface, file type recognition and defining keyboard shortcut for actions. I am sure there are more.
helmut wrote:Xyzzy wrote:Frankly speaking, the more I learn XnView the more I understand people who have chosen IrfanView or whatever else there is. And the more I am inclined to follow their steps. Half of the XnView options has bad names, are placed in wrong places and nobody, including the author, seem to know what they really do. XnView needs some user experience improvements BADLY.
I think you have to distinguish user-interface and options. Generally, XnView's user interface is pretty good and few graphic viewers can compete with.
Generally, I consider XnView user interface a standard one.
helmut wrote:The problem is the high-powered engine and it's 1000 ways for fine-tuning. And in some cases the fine-tuning is really an expert thing, which shouldn't be the case.
The problem is not powerful engine or many fine-tuning options, but that the options are unclear, undocumented and I suspect sometimes simply buggy, that the author doesn't admit (it is called 'design' then).
helmut wrote:There are still many things to improve, but XnView is a fast and good graphic viewer. And with the options we are on the right track.
I am afraid that we are on the same track for long time.
New options and features are great, but fe. possibility to assign any keyboard shortcut to any action would make happy more users, solve a lot of problems, cut down many posts on forums and add a lot of usability.
Packing more and more stuff on the same wagon will make wagon break one day. To put it simply- after some more time XnView will be so complicated to use that it will stop to gain new users and start lose old ones.
X.
