https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375703
--- Comment #17 from Jens <jens-bugs.kde....@spamfreemail.de> --- I agree to the previous points. But I have one thought I'd like to share. We are getting to the point where "groups" of images become basically identical to sub-albums (subfolders within an album) except for the fact that they are displayed within the main folder and sorted into the parent's images, not separately. So do we *want* the difference between grouped images and subfolders/albums to exist at all? Is there a difference? Does there need to be a difference? For me, - grouped images represent images that are very similar (e.g. taken with my camera's "machine gun mode" to catch the right moment) but I almost never want to see all of the images. They are part of an event (album) and a chronological series of images. - (sub)albums represent "subevents" of their own, part of a larger event (e.g. one day's tour within a vacation) with different and unique images that all want to be viewed (and some can be grouped). But both could be used for both purposes with very little change in the UI. Both subalbums and groups can have a "master image" (thumbnail) and both subalbums and groups can be opened and closed. Maybe the whole idea of grouped images needs to be rethought? Maybe we can solve many of the grouping issues by just redefining "groups === subalbums"? Very little would need to be done, IMHO: - Include an option for each album (and a global default) to display subalbums in the main thumbnail view (with a folder icon or the defined album thumbnail) as an image within the other images - allow ratings, tags, etc. to be applied to albums (which would effectively apply them to all contained images) Is this maybe worth a second thought? It would make the whole concept a lot simpler and - I think - solve a lot of the consistency issues that the concept of grouping images has right now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
