> > imho Document->Settings way is very unpractical. my usual worflow is not to > > define set of groups and then assign them images, but to have set of images > > and start to create new groups via dialog without even closing it. > > My problem with the current approach is that graphic groups are beyond the > level of where the graphic dialog comes into play (that is, single graphics). > This is as if you would set the bibliography style (or database) in the > citation dialog. The graphic groups are a document-wide category, not a > graphic-wide.
i see what you mean, but i don't agree that groups are document-wide category. when last picture from group a is gone, the group and its settings is gone (and thats perfectly ok) while the document-wide approach will need to store them somewhere. thats why i called it grouping and not templates although we can understand them as templates to some extent. secondly there is a difference between pointed citations/branches and g.groups because for citations/branch-inset the database/branches are primary in a way. there is not point to cite without database or use branch inset without branch, while it is perfectly sensible to have ungrouped picture. but actually my problem with the approach you are proposing is mostly about the usability. your approach looks on the whole thing more ready-made templates for picture, while my approach is more about grouping pictures which parameters changing every next moment compared to selecting citation database or creating branch. i'm not sure how you imagine the setting dialog thing but i feel your approach aims to some kind of template editor inside the settings dialog (am i right?) and it would drive me crazy to edit some template again and again through settings dialog. that said i actually don't have strong opinions what will/won't be inside the settings dialog or what would be the implementation behind (grouping/templates). on contrary i have very strong opinions about these points in descending order: - possibility to use context menu for assign (i think we agree here) - possibility to use graphics dialog for changin group definition as it is now without any additional clicking around (i'm not sure we agree here) - possibility to define new group inside the graphics dialog (also not sure about your position) pavel
