Summary: | Improve efficiency of tagging using group of Tags feature into list of recently assigned Tags | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Applications] digikam | Reporter: | Reiner Nix <reiner.nix> |
Component: | Tags-Engine | Assignee: | Digikam Developers <digikam-bugs-null> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | wishlist | CC: | caulier.gilles |
Priority: | NOR | Keywords: | usability |
Version: | 1.0.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Platform: | Debian testing | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
Sentry Crash Report: |
Description
Reiner Nix
2010-02-04 23:38:41 UTC
Which version of digiKam you use exactly ? Gilles Caulier Sorry, for the missing info. I am using digiKam 1.0.0 Well, i recommend, to test 1.1.0 release or better, to try new code from trunk (1.2.0) where a lots of implementation have been rewritted using Qt4 Model View Gilles Caulier Sorry for the long time without update. Now I was able update and running digikam 1.2.0 (using debian testing with KDE 4.4.5). Well some improvements are really nice. In the area to set tags, I see no major improvements. The amount of mouse clicks is still high while having a large list of tags. So having 440 tags while only 20 of them are showed I have to scroll thrugh 23 pages. This is not very enjoying. I would highly appreciate any improvements. digiKam 1.2.0 is not the last one. 1.6.0 is the last one. update and try again... Gilles Caulier I am using now digikam 2:1.9.0-3+b1 on debian testing and I would be very appreciate on further improvements. I am really sorry, I am bound to debian testing, so I could not install the latest digikam version. Of course I am looking forward to use the newer digikam versions!!! 2.3.0 is the last one now. 2.4.0 will be out in december Gilles Caulier Reiner, This file still valid using digiKam 2.4 ? Gilles Caulier Sorry, due to my distribution - debian testing - I have to work with digikam 1.9. I am looking forward that debian provides a newer version. For digikam 1.9 the reported issue is still true and I would highly appreciate more improvements to make tagging more efficient. Is the description above clear or would it be helpful to describe it by other words / images? Reiner, This entry still valid with digiKam 3.5.0 ? Gilles Caulier Thanks to debian testing I can now use digikam 4.0. Its made good progres. However I like to have more of the tag efficiency and for my feeling the issues are still true. Away from using the keyboard there are many votes to improve tagging. See https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114465. For Info: currently I have around 34000 photos, 440 tags, 42000 tag usages. However many images are not tagged as tagging is so hard. Reiner, This entry still valid with digiKam 4.2.0 ? Gilles Caulier *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 326490 *** Dear Gilles, I could verify the issue using digiKam 4.1.0 (using debian testing) and it is still valid even some improvements on tagging were done. As far as I could discover, the newly added dialog to maintain tags does not add the wished features. Perhaps it is not ready in 4.1.0? Please, correct me if I am wrong. I am sorry, that I have to wait until digiKam 4.2.0 becomes available for my distro. If you like, I am happy to re-check the status again later and give you feedback. In my opinion the bug 326490 (Extending single tag to a group of tags) addresses the same problem. And the proposed solution would improve the deficiency a lot. However the proposal for 326490 is not as flexible as the proposal of this bug. For example, consider that we have had holidays with another family. There were totally 8 persons visible on a lot of images. But of course not all images were taken with all of them. So some photos are with (Anne, Katharina, Tobias and Reiner) other were with (Katharina, Tobias, Benedikt, Christian) and so on. As result it would be great to define an initial set used for tagging and then be freely able to choose for every (or some) of the images tags out of a variying subset of the initial set. Many regards, Reiner *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 463343 *** |