> >The last few times people have wanted to see some photos I've got in > > a > >folder, I've used OpenShowImage to do a slideshow of them. So surely > >that means I'm happy there's a new feature added? Not really. I > > would > >much prefer a dedicated app - it seems much more logical to select > > all > >the files and open them with "OpenSlideShow" than to open one of > > them > >in ShowImage and fight around with the interface oriented towards > >viewing-one-image-in-a-window to get them to display as a slide > > show. I > >maintain that the two tasks of "viewing an image file" and "running > > a > >slideshow" do not often overlap, and are therefore much better > > suited > >to two seperate apps. > > I think it is stupid to make 2 applications just for that. Then you > create redundancy. You would create extra application that contains > (let us say) 80% of the functionality of another application. This wil > not create simplicity but confusion? Users will not now what to use.... I don't think it could be more obvious what to use. You want to show a slideshow - use the app called "SlideShow". You want to view an image - use "ShowImage". To me it's less obvious that I can open a single file using an app called "ShowImage" and from that click a menu item that displays a slideshow of all the images in the directory the original file came from. I don't understand the 80% claim - I suppose you mean the fact that it loads an image and displays it using the translation kit? It really doesn't take much code to do that (the translation kit rocks!). A lot of ShowImage code isn't needed for a slide show app (dragging cuttings around, saving as different file formats, all the menus, etc). In the same way, creating a nicer slideshow app would involve a lot of code not needed for viewing individual images. > greets > Jixt Simon ----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/