993
GIMP 3.0 Released (www.gimp.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
202 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

LOL. Brother, I get what you're saying, but I think you missed the point. If Random User X is just looking for an image editor, and they are presented with a few options they know nothing about. Do you think they're going to even bother with the one image editor that doesn't have any screenshots?

Just another comparison, a little more relevant: https://www.rawtherapee.com/

You know EXACTLY what it is and what it does within about 2 seconds. That would be more than enough information for someone to at least make the effort to download the software.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If I recommend some software to someone, most normies I know would directly go on to youtube and check some guy using and reviewing a software. The "official website" wouldn't even cross their mind.

    In this day and age if a random user really wants something, they have a miriad of options to see what they're about to use. Forums, Youtube, blog posts and so on.

    If a user doesn't even bother a bare , they're better off not downloading random executables from the internet.

    The website isn't end all, be all of how users find a software demos. You seem to think a single website is enough for users to make their choices these days. It isn't the 90s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    An informed user goes through that much effort. Most users are not informed and will do a quick search, download something that looks remotely what they think they need, and they're done.

    This is why it's frustrating that some really good open-source software end up being lost in a sea of other stuff that was easier for someone to download, without doing a ton of research.

    It doesn't necessarily have to be a website, but a website should be "home base" for a software, company, etc. If not the official website, then the developer has less control over the presentation of their product, which would suck.

    App stores are successful for a reason: they offer a quick, accessible means to find 1000s of apps or desktop software. And if an app has a poor description or piss poor screenshots, they are skipped very quickly.

    The same applies to the UX and UI of an app or website. A poor experience can cause someone to uninstall it (or exit the page), even if it offers them the features they want/need.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're right. I wasn't familiar with rawtherapee but just seeing that home page immediately clued me into the fact that it was some kind of image program. Didn't even need to read a single word.

    Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I've wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would've just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I’ve wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would’ve just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.

    Yes!! I'm glad I was able to illustrate my point better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent