Ok, right now everybody is asking for new features, do this, do that, add this option... but as one of the translators (not the most active lately ;) ) I can say the program is growing fast, this can be bad, you don't want to become yet another bloated image viewing software, we have tons of those, I like photo because does one thing really well, for editing I have gimp, for managing files I have dolphin, krusader, et al, don't bloat photo, the features you don't add are almost as important as the features you add, simplicity shines. (sorry for my mentality, but I read Rework by 37signals some time ago and get caught by the idea)
Well, you certainly got a point. It all should first of all be about quality not quantity. Whenever I add a feature I don't want to do that at the expense of an already existing one. Making sure Photo does its basic job well (i.e. showing images), that's crucial, top priority. However, new features have also its place (if their reasonable. Photo e.g. wont ever get full image editing capability).
Right now, what I'm trying to do is only load the basic features at startup. Every additional feature/window/... is loaded and set up as needed (that's also why the code here on GitHub is a lot faster than the latest stable). I think, that's a pretty good way to keep it simple while having quite some features and options at the same time. It is simple, except you want to have it more complex.
The only problem left to tackle with that approach is the settings window. It's getting pretty full in there, and I need to find a way to unclutter it while not removing any options (maybe having a switch for "Advanced/Normal Mode").
Long story short, I agree with you on that, that any feature should never be at the expense of the basic image viewing functions. But at the same time, adding optional features that are loaded as needed at run-time, I think that's important too.
Hope that makes sense :)
Sure it makes sense, a normal mode for the settings window would be nice.
I think I close this one now... For further comments, you could re-surrect this issue on GitLab: