On 15-10-2012 16:33, Tavmjong Bah wrote:
On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 23:11 +0200, Johan Engelen wrote:
I am starting to strongly dislike the miter fallback btw, simply because of it not being clear whether you have arc extension or a miter. Bevel fallback has a much better UI experience for me.
But that is exactly what you want. Think about a path with multiple line joins. You want all the line joins to look similar but not all the joins may be possible with the arc join so you want those that aren't possible to be the closest thing... mitered. If you can't tell visually the difference, then it doesn't matter if you have an arc join or a mitered join but it may matter on some other join on the path.
Can you give me a join where miter is possible but arc isn't (without a smidge tweaking the path to get the arc)? On the other hand, making the arc impossible by changing the curvature slightly may give a choice for "miter-type join" and "bevel type join". Perhaps it is nice to be able to intentionally make an arc extension impossible (because you tweaked the curvature slightly), to get a bevel on an otherwise "miter type" path.
The visual difference between miter and extrapolation is subtle, but the miter is almost always (very) ugly in my opinion. I find it very annoying to have to pay detailed attention to such ugliness (for which you may have to zoom in a bit) the whole time while modifying a path.
Did you try powerstroke with arc extension to see what fall-back you would like better? I will probably never seriously use powerstroke. So I cannot judge on these issues too well. It is simply something that pops up when I am playing with powerstroked paths.
Ciao, Johan