On 10/21/07, microUgly <drworm@...1743...> wrote:
I agree that if "Master Opacity" is going to be used to control the opacity of a colour stop then it shouldn't be called "Master" anymore.
Agreed, it's probably time to drop "master". It was called that when it was first added to the UI, to differentiate it from the fill/stroke opacity. Now it's established itself and largely replaced the fill/stroke opacity, so we can call it simply "opacity", _the_ opacity.
But what advantage does the Opacity slider offer? It seems like a step backwards to abondon a colour picker that lets you see how transparent it will appear.
For flat color, yes, the fill/stroke opacity sliders do allow you to see the color. But for many other situations - such as entire objects if they have gradient or pattern fill - this color preview is not applicable and will in fact be confusing.
It's argued that Opacity makes more sense for colour stops because they are objects. But in my mind they are... stops... of colour - sorry, can't explain it better.
They are not objects. They are just somethings that can be selected just like objects. The general principle of Inkscape UI is to treat similar things in similar ways. Hence, for all somethings that can have opacity, we should use the same opacity controls, command, shortcuts, etc.
If Alpha is going to abondoned for Opacity then the Alpha colour selector has to disappear when a stop is selected. Having it there is only going to cause confusion.
Yes, agreed. Please file a RFE on that when you have time.