On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 06:02:33PM -0400, bulia byak wrote:
On 7/20/07, Niko Kiirala <niko@...1267...> wrote:
Just came to my mind, it might be useful to place feComposite modes there in the same dialog box with feBlend modes.
Yes, absolutely, and include some useful presets for the "arithmetic" option too (such as "negative" - is this possible?).
And for the actual idea: yes, having a collection of preconfigured filters sounds like a good idea. Then again, things like dropshadow have plenty parameters (place, amount of blur, shadow colour...) It would be nice to be able to fiddle with them when applying a filter.
Yes, but then it will be all adjustable via the dialog, as well as (see my other mail) hopefully the onscreen handles too. And for the blurs, blends, and composites used as parts of some complex presets, you will still be able to use the Fill&Stroke controls. Just make those controls smart so that, instead of just adding e.g. a new blur filter on top of the stack, it will search the stack and adjust the first found blur filter in it, even if it applies e.g. to the drop shadow and not the object itself. (And if the user wants to blur the entire object with a drop shadow filter stack, he can do this just by grouping it and blurring the group.)
Back in January I drew a mockup for the feature request tracker with a simple but fully-featured filter stack dialog which sounds very similar to what you're describing.
http://sf.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1628343&group_id=934...
However, I can imagine that searching the stack for a matching filter to edit would be confusing. For example, with Gaussian blur, when I drag the slider, what I usually want is "whatever I've got here: blur it". When a shape is clipped, I'm only blurring the clipped shape, and that throws me slightly (or used to at first).
I'd suggest it makes more sense to just insert a new filter at the top unless the filter is commutative.
Dan