> For me, this is beginning to feel natural.
Sounds like a start, at least!
> I think to some degree Josh's comment still applies. There are at least
> two different toolbars and some dialogs. As a start I think it should be
> possible to eliminate the edit mode
toolbar.
True, now that I look at it, my current toolbar is empty enough to combine
the two. Previously I had separate toolbars because each guide type
had guide-specific options (like arc guides for radial tiling, and numerical
fields). And yes, I should add an unclump.
As things stand I think I'll just leave all the numericals inputs to the
Transform and Edit Paths tools. And snapping. Users can just snap
to something if they need.
Instead, here's how I propose the tiling tool to work. On-canvas, by
default you will have a render frame with a base tile:
- When using the tiling mode, you can click on the center tile to make
handles appear, and from there, modify the handles (who become
invisible when not using the tiling tool).
- Clicking and dragging the corners of the frame with the tiling tool
will add frames to it. You can also shift-drag so new tiles will be
created on edges you
drag over, or ctrl-shift-drag to delete.
- You cannot resize, rotate or move the center tile or the render
frame with the tiling tool, but you Can do so with the Transform tool.
You can't do those operations from the circle or spiral tools either,
so interface-wise the users should be able to get used to it.
- As with circles and spirals, double-clicking a center tile or render
frame opens up the tiling
tool anyway.
I was also thinking of imposing some limitations:
1. No skewing for the center tile, even though P1 and P2 allows for
those. The reason is that this would allow users to more easily
switch to other symmetries with rectangular tiles. Even if the user's
tile design is a skewed rectangle, it's not like they need the base
tile to be one anyway.
2. I'm thinking of eliminating the rotation centers and force the users
to directly choose say... a P3 guide if that's what he wants. Some
handle options may still be available outside of the rectangle guides,
but the general shape cannot be changed. The reasoning is:
just how desperately does one need to change from P1 to P3 anyway?
It may be fun to experiment but it will get confusing fast, and designs
for very differently shaped tiles will probably be different too.
> This sounds like a good idea. If I understand correctly your idea is to
> allow transforming a single tile and then "propagating" that transform
> to other tiles in such a way that starting from the original/central tile
> there is a gradual change in the transformation.
I had typed a long list of questions regarding interpolation with some
cluttered thoughts regarding the interface, then I saw Veronika's
suggestion:
> I wonder if the dynamics could be considered as something separate
> from cloned tiles and could be applied to any selection of objects.
Somehow I think this is simpler too. :S Any objections to treating the
features separately?
> Oh, btw, make sure that "in the end", there is a blueprint or something
> on your proposal (which can link to the Wiki page for example), as it
> might take some time to come to an implementation, and it would
> be ashame if it was "forgotten".
No problem. I always did intend to make one. But I wanted to make
sure that I got to a point where people browsing the blueprints section
wouldn't be wondering why said blueprint is redone from scratch every
few
weeks (as in, at the very least, the general concept should be
stable).
And yes, I'm thinking of implementation order too. The pity about the
current design is that it isn't as modular as my previous one, but oh well.
> Tenacity is worth ten times more than smarts, we can get to the
> best practical design through discussion and the great critiques.
It also feels like it's taking ten times longer, and I'm starting to miss my
other hobbies, but thanks for the encouragement. x)