Yeah, I like the dropper-cursor3.png. Seems more intuitive for the icon
to be more like the pointer. People are used to the pointer mirroring
the dominant right handed index finger.
People might be used to it in gereral, but with the eye-dropper, you're
used to having the bottom left corner taking the color.
I'd suggest to just go and use the system eye-dropper cursor! You know,
the one you get, when you select a color for the panel, for example.
This makes sense imho, cause I just got a set of new cursors, which
might eventually at some point effect the eye dropper to look different.
Is there any problems with using that cursor? Why reinvent the wheel,
and not maybe make the GNOME people improve theirs? What matters to me
is a consistent behaviour on my desktop.
David
--
Be an animal rights activist! Save the penguin!
Sign up today to fight ePatents in Europe:
http://www.ffii.org/ffii-cgi/aktiv?f=euparl&l=en
>From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jun 06 02:45:43 2004
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 11:44:59 +0200
From: Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@...123...>
To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: Inkscape Layers
Message-ID: <20040606094459.GA5592@...124...>
Reply-To: tw@...125...
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406042157540.32629@...117...> <1086458249.20649.2181.camel@...4...> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0406052036360.1787@...355...>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0406052036360.1787@...355...>
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Mutt
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by sourceforge.net.
See
http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
Report problems to
http://sf.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=1&atid=200001
Sender: inkscape-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: inkscape-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
X-BeenThere: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9-sf.net
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel,
mailto:inkscape-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe
List-Id: <inkscape-devel.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Post:
mailto:inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Help:
mailto:inkscape-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help
List-Subscribe:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel,
mailto:inkscape-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe
List-Archive:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=inkscape-devel
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:56:44PM +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
>
> I understand that Layers are really just meta-groups or super-groups, but
> the methodology of adding items to layers is quite different from
> selecting items and grouping them, which I think is an easier way for many
> users to interact with the objects.
I didn't catch the whole discussion about layers, I just hope I'm not
totaly off here.
However, layers can be seen as serialized selections and are in this aspect
just like groups. But in vector graphics apps layers usualy establish
z-order 'compartments'. There is z order inside each layer, but the general
z-order of each member of a layer is higher than those of members of layers
below and lower than those of members of layers above.
Grouping is used to lock relative position of items and for scaling them
all together. Layers are about organizing z-order, toggling visibility
and locking. Visibilty and locking can of course work the same way for
groups, it's just they are usualy not listed in vector apps.
It would be interesting to implement/express layers as special case of
groups, but I have no idea how to go about toggable z-order compartment
behaviour.
---
Thorsten Wilms