On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, MenTaLguY wrote:
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:58:29 -0500 From: MenTaLguY <mental@...3...> To: Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> Cc: Inkscape is a vector graphics editor inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Usability, Vacuum Defs and Tool options. [Re: [Inkscape-devel] Inkscape on LWN]
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 13:20, Alan Horkan wrote:
I think the current attempt to solve them by overloading the tools is not the best way to fix that problem but for the short term does make things more functional but in the long run I dont think the logic behind it is clear enough and it will make Inkscape less easy to learn.
That may be true, but in absence of an immediate better idea the perfect is the enemy of the good.
I'm afraid I may need to have that mantra tattooed across my forearm but the reminder is appreciated.
If one persistently advocates the removal of a feature without proposing an alternative, it does tend to come across as a rejection of the functionality that feature offers.
I can see how my comments can be read that way but I see it as advocating changes not removing of anything. Clearly I need to try harder to describe what I mean.
Yes. Overloading the drawing tools to perform post-creation modifications introduces some level of inconsistency in the interface.
I don't disagree (though I think the inconsistency is minimal), but I've not seen any better suggestions either.
Do you have a better suggestion?
At the moment the best I can offer is to try and help improve the various palettes and transient dialogs by providing mockups and comparisions.
I really will try to make my comments more productive, so many other distractions I'm not organised enough to contribute much more than commetns at the moment.
- Alan