Sebastian Zartner wrote
I missed to explain why. You can do relative changes by entering calculations into the fields just like in all the other value fields.
I guessed you had thought this.
But it's not the same: when you open the dialog the coordinates field have to be populated by decimal numbers, that is the internal representation of the exact coordinates (exact in the sense that they're exactly what the program is using) are converted into a certain amount of characters. If you then write "+5" a second conversion of the original coordinates is needed because the arithmetic operation will then be performed with the character representation converted back to binary.
I always use the guide's dialog in relative mode, that's why at the time I asked to make this field persistent at least inside the single Inkscape session (at first I had to enable it every time the dialog was open) and it had been a big improvement in my workflow. Now I open the dialog and the cursor is already in the field I need (e.g. in a horizontal guide's dialog the Y field is selected) so I just have to type the offset and press enter. I agree that it's not a big difference but given how often I do this small operation your proposal is going to negatively impact my workflow. And I still can't see any good reason to do so.
Sebastian Zartner wrote
Sebastian Zartner wrote
...and the unit;
Why? Don't you think that they are there for a reason?
Because I believe it is better to keep to the general document's units. Or is there a reason to have the document in centimeters but use inches for the guides?
You never know what user's may need. A feature is a feature and if you take it out nobody will be able to use it anymore. And where is the improvement? Personally I've used this option to have offset in inches in a mm document because the parts I was drawing had their measurements specified in inches but the rest of the drawing was in mm (and don't tell me that I could have just typed '*25.4' because the units were introduced exactly to get rid of this so it would be a step back). I've also used the angle unit combo for moving between ° and rad. I don't see any reason to have the freedom of choosing the angle unit and not the coordinates' one.
Sebastian Zartner wrote
After all, the blueprint is just a proposal and the goal is to improve the UI. And I started the discussion here to get a consensus on it. If there are reasonable objections against parts of it, I'll change them.
I'm sure about this. In my last post I've slipped in using a more passionate tone to express my surprise (which was due to my fault as I had not read well your blueprint before) because guides is the main tool I use in Inkscape and even a small change is going to affect, positively or negatively, my workflow. I'm just trying to give you as much input I can as a heavy user of guides. Every node in my drawing is placed snapping it to a guide or to two guide's intersection. This is the only way I've found to have (almost) exact measures and dimensions in Inkscape. And it's very easy too.
Sebastian Zartner wrote
My intention was to move all those options to the View menu, which was accepted by Martin and Brynn.
And that's fine for me too, as long as the options are still reachable somewhere.
Sebastian Zartner wrote
The feature itself is clear to me. Though I still wonder whether that is actually something people use.
Same as before: if you take this feature away, nobody will use it for sure.
Sebastian Zartner wrote
It's not that the dialog is too crowded, it's just that some options may not be needed or belong to somewhere else.
About the "may not be needed" I've already written twice above. About the "belong to somewhere else" it's a very subjective sentence: I'd read it as "I feel that they may belong to somewhere else", hence not an strong argument.
Let me propose a different point of view: have you heard people complaining specifically about the points we're talking about in the current document's options dialog? Remember that people who are happy with the current state of things usually don't care about writing, they'll just complain when realizing that you've changed what they were using.
My global opinion is that there are many points in your blueprint that would effectively improve the dialog (all those I didn't write about because I think are valid) but some others, which I think are minor and not strictly required to reach the main goal, could break usages. I'd take a more conservative approach, introducing the core changes while leaving alone the others, at least until you get some real feedback from a larger pool. The main ones I wouldn't touch are the tabs in the dialog and the single guide's dialog as I don't see a strong relationship with the improvements in managing the document's options you're proposing (that is, leaving them alone shouldn't hinder you). And if you think that the presence of some features is an obstacle for what you want to implement, please share your concerns so we can look for alternative solutions that may save both ways.
Luca
-- View this message in context: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/UI-Rework-Document-Properties-dialog-tp4976... Sent from the Inkscape - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.