Please excuse the long delay! I was very busy the past two weeks.
On 2 June 2016 at 18:18, Brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote:
By removing the option for relative changes in the individual guides dialog, it makes that option invisible, especially for the non-technical Inkscape users out there. You'd have to know that ability was there, to do the calculations in the field, to be able to use it. Or at least wonder about it, and try it.
To me, it's more intuitive the way it is. But if you remove the relative option, maybe you could replace it with a reminder note, that the fields can be used for calculating relative moves. Or at least a mouseover text (like the options in Inkscape Preferences). Just a thought.
A tooltip already helps, I guess. What may also be added is a little visual indicator within the fields like a +/- sign to improve the discoverability. What do you think abou that?
Removing the guide units borders on outrageous for me. It's one thing to make a dialog smaller or more efficient, or whatever you're doing. But it's a whole other thing to remove or hide functionality. Having many units available is part of what makes Inkscape great.
I still believe that having different units all over the UI is counter-intuitive for most users, though I've still added it back now.
It seems you're branching out from just reworking the Document Properties dialog?
Reworking the dialog requires thinking about what to do with the options it has at the moment, which includes the guides options placed in it. Moving options out of it means they need to be put somewhere else. So, this affects other parts of the UI as well. And merging them with the ones from the Guideline dialog seems logical to me.
On 3 June 2016 at 11:11, LucaDC <dicappello@...2144...> wrote:
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.
Calculations should always be done on the exact coordinates, not their visual representation, but that's a whole different story and should be discussed separately from this thread.
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.
As I get it, your current workflow is: 1. Double-click the guide line => Dialog opens, focus is already in the right field. 2. Enter a new relative value 3. Hit Enter to accept the value and close the dialog 4. Edit something on your objects 5. Start over from step 1
The suggested workflow is: 1. Double-click the guide line => Dialog opens, focus is already in the right field. 2. Press Left Arrow, Plus and enter the relative value 3. Edit something on your objects 4. Click into the field you want to change 5. Type Plus and enter the new relative value 6. Start over with step 3
So, when you often edit the same guide line, you'll additionally have to press Plus but save the step for opening the dialog again on subsequent changes.
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?
If a feature is not used, it benefits the UI to remove it.
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 can see your point. As mentioned above, I've added the units field back now.
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.
And that's great. I'd love to get such detailed input from more users.
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.
Well, that's clear. ;-) The question was whether people use it *now*.
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.
There are always people that complain about everything, other people that are happy with things as they are, people that would like to have things changed but don't raise their voice, etc. Also, people are creatures of habit, so there are always complaints when something gets changed. To answer your question, one mention is at https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/32764778/. There were others, though I'd need to look them up again.
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.
That's a good idea! I think, once the discussion has settled, I'll split the changes up in the ones we agreed on, covered by the blueprint, and the ones needing further discussion, for which I'll create new blueprints or bugs.
Sebastian