Re: [Inkscape-devel] [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units
For what it's worth I also prefer a px-based default template.
* For digital art it makes the most sense as Tyler noted. * For stuff that's intended to be used "on paper" it does not break anything and can in fact even avoid incompatibilities due to the viewbox scaling. Also it feels more natural to make a line 1or 2 px wide (which are useful widths for me in everyday use) instead of fiddling with fractional millimeters. If I need mm-based sizes I can also still use them where necessary.
On a related note I'm not even sure our default size of A4 is overly useful. I've yet to create content in Inkscape that would need an A4 size... For me it's either digital artwork which has some even pixel size or I'm creating graphics that are put on A4 paper and therefore need to be smaller anyway (e.g. ~ 8cm wide to fill one column). So, while we need some default (which might just as well be A4) I don't think we should assume users actually create A4 content and base our decision on that.
Regards, Eduard
Am 20.09.2017 um 16:00 schrieb Tyler Durden:
I see no downside to having all releases/localizations use px as display units and scale=1.
AFAICT, it breaks nothing, which cannot be said for other current defaults. Everything works and no gymnastics trying to explain units and scale to the non-technically inclined.
Even the newest users can understand how to set the document to their preferred display units. No need for typical users to change scale.
Simple rationale: svg is a web format, hence default.svg units = px.
Thanks, TD
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:47 AM, brynn <brynn@...3133... mailto:brynn@...3133...> wrote:
Oh, I didn't know about these templates! However, I think it's better for users to know how to use the interface, rather than use a template which only sets up the units, and not the page size (unless you happen to want an A4 page). I'm not clear what you mean by this: The one thing you cannot do, however, is modify the document units after Inkscape has opened the startup file. If you know how to change the units (as I've just learned how to do it correctly) can't they be changed? Or do you mean that the user would have to save a new template if they change the units? I'm just writing the new FAQ item right now, so I'll include this info about the templates too. But need to understand that last statement (above). Thanks Alvin :-) -----Original Message----- From: alvinpenner Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:29 AM To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units It may be worth mentioning that you can choose the document units that you prefer when you start up Inkscape. If you use the startup template file C:\Program Files (x86)\Inkscape\share\templates\default.svg (which is the default), then you will find that the document units are mm. You can confirm this by drawing a rectangle that has the width of the full page and then using the XML editor to confirm that the width has been expressed in mm. A typical example would be <rect style="..." id="rect10" width="210.91072" (should be 210, my hand was shaky) height="88.446426" x="0" y="0.66666663" /> If you prefer to use px as the document units, then use the template file C:\Program Files (x86)\Inkscape\share\templates\default_px.svg. In this case if you draw a rectangle that has the full width of an A4 page you will get: <rect style="..." id="rect18" width="797.14288" (should be 793.7007, which is 210mm expressed in px) height="357.14285" x="0" y="2.519685" /> If you prefer to use pt as document units, then use the template file default_pt.svg If you want to permanently modify the startup units, then copy a file like default_pt.svg to overwrite the file default.svg. (after first making a backup, just in case.) The one thing you cannot do, however, is modify the document units after Inkscape has opened the startup file. hth, Alvin -- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-User-f2857977.html <http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-User-f2857977.html> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user>
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
I prefer A4 as a default with mm as the measurement (as it is). The reason is that I design stuff in Inkscape every day. I use its measurements in mm, and the default gives the user a real world size to compare too. There is no standard pixel size, so it does not make sense to me to have the default in pixels, or indeed to measure anything in pixels at all. Pixel widths are only good for exporting bitmaps, and you will be at the mercy of whatever the manufacturer of the device decided the pixel density should be.
That's just my preference though. I will just reset the default template myself if everyone decides to go the other way.
Keep in mind the criticisms we got from the artists and illustrators for the last release. It's clear to me from those that the uses for Inkscape go far beyond just SVG for web. There was a whole classroom full of students who randomly happen to be using Inkscape in the next room for CNC machines. Ask them what they would prefer, and they will probably say mm makes the most sense.
If we choose px as the base unit for measurement the dpi (and thus conversion to mm and other physical measurements) will change again to some other completely arbitrary increment in the future. Whereas 1mm will always be 1mm.
My 2p -C
On 20 Sep 2017 17:42, "Eduard Braun" <eduard.braun2@...173...> wrote:
For what it's worth I also prefer a px-based default template.
- For digital art it makes the most sense as Tyler noted.
- For stuff that's intended to be used "on paper" it does not break
anything and can in fact even avoid incompatibilities due to the viewbox scaling. Also it feels more natural to make a line 1or 2 px wide (which are useful widths for me in everyday use) instead of fiddling with fractional millimeters. If I need mm-based sizes I can also still use them where necessary.
On a related note I'm not even sure our default size of A4 is overly useful. I've yet to create content in Inkscape that would need an A4 size... For me it's either digital artwork which has some even pixel size or I'm creating graphics that are put on A4 paper and therefore need to be smaller anyway (e.g. ~ 8cm wide to fill one column). So, while we need some default (which might just as well be A4) I don't think we should assume users actually create A4 content and base our decision on that.
Regards, Eduard
Am 20.09.2017 um 16:00 schrieb Tyler Durden:
I see no downside to having all releases/localizations use px as display units and scale=1.
AFAICT, it breaks nothing, which cannot be said for other current defaults. Everything works and no gymnastics trying to explain units and scale to the non-technically inclined.
Even the newest users can understand how to set the document to their preferred display units. No need for typical users to change scale.
Simple rationale: svg is a web format, hence default.svg units = px.
Thanks, TD
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:47 AM, brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote:
Oh, I didn't know about these templates!
However, I think it's better for users to know how to use the interface, rather than use a template which only sets up the units, and not the page size (unless you happen to want an A4 page).
I'm not clear what you mean by this:
The one thing you cannot do, however, is modify the document units after
Inkscape has opened the startup file.
If you know how to change the units (as I've just learned how to do it correctly) can't they be changed? Or do you mean that the user would have to save a new template if they change the units?
I'm just writing the new FAQ item right now, so I'll include this info about the templates too. But need to understand that last statement (above).
Thanks Alvin :-)
-----Original Message----- From: alvinpenner Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:29 AM To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units
It may be worth mentioning that you can choose the document units that you prefer when you start up Inkscape. If you use the startup template file C:\Program Files (x86)\Inkscape\share\templates\default.svg (which is the default), then you will find that the document units are mm. You can confirm this by drawing a rectangle that has the width of the full page and then using the XML editor to confirm that the width has been expressed in mm. A typical example would be
<rect style="..." id="rect10" width="210.91072" (should be 210, my hand was shaky) height="88.446426" x="0" y="0.66666663" />
If you prefer to use px as the document units, then use the template file C:\Program Files (x86)\Inkscape\share\templates\default_px.svg. In this case if you draw a rectangle that has the full width of an A4 page you will get:
<rect style="..." id="rect18" width="797.14288" (should be 793.7007, which is 210mm expressed in px) height="357.14285" x="0" y="2.519685" />
If you prefer to use pt as document units, then use the template file default_pt.svg
If you want to permanently modify the startup units, then copy a file like default_pt.svg to overwrite the file default.svg. (after first making a backup, just in case.)
The one thing you cannot do, however, is modify the document units after Inkscape has opened the startup file.
hth, Alvin
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-User-f2857977.html
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Inkscape-user mailing listInkscape-user@...1901...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
Am 21.09.2017 um 09:39 schrieb C R:
I prefer A4 as a default with mm as the measurement (as it is). The reason is that I design stuff in Inkscape every day. I use its measurements in mm, and the default gives the user a real world size to compare too. There is no standard pixel size, so it does not make sense to me to have the default in pixels, or indeed to measure anything in pixels at all. Pixel widths are only good for exporting bitmaps, and you will be at the mercy of whatever the manufacturer of the device decided the pixel density should be.
Hehe, we're back to the question "what is one pixel" and as far as Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px is 1/96 inch, so it is a real world size and this pixel size in fact *is* the standard pixel size according to CSS2. Y'all should really read Mc's posts on units. ;-).
I'm not sure if your comment on manufacturers is based on actual experience (maybe you could elaborate on that), but personally I'd feeld a lot safer to use a px-based (unscaled) SVG as a base for production than to rely on some SVG with millimeters as user units that Inkscape currently implements via a viewBox scaling of the whole SVG (which broke a lot of our export extensions and might just as well confuse import filters in other software).
Keep in mind the criticisms we got from the artists and illustrators for the last release. It's clear to me from those that the uses for Inkscape go far beyond just SVG for web. There was a whole classroom full of students who randomly happen to be using Inkscape in the next room for CNC machines. Ask them what they would prefer, and they will probably say mm makes the most sense.
I don't disagree that a mm is a useful unit for many applications (I think you misunderstood me here). I'm fine with keeping the default template being A4 (with mm measurements) and set all lengths in mm by default. What I would change is the unit length we use in the SVG - here I think we should stick with px by default (remember it can always be changed by the user if they have special needs!) as it has the least unwanted side-effects and works very well for many use cases and well for most others. I think that can't be said for the current solution (which I feel works well for some cases and badly for many others).
If we choose px as the base unit for measurement the dpi (and thus conversion to mm and other physical measurements) will change again to some other completely arbitrary increment in the future. Whereas 1mm will always be 1mm.
Well, then we rescale again... Now that we put in viewBoxes by default it's not a big deal. In the worst case we end up with what we now produce by default (scaled SVG).
My 2p -C
On 20 Sep 2017 17:42, "Eduard Braun" <eduard.braun2@...173... mailto:eduard.braun2@...173...> wrote:
For what it's worth I also prefer a px-based default template. * For digital art it makes the most sense as Tyler noted. * For stuff that's intended to be used "on paper" it does not break anything and can in fact even avoid incompatibilities due to the viewbox scaling. Also it feels more natural to make a line 1or 2 px wide (which are useful widths for me in everyday use) instead of fiddling with fractional millimeters. If I need mm-based sizes I can also still use them where necessary. On a related note I'm not even sure our default size of A4 is overly useful. I've yet to create content in Inkscape that would need an A4 size... For me it's either digital artwork which has some even pixel size or I'm creating graphics that are put on A4 paper and therefore need to be smaller anyway (e.g. ~ 8cm wide to fill one column). So, while we need some default (which might just as well be A4) I don't think we should assume users actually create A4 content and base our decision on that. Regards, Eduard Am 20.09.2017 um 16:00 schrieb Tyler Durden:I see no downside to having all releases/localizations use px as display units and scale=1. AFAICT, it breaks nothing, which cannot be said for other current defaults. Everything works and no gymnastics trying to explain units and scale to the non-technically inclined. Even the newest users can understand how to set the document to their preferred display units. No need for typical users to change scale. Simple rationale: svg is a web format, hence default.svg units = px. Thanks, TD On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:47 AM, brynn <brynn@...3133... <mailto:brynn@...3133...>> wrote: Oh, I didn't know about these templates! However, I think it's better for users to know how to use the interface, rather than use a template which only sets up the units, and not the page size (unless you happen to want an A4 page). I'm not clear what you mean by this: The one thing you cannot do, however, is modify the document units after Inkscape has opened the startup file. If you know how to change the units (as I've just learned how to do it correctly) can't they be changed? Or do you mean that the user would have to save a new template if they change the units? I'm just writing the new FAQ item right now, so I'll include this info about the templates too. But need to understand that last statement (above). Thanks Alvin :-) -----Original Message----- From: alvinpenner Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:29 AM To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units It may be worth mentioning that you can choose the document units that you prefer when you start up Inkscape. If you use the startup template file C:\Program Files (x86)\Inkscape\share\templates\default.svg (which is the default), then you will find that the document units are mm. You can confirm this by drawing a rectangle that has the width of the full page and then using the XML editor to confirm that the width has been expressed in mm. A typical example would be <rect style="..." id="rect10" width="210.91072" (should be 210, my hand was shaky) height="88.446426" x="0" y="0.66666663" /> If you prefer to use px as the document units, then use the template file C:\Program Files (x86)\Inkscape\share\templates\default_px.svg. In this case if you draw a rectangle that has the full width of an A4 page you will get: <rect style="..." id="rect18" width="797.14288" (should be 793.7007, which is 210mm expressed in px) height="357.14285" x="0" y="2.519685" /> If you prefer to use pt as document units, then use the template file default_pt.svg If you want to permanently modify the startup units, then copy a file like default_pt.svg to overwrite the file default.svg. (after first making a backup, just in case.) The one thing you cannot do, however, is modify the document units after Inkscape has opened the startup file. hth, Alvin -- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-User-f2857977.html <http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-User-f2857977.html> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org!http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user>
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Eduard Braun wrote
Hehe, we're back to the question "what is one pixel" and as far as Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px is 1/96 inch, so it is a real world size and this pixel size in fact *is* the standard pixel size according to CSS2. Y'all should really read Mc's posts on units. ;-).
If this sentence was as strong as it tries to appear, the transition from 90 dpi to 96 dpi would have been a lot less painful. Oh, sorry, I was wrong: the transition wouldn't even had been necessary!
"Pixel" is not listed in The International System of Units (SI), where mm is (well, m of which it's a power: http://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/base-units.html). So you can't say that the definitions of pixel and mm have comparable weights and scopes. 1 mm is 1 mm. Full stop. I agree that today a pixel can be related to a real world size unit (1/96 of an Inch), but yesterday it wasn't so who can guarantee that tomorrow it will still be? SI units are there not to suffer of this uncertainty so that's what I call _real_world_units_, not something that can be changed to fit the needs of a so quickly evolving technology.
Eduard Braun wrote
personally I'd feeld a lot safer to use a px-based (unscaled) SVG as a base for production than to rely on some SVG with millimeters as user units that Inkscape currently implements via a viewBox scaling of the whole SVG (which broke a lot of our export extensions and might just as well confuse import filters in other software).
If I get this sentence right, it makes me feel you've not completely understood how a (current) mm document is made. What could be misunderstood in a document where mm is the unit, the page is 297x210 and you have an object with dimensions 10x10? Actually I can't see any "viewBox scaling of the whole SVG" here, unless that's how you call the viewBox function itself. Perhaps you're making a bit of confusion between px as 1/96 of an inch (as we've been talking up to now) and px as user-unit (as per SVG specifications): a user-unit is not (necessarily) 1/96 of an Inch, and that's what the viewBox is for: nothing strange or outside SVG specifications here so broken extensions or import filters are simply buggy. And as far as Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px (in the SVG sense, i.e. user-unit) is not always 1/90 or 1/96 inch anymore. At last.
Luca
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Am 21.09.2017 um 13:14 schrieb LucaDC:
Eduard Braun wrote
Hehe, we're back to the question "what is one pixel" and as far as Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px is 1/96 inch, so it is a real world size and this pixel size in fact *is* the standard pixel size according to CSS2. Y'all should really read Mc's posts on units. ;-).
If this sentence was as strong as it tries to appear, the transition from 90 dpi to 96 dpi would have been a lot less painful. Oh, sorry, I was wrong: the transition wouldn't even had been necessary!
"Pixel" is not listed in The International System of Units (SI), where mm is (well, m of which it's a power: http://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/base-units.html). So you can't say that the definitions of pixel and mm have comparable weights and scopes. 1 mm is 1 mm. Full stop. I agree that today a pixel can be related to a real world size unit (1/96 of an Inch), but yesterday it wasn't so who can guarantee that tomorrow it will still be? SI units are there not to suffer of this uncertainty so that's what I call _real_world_units_, not something that can be changed to fit the needs of a so quickly evolving technology.
I don't disagree with you, a meter (why are we using mm? ;-) ) is certainly a better measure of length than the pixel. However - while I'm an advocate of SI myself - it's certainly not the only measure and needs are different. Just because *you* prefer the meter does not mean other people work the same way. You only want to offer SI units? Great! Let's drop inches and point, too! A user wants to design a screenshot for their full HD screen? Let's tell them to make their document 1920x1080 mm² because "1 mm will always be 1 mm" (no wait... because the px is flawed they're probably out of luck anyway - or should they measure their screen with a ruler... I'm confused ;-) ) Maybe you're right and with high DPI screens becoming more and more popular it's time to say goodbye to pixel units for most content. But for now they still have their uses and it's not for us to decide! If an application complicates certain usage scenarios on purpose it's bound to upset some people and leaves a bad impression behind. I don't want that.
At the very least I think we need a possibility to select the default template via UI (I even opened a bug about that some time ago: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1673608) so users can make a choice on their own without too much hassle.
Eduard Braun wrote
personally I'd feeld a lot safer to use a px-based (unscaled) SVG as a base for production than to rely on some SVG with millimeters as user units that Inkscape currently implements via a viewBox scaling of the whole SVG (which broke a lot of our export extensions and might just as well confuse import filters in other software).
If I get this sentence right, it makes me feel you've not completely understood how a (current) mm document is made. What could be misunderstood in a document where mm is the unit, the page is 297x210 and you have an object with dimensions 10x10? Actually I can't see any "viewBox scaling of the whole SVG" here, unless that's how you call the viewBox function itself. Perhaps you're making a bit of confusion between px as 1/96 of an inch (as we've been talking up to now) and px as user-unit (as per SVG specifications): a user-unit is not (necessarily) 1/96 of an Inch, and that's what the viewBox is for: nothing strange or outside SVG specifications here so broken extensions or import filters are simply buggy. And as far as Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px (in the SVG sense, i.e. user-unit) is not always 1/90 or 1/96 inch anymore. At last.
You don't have to lecture me, I'm quite familiar with what we do internally.
The problem is not so much the correctness of the SVG (I don't argue with that) but what other software makes of it. And while you're absolutely right that software not properly handling the viewBox attribute should be considered broken, it does not help our users. Do you want to tell them "hey, Inkscape is doing everything right, here, look in the cryptic specification users should never have to care about and see for yourself we're not to blame?" That won't help them at all...
Also the length of this thread shows how "good a job" we're doing at hiding all those internals from the user and giving them something they can easily work with, regardless of their specific application.
Regards, Eduard
Luca
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Since it's now America first maybe we should use 8.5 inches by 11 inches as the default. :P
Sarcasm aside, I do find it mildly annoying to have to go into the Document Properties every time I load an instance of Inkscape to change it (almost always to pixels). I know this can be changed in the config directory, but being able to change the default page size and units in the GUI seems like a reasonable feature. Alternatively (or additionally) presenting the Document Properties dialog on startup is the way many graphics applications handle this. I doubt we'll find any size/unit combo that makes everyone happy.
*Ryan Gorley* Managing Partner | Dijt https://dijt.co
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Eduard Braun <eduard.braun2@...173...> wrote:
Am 21.09.2017 um 13:14 schrieb LucaDC:
Eduard Braun wrote
Hehe, we're back to the question "what is one pixel" and as far as Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px is 1/96 inch, so it is a real world size and this pixel size in fact *is* the standard pixel size according to CSS2. Y'all should really read Mc's posts on units. ;-).
If this sentence was as strong as it tries to appear, the transition from 90 dpi to 96 dpi would have been a lot less painful. Oh, sorry, I was wrong: the transition wouldn't even had been necessary!
"Pixel" is not listed in The International System of Units (SI), where mm is (well, m of which it's a power: http://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/base-units.html). So you can't say that the definitions of pixel and mm have comparable weights and scopes. 1 mm is 1 mm. Full stop. I agree that today a pixel can be related to a real world size unit (1/96 of an Inch), but yesterday it wasn't so who can guarantee that tomorrow it will still be? SI units are there not to suffer of this uncertainty so that's what I call _real_world_units_, not something that can be changed to fit the needs of a so quickly evolving technology.
I don't disagree with you, a meter (why are we using mm? ;-) ) is certainly a better measure of length than the pixel. However - while I'm an advocate of SI myself - it's certainly not the only measure and needs are different. Just because *you* prefer the meter does not mean other people work the same way. You only want to offer SI units? Great! Let's drop inches and point, too! A user wants to design a screenshot for their full HD screen? Let's tell them to make their document 1920x1080 mm² because "1 mm will always be 1 mm" (no wait... because the px is flawed they're probably out of luck anyway - or should they measure their screen with a ruler... I'm confused ;-) ) Maybe you're right and with high DPI screens becoming more and more popular it's time to say goodbye to pixel units for most content. But for now they still have their uses and it's not for us to decide! If an application complicates certain usage scenarios on purpose it's bound to upset some people and leaves a bad impression behind. I don't want that.
At the very least I think we need a possibility to select the default template via UI (I even opened a bug about that some time ago: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1673608) so users can make a choice on their own without too much hassle.
Eduard Braun wrote
personally I'd feeld a lot safer to use a px-based (unscaled) SVG as a base for production than to rely on some SVG with millimeters as user units that Inkscape currently implements via a viewBox scaling of the whole SVG (which broke a lot of our export extensions and might just as well confuse import filters in other software).
If I get this sentence right, it makes me feel you've not completely understood how a (current) mm document is made. What could be misunderstood in a document where mm is the unit, the page is 297x210 and you have an object with dimensions 10x10? Actually I can't see any "viewBox scaling of the whole SVG" here, unless that's how you call the viewBox function itself. Perhaps you're making a bit of confusion between px as 1/96 of an inch (as we've been talking up to now) and px as user-unit (as per SVG specifications): a user-unit is not (necessarily) 1/96 of an Inch, and that's what the viewBox is for: nothing strange or outside SVG specifications here so broken extensions or import filters are simply buggy. And as far as Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px (in the SVG sense, i.e. user-unit) is not always 1/90 or 1/96 inch anymore. At last.
You don't have to lecture me, I'm quite familiar with what we do internally.
The problem is not so much the correctness of the SVG (I don't argue with that) but what other software makes of it. And while you're absolutely right that software not properly handling the viewBox attribute should be considered broken, it does not help our users. Do you want to tell them "hey, Inkscape is doing everything right, here, look in the cryptic specification users should never have to care about and see for yourself we're not to blame?" That won't help them at all...
Also the length of this thread shows how "good a job" we're doing at hiding all those internals from the user and giving them something they can easily work with, regardless of their specific application.
Regards, Eduard
Luca
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Eduard Braun wrote
However - while I'm an advocate of SI myself - it's certainly not the only measure and needs are different. Just because *you* prefer the meter does not mean other people work the same way.
I didn't want to say that mm is better than px. mm is better than px if you are speaking of real world measures; px has proven to be a bad real world measure. But if you draw an icon you should use px not mm, of course.
Eduard Braun wrote
You only want to offer SI units? Great! Let's drop inches and point, too! A user wants to design a screenshot for their full HD screen? Let's tell them to make their document 1920x1080 mm² because "1 mm will always be 1 mm" (no wait... because the px is flawed they're probably out of luck anyway - or should they measure their screen with a ruler... I'm confused ;-) )
No, I don't only want to offer SI units, of course. :) Why did you think that?
Eduard Braun wrote
If an application complicates certain usage scenarios on purpose it's bound to upset some people and leaves a bad impression behind. I don't want that.
Me too.
Eduard Braun wrote
Do you want to tell them "hey, Inkscape is doing everything right, here, look in the cryptic specification users should never have to care about and see for yourself we're not to blame?" That won't help them at all...
Are you saying that some users make drawings in mm and expect the SVG to internally store numbers in 1/96 inches? Personally I find this a "cryptic specification users should never have to care about", not the opposite. Anyway, if it's like this, the px template should fix everything. Do people need an A4_in_px template?
Luca
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Am 21.09.2017 um 19:11 schrieb LucaDC:
No, I don't only want to offer SI units, of course. :) Why did you think that?
Your mail sounded a lot as if you were suggesting the px was a unit that should be avoided.
Are you saying that some users make drawings in mm and expect the SVG to internally store numbers in 1/96 inches? Personally I find this a "cryptic specification users should never have to care about", not the opposite. Anyway, if it's like this, the px template should fix everything. Do people need an A4_in_px template?
It's cryptic, but it works. The default SVG user unit is 1 px, so even if I use broken software it will work, so it is a workable compromise for me to use mm in UI but store px in the SVG. As users should never be required to look *inside* the SVG they will not be affected by this at all.
Luca
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Eduard Braun wrote
Are you saying that some users make drawings in mm and expect the SVG to internally store numbers in 1/96 inches? Personally I find this a "cryptic specification users should never have to care about", not the opposite. Anyway, if it's like this, the px template should fix everything. Do people need an A4_in_px template?
It's cryptic, but it works. The default SVG user unit is 1 px, so even if I use broken software it will work, so it is a workable compromise for me to use mm in UI but store px in the SVG.
Let me understand, I'm probably missing something because all you're speaking about is already possible: just create documents in px, then you can set whatever unit you want in the GUI to work with while storing numbers in px in the SVG. I ask again: is this just a template issue?
Otherwise, are you proposing to deliberately restrict the Inkscape's implementation of SVG specifications avoiding the use of viewBox to make others' broken software work? How would you manage opening a file with a viewBox, modifying it and saving? Would you automatically strip the viewBox forcing a conversion to px of the internal numbers so others' broken software can understand it? If this is really needed I think it deserves a specific function in the program and people who count on this should learn to use the option.
Eduard Braun wrote
As users should never be required to look *inside* the SVG they will not be affected by this at all.
I wouldn't have cared about how numbers were stored inside SVG files if I hadn't found problems in my drawings, like setting precise coordinates (in mm) with guides then saving and finding different numbers after reopening. I was affected by the conversion to px happening *inside* the SVG, so I had to look.
Luca
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Am 22.09.2017 um 10:09 schrieb LucaDC:
Let me understand, I'm probably missing something because all you're speaking about is already possible: just create documents in px, then you can set whatever unit you want in the GUI to work with while storing numbers in px in the SVG. I ask again: is this just a template issue?
Yes, that was the whole point (and I think it was pretty clear from the beginning...). I really get the feeling we could avoid half our mailing list conversations if people were talking about the same thing. :-/
[Luca] I ask again: is this just a template issue? <<
Yes, I also think so.
I currently instruct all my Inkscape students at the local makerspace to create a custom default template with units=px and scale=1.
Slide from the class: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/8ydap6q59dtne1i/Inkscape_Class_101-Default.png
At the makerspace we regularly use px, imperial and metric; and output from Inkscape for print, CNC, laser, game design, web, CAD, and on, and on... So it would be very nice to have px as the default template and let our users change units in the display as desired without any concerns regarding scale.
Thanks, TD
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Sorry I was unavailable for all this discussion the last couple of days. (just a bit out of sorts)
I completely understand that everyone has different preferences for whatever project they use Inkscape to accomplish. I would say that as far as Inkscape is concerned, none should be considered better or more preferred than the other.
I think it would be a mistake to force one or more user groups to always change their docs, or make their own special templates, just so that one or more other user groups can have convenience. Especially with this new system which is so confusing for many users. Inkscape should be made usable, equally as possible, for all user groups.
The bottom line (at least for me) is that there is no way to satisfy everyones needs at the same time. What is needed is a simple way for users to choose and set their desired units, no matter which kind of document or template they want.
Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to use. Now, it is not.
If there is some reason related to Inkscape's being able to function at all, where mm Must be the default units, then please make Inkscape do all the work, so that the user only has to click once to change their units (as before). (Make Scaling silent.)
However, I think it would be better to go back to the traditional system of px for the user units, where if a user wants to change their units, they just have to click once.
So
it would be very nice to have px as the default template and let our users change units in the display as desired without any concerns regarding scale.
Ditto!
As a footnote, this is one of the many issues we are seeing with users not understanding the scale (it's an old topic where a new message was posted, starting here) http://www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17182#p101060 Here, it seems setting the wrong scale is exaggerating the expected deformations of paths when using offsets.
All best, brynn
PS - I made the wishlist report, for what it's worth: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1719162
-----Original Message----- From: TylerDurden Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 9:46 PM To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units
[Luca] I ask again: is this just a template issue? <<
Yes, I also think so.
I currently instruct all my Inkscape students at the local makerspace to create a custom default template with units=px and scale=1.
Slide from the class: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/8ydap6q59dtne1i/Inkscape_Class_101-Default.png
At the makerspace we regularly use px, imperial and metric; and output from Inkscape for print, CNC, laser, game design, web, CAD, and on, and on... So it would be very nice to have px as the default template and let our users change units in the display as desired without any concerns regarding scale.
Thanks, TD
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Am 24.09.2017 um 11:33 schrieb brynn:
Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to use. Now, it is not.
I think one of the main sources of confusion is the wording and design of the document properties dialog, not the choice of units themselves:
* We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to only influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should be able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document) * However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will change too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's very bad as then they'll mess up their drawing) * The help of the "Scale" input is not helpful: "User units per {display unit}" As a user I ask myself: What is a "user unit"? If I (the user) just set "display units" to what I (the user) want to be displayed - is that a "user unit"? It obviously is not... A user unit is (even if it has a name that might suggest differently) something the user should not be bothered with (we don't have that term explained or used anywhere else in Inkscape I think).
While I'm no UI expert (who is ever? ;-) ) I think a possible solution to that would be:
* Rephrase "user units" to "{document,internal,SVG} units" or similar - something that makes clear that this is the unit stored in the resulting SVG document. (Problem: We used to call "Display units" "Document units" before 0.92, which was probably a bad choice and might cause ambiguity now) * Potentially collapse the whole "Scale" section by default (not just the "Viewbox" part) - users should probably never change it anyway (unless they know what they're doing) and usually they also should not have to. * Add a big warning sign: "Changing scaling will change the layout of your document - is this really what you want?" * Rethink if "Scale" is a suitable term for what we are doing here. If I double the scale my document does not change it's size (but instead my content is scaled down). Maybe this is a language problem but my general impression is that in software "Scale" usually refers to "scaling (up) the whole image" (which we do not do) and not "changing the scale as on a map" (which is what we do). * *Optionally* expose "user units" (with a proper alias) as a dropdown - if the user sets "display units" and "user units" to mm the scale will become "1". (Problem: How do we now what to put for "user units" when opening a file? For new files we could store it. For old files we could do the math and try to guess, but it might be hard to impossible in many cases).
Regards, Eduard
- We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to only influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should be able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document)
It doesn't →
- However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will change too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's very bad as then they'll mess up their drawing)
→ The scale does not actually change, it only appears to have changed because it used to show uu per <other unit>
Am 24.09.2017 um 13:48 schrieb Marc Jeanmougin:
- We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to only influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should be able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document)
It doesn't →
- However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will change too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's very bad as then they'll mess up their drawing)
→ The scale does not actually change, it only appears to have changed because it used to show uu per <other unit>
Marc, you're not telling me anything new here... The point is: It can be confusing if you are *not* aware of the details!
Do you want to give a "Tour of Inkscape" to every new user in order to help them with questions that might arise due to bad UI?
On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 13:53 +0200, Eduard Braun wrote:
Marc, you're not telling me anything new here... The point is: It can be confusing if you are *not* aware of the details!
Do you want to give a "Tour of Inkscape" to every new user in order to help them with questions that might arise due to bad UI?
I think what Eduard is saying is that the user interface is currently insufficient to self-contain the functionality that we have set up.
Requiring excessive external support is an indication that we might have to reconsider the design. Even if the reconsideration requires us to think deeper about the problem.
Martin,
There is also another issue which wasn't solved with svg filters. See bug #1429591. At one time after 0.91 they became to work very differently (particularly those who contains blur and turbulence) because they were designed at a smaller scaling than the new one. The only workaround I found was changing document properties/scaling to 3,7795 before designing anything inside the document or creating and use a template with this setting. On the other hand I was somewhat disappointed to see that in recent years nobody seems to be interested by the svg filters area in Inkscape. The work we did Nicolas Dufour and I several years ago didn't receive any return, positive nor negative. Most bugs weren't fixed and the Filters dialog has even became a mess despite several UI proposals. ivan
Le dimanche 24 septembre 2017 à 18:32:59 UTC+2, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> a écrit :
On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 13:53 +0200, Eduard Braun wrote:
Marc, you're not telling me anything new here... The point is: It can be confusing if you are *not* aware of the details!
Do you want to give a "Tour of Inkscape" to every new user in order to help them with questions that might arise due to bad UI?
I think what Eduard is saying is that the user interface is currently insufficient to self-contain the functionality that we have set up.
Requiring excessive external support is an indication that we might have to reconsider the design. Even if the reconsideration requires us to think deeper about the problem.
Martin,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Perhaps a fix to the filters scaling issue could be to add a "svg filters working scale control" to the filters dialog and set it by default to an amount which matches their previous scaling. ivan
Le lundi 25 septembre 2017 à 00:04:46 UTC+2, Ivan Louette via Inkscape-devel inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net a écrit :
There is also another issue which wasn't solved with svg filters. See bug #1429591. At one time after 0.91 they became to work very differently (particularly those who contains blur and turbulence) because they were designed at a smaller scaling than the new one. The only workaround I found was changing document properties/scaling to 3,7795 before designing anything inside the document or creating and use a template with this setting. On the other hand I was somewhat disappointed to see that in recent years nobody seems to be interested by the svg filters area in Inkscape. The work we did Nicolas Dufour and I several years ago didn't receive any return, positive nor negative. Most bugs weren't fixed and the Filters dialog has even became a mess despite several UI proposals. ivan
Le dimanche 24 septembre 2017 à 18:32:59 UTC+2, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> a écrit :
On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 13:53 +0200, Eduard Braun wrote:
Marc, you're not telling me anything new here... The point is: It can be confusing if you are *not* aware of the details!
Do you want to give a "Tour of Inkscape" to every new user in order to help them with questions that might arise due to bad UI?
I think what Eduard is saying is that the user interface is currently insufficient to self-contain the functionality that we have set up.
Requiring excessive external support is an indication that we might have to reconsider the design. Even if the reconsideration requires us to think deeper about the problem.
Martin,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot_______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Going to take a hard look at this this weekend. I've read the suggested reading and this thread over a few times, and it seems we all agree on these things:
1. Future shifts in the value of "px" should not affect scaling of previous templates (inkscape should handle any necessary updates automatically, and without the user knowing anything is happening). 2. User should be able to choose units they want to work in and Inkscape should do whatever is necessary to adapt the document to a workflow that supports the chosen units. 3. Inkscape should offer the best options without complicating things. One was to solve this is to put advanced options should be hidden under "advanced" with some sort of warning that changing the values may make the document size wrong for the intended output.
Is this correct?
I'm going o list all the use cases I can think of with workflows and see if I can get to something that works well for all of them with minimal faff.
-C
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Ivan Louette via Inkscape-devel inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
Perhaps a fix to the filters scaling issue could be to add a "svg filters working scale control" to the filters dialog and set it by default to an amount which matches their previous scaling.
ivan
Le lundi 25 septembre 2017 à 00:04:46 UTC+2, Ivan Louette via Inkscape-devel inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net a écrit :
There is also another issue which wasn't solved with svg filters. See bug #1429591. At one time after 0.91 they became to work very differently (particularly those who contains blur and turbulence) because they were designed at a smaller scaling than the new one. The only workaround I found was changing document properties/scaling to 3,7795 before designing anything inside the document or creating and use a template with this setting.
On the other hand I was somewhat disappointed to see that in recent years nobody seems to be interested by the svg filters area in Inkscape. The work we did Nicolas Dufour and I several years ago didn't receive any return, positive nor negative. Most bugs weren't fixed and the Filters dialog has even became a mess despite several UI proposals.
ivan
Le dimanche 24 septembre 2017 à 18:32:59 UTC+2, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> a écrit :
On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 13:53 +0200, Eduard Braun wrote:
Marc, you're not telling me anything new here... The point is: It can be confusing if you are *not* aware of the details!
Do you want to give a "Tour of Inkscape" to every new user in order to help them with questions that might arise due to bad UI?
I think what Eduard is saying is that the user interface is currently insufficient to self-contain the functionality that we have set up.
Requiring excessive external support is an indication that we might have to reconsider the design. Even if the reconsideration requires us to think deeper about the problem.
Martin,
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Happy Camper!
Or to use the lingo: +1
brynn
-----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 5:10 AM To: Ivan Louette Cc: inkscape-devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units
Going to take a hard look at this this weekend. I've read the suggested reading and this thread over a few times, and it seems we all agree on these things:
1. Future shifts in the value of "px" should not affect scaling of previous templates (inkscape should handle any necessary updates automatically, and without the user knowing anything is happening). 2. User should be able to choose units they want to work in and Inkscape should do whatever is necessary to adapt the document to a workflow that supports the chosen units. 3. Inkscape should offer the best options without complicating things. One was to solve this is to put advanced options should be hidden under "advanced" with some sort of warning that changing the values may make the document size wrong for the intended output.
Is this correct?
I'm going o list all the use cases I can think of with workflows and see if I can get to something that works well for all of them with minimal faff.
-C
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Ivan Louette via Inkscape-devel inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
Perhaps a fix to the filters scaling issue could be to add a "svg filters working scale control" to the filters dialog and set it by default to an amount which matches their previous scaling.
ivan
Le lundi 25 septembre 2017 à 00:04:46 UTC+2, Ivan Louette via Inkscape-devel inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net a écrit :
There is also another issue which wasn't solved with svg filters. See bug #1429591. At one time after 0.91 they became to work very differently (particularly those who contains blur and turbulence) because they were designed at a smaller scaling than the new one. The only workaround I found was changing document properties/scaling to 3,7795 before designing anything inside the document or creating and use a template with this setting.
On the other hand I was somewhat disappointed to see that in recent years nobody seems to be interested by the svg filters area in Inkscape. The work we did Nicolas Dufour and I several years ago didn't receive any return, positive nor negative. Most bugs weren't fixed and the Filters dialog has even became a mess despite several UI proposals.
ivan
Le dimanche 24 septembre 2017 à 18:32:59 UTC+2, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> a écrit :
On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 13:53 +0200, Eduard Braun wrote:
Marc, you're not telling me anything new here... The point is: It can be confusing if you are *not* aware of the details!
Do you want to give a "Tour of Inkscape" to every new user in order to help them with questions that might arise due to bad UI?
I think what Eduard is saying is that the user interface is currently insufficient to self-contain the functionality that we have set up.
Requiring excessive external support is an indication that we might have to reconsider the design. Even if the reconsideration requires us to think deeper about the problem.
Martin,
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
I'm totally happy with the first section, where you describe how users see this issue. But I disagree with your possible solutions.
I don't think "user units" should be used at all. I don't think even the concept of user units should be used. Even after your generous explanation for me, all I got from it (so far, without re-reading and studying) is that I think "user units" means px, but it means a lot more than that too, which is still fuzzy. (Maybe it needs a better name as well?)
Of the 2 options:
1 -- go back to the old tried and true, px for native units 2 -- keep the new system but make it easier to use
I would prefer going back to the tried and true. Because even making the new system easier to use, there will still be times when the user needs to really understand it, to be able to set up Inkscape for some unique project. (And those who provide support need to really understand it, to be able to provide support for it.)
Is it really so necessary for Inkscape to use mm for native units? Is it really fair to make it so complicated for those who don't use mm? Going back to the old way doesn't make it harder for the mm users. They don't lose anything by going back. The old way makes it just the same for all use cases and user groups.
You know what all this sounds like to me? It sounds like finding a way to bend over backwards to touch your feet, even though bending over the front way already works very well (and has worked well from the beginning). Oh, don't worry, it won't hurt as much if you do it this way. If you can't do it that way, you'll have to do it this other way. But either way, now we all have to be gymnasts.
How I see it, is no one wins with this. It's a new feature which doesn't provide anything new or better. It just makes it harder for users who don't use mm, or who change their units often (including who provide support for them).
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I will try to study all the messages and try to understand better. I don't have much hope of success, but I promise I will keep trying.
I thought I already posted that I made the feature request to revert, but I don't see the message. So here's the report I made:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1719162
And now I'll sign off for this topic, and let the developers do their thing :-)
Thanks again!
All best, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Eduard Braun Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:40 AM To: brynn ; inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Inkscape User Community Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] [Inkscape-devel] the Scale setting and Display units
Am 24.09.2017 um 11:33 schrieb brynn: Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to use. Now, it is not.
I think one of the main sources of confusion is the wording and design of the document properties dialog, not the choice of units themselves:
We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to only influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should be able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document) However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will change too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's very bad as then they'll mess up their drawing)
The help of the "Scale" input is not helpful: "User units per {display unit}" As a user I ask myself: What is a "user unit"? If I (the user) just set "display units" to what I (the user) want to be displayed - is that a "user unit"? It obviously is not... A user unit is (even if it has a name that might suggest differently) something the user should not be bothered with (we don't have that term explained or used anywhere else in Inkscape I think).
While I'm no UI expert (who is ever? ;-) ) I think a possible solution to that would be:
Rephrase "user units" to "{document,internal,SVG} units" or similar - something that makes clear that this is the unit stored in the resulting SVG document. (Problem: We used to call "Display units" "Document units" before 0.92, which was probably a bad choice and might cause ambiguity now)
Potentially collapse the whole "Scale" section by default (not just the "Viewbox" part) - users should probably never change it anyway (unless they know what they're doing) and usually they also should not have to. Add a big warning sign: "Changing scaling will change the layout of your document - is this really what you want?"
Rethink if "Scale" is a suitable term for what we are doing here. If I double the scale my document does not change it's size (but instead my content is scaled down). Maybe this is a language problem but my general impression is that in software "Scale" usually refers to "scaling (up) the whole image" (which we do not do) and not "changing the scale as on a map" (which is what we do).
*Optionally* expose "user units" (with a proper alias) as a dropdown - if the user sets "display units" and "user units" to mm the scale will become "1". (Problem: How do we now what to put for "user units" when opening a file? For new files we could store it. For old files we could do the math and try to guess, but it might be hard to impossible in many cases).
Regards, Eduard
The user should not have to understand native units. The implementation is what I'll be trying to figure out.
If the user selects mm as the default units, regardless of what the user units are, Inkscape should serve up a document for a mm workflow. If the user selects px as the default value it should serve up a document that does not care what physical mm dimensions are used.
Most importantly, when the CSS workgroup changes the value of "px" again (corresponding to user units), it should not break backward compatibility with mm formatted documents, nor should it change the pixel dimensions of previous templates.
Whatever is necessary to guarantee that, I'm all for.
I have to understand all possible solutions before suggesting one that works, and a ui implementation that supports it best. I'll do that this weekend.
Thanks for the thoughts/direction/preferences everyone. :) -C
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:05 AM, brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote:
I'm totally happy with the first section, where you describe how users see this issue. But I disagree with your possible solutions.
I don't think "user units" should be used at all. I don't think even the concept of user units should be used. Even after your generous explanation for me, all I got from it (so far, without re-reading and studying) is that I think "user units" means px, but it means a lot more than that too, which is still fuzzy. (Maybe it needs a better name as well?)
Of the 2 options:
1 -- go back to the old tried and true, px for native units 2 -- keep the new system but make it easier to use
I would prefer going back to the tried and true. Because even making the new system easier to use, there will still be times when the user needs to really understand it, to be able to set up Inkscape for some unique project. (And those who provide support need to really understand it, to be able to provide support for it.)
Is it really so necessary for Inkscape to use mm for native units? Is it really fair to make it so complicated for those who don't use mm? Going back to the old way doesn't make it harder for the mm users. They don't lose anything by going back. The old way makes it just the same for all use cases and user groups.
You know what all this sounds like to me? It sounds like finding a way to bend over backwards to touch your feet, even though bending over the front way already works very well (and has worked well from the beginning). Oh, don't worry, it won't hurt as much if you do it this way. If you can't do it that way, you'll have to do it this other way. But either way, now we all have to be gymnasts.
How I see it, is no one wins with this. It's a new feature which doesn't provide anything new or better. It just makes it harder for users who don't use mm, or who change their units often (including who provide support for them).
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I will try to study all the messages and try to understand better. I don't have much hope of success, but I promise I will keep trying.
I thought I already posted that I made the feature request to revert, but I don't see the message. So here's the report I made:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1719162
And now I'll sign off for this topic, and let the developers do their thing :-)
Thanks again!
All best, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Eduard Braun Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:40 AM To: brynn ; inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Inkscape User Community Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] [Inkscape-devel] the Scale setting and Display units
Am 24.09.2017 um 11:33 schrieb brynn: Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to use. Now, it is not.
I think one of the main sources of confusion is the wording and design of the document properties dialog, not the choice of units themselves:
We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to only influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should be able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document) However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will change too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's very bad as then they'll mess up their drawing)
The help of the "Scale" input is not helpful: "User units per {display unit}" As a user I ask myself: What is a "user unit"? If I (the user) just set "display units" to what I (the user) want to be displayed - is that a "user unit"? It obviously is not... A user unit is (even if it has a name that might suggest differently) something the user should not be bothered with (we don't have that term explained or used anywhere else in Inkscape I think).
While I'm no UI expert (who is ever? ;-) ) I think a possible solution to that would be:
Rephrase "user units" to "{document,internal,SVG} units" or similar - something that makes clear that this is the unit stored in the resulting SVG document. (Problem: We used to call "Display units" "Document units" before 0.92, which was probably a bad choice and might cause ambiguity now)
Potentially collapse the whole "Scale" section by default (not just the "Viewbox" part) - users should probably never change it anyway (unless they know what they're doing) and usually they also should not have to. Add a big warning sign: "Changing scaling will change the layout of your document - is this really what you want?"
Rethink if "Scale" is a suitable term for what we are doing here. If I double the scale my document does not change it's size (but instead my content is scaled down). Maybe this is a language problem but my general impression is that in software "Scale" usually refers to "scaling (up) the whole image" (which we do not do) and not "changing the scale as on a map" (which is what we do).
*Optionally* expose "user units" (with a proper alias) as a dropdown - if the user sets "display units" and "user units" to mm the scale will become "1". (Problem: How do we now what to put for "user units" when opening a file? For new files we could store it. For old files we could do the math and try to guess, but it might be hard to impossible in many cases).
Regards, Eduard
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
Am 26.09.2017 um 11:49 schrieb C R:
The user should not have to understand native units. The implementation is what I'll be trying to figure out.
If the user selects mm as the default units, regardless of what the user units are, Inkscape should serve up a document for a mm workflow. If the user selects px as the default value it should serve up a document that does not care what physical mm dimensions are used.
Most importantly, when the CSS workgroup changes the value of "px" again (corresponding to user units), it should not break backward compatibility with mm formatted documents, nor should it change the pixel dimensions of previous templates.
I mostly agree with you but I'm not sure I understood the last part of this sentence: In the special case that a document that has px as user unit and a document size given in px it probably *should* adjust the pixel dimensions to whatever CSS dictates. Otherwise a full HD wallpaper (1920x1080 px²) would suddenly not have the proper document size in px any more. A second case (I don't think we have a template for that, though, so I hope there's not much content around that would be affected) that could prove difficult in that respect: If a document has px as user unit and a document size given in px but really is for example an A4 document, we have no way of knowing it's supposed to be A4.
Regards, Eduard
Whatever is necessary to guarantee that, I'm all for.
I have to understand all possible solutions before suggesting one that works, and a ui implementation that supports it best. I'll do that this weekend.
Thanks for the thoughts/direction/preferences everyone. :) -C
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:05 AM, brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote:
I'm totally happy with the first section, where you describe how users see this issue. But I disagree with your possible solutions.
I don't think "user units" should be used at all. I don't think even the concept of user units should be used. Even after your generous explanation for me, all I got from it (so far, without re-reading and studying) is that I think "user units" means px, but it means a lot more than that too, which is still fuzzy. (Maybe it needs a better name as well?)
Of the 2 options:
1 -- go back to the old tried and true, px for native units 2 -- keep the new system but make it easier to use
I would prefer going back to the tried and true. Because even making the new system easier to use, there will still be times when the user needs to really understand it, to be able to set up Inkscape for some unique project. (And those who provide support need to really understand it, to be able to provide support for it.)
Is it really so necessary for Inkscape to use mm for native units? Is it really fair to make it so complicated for those who don't use mm? Going back to the old way doesn't make it harder for the mm users. They don't lose anything by going back. The old way makes it just the same for all use cases and user groups.
You know what all this sounds like to me? It sounds like finding a way to bend over backwards to touch your feet, even though bending over the front way already works very well (and has worked well from the beginning). Oh, don't worry, it won't hurt as much if you do it this way. If you can't do it that way, you'll have to do it this other way. But either way, now we all have to be gymnasts.
How I see it, is no one wins with this. It's a new feature which doesn't provide anything new or better. It just makes it harder for users who don't use mm, or who change their units often (including who provide support for them).
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I will try to study all the messages and try to understand better. I don't have much hope of success, but I promise I will keep trying.
I thought I already posted that I made the feature request to revert, but I don't see the message. So here's the report I made:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1719162
And now I'll sign off for this topic, and let the developers do their thing :-)
Thanks again!
All best, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Eduard Braun Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:40 AM To: brynn ; inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Inkscape User Community Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] [Inkscape-devel] the Scale setting and Display units
Am 24.09.2017 um 11:33 schrieb brynn: Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to use. Now, it is not.
I think one of the main sources of confusion is the wording and design of the document properties dialog, not the choice of units themselves:
We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to only influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should be able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document) However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will change too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's very bad as then they'll mess up their drawing)
The help of the "Scale" input is not helpful: "User units per {display unit}" As a user I ask myself: What is a "user unit"? If I (the user) just set "display units" to what I (the user) want to be displayed - is that a "user unit"? It obviously is not... A user unit is (even if it has a name that might suggest differently) something the user should not be bothered with (we don't have that term explained or used anywhere else in Inkscape I think).
While I'm no UI expert (who is ever? ;-) ) I think a possible solution to that would be:
Rephrase "user units" to "{document,internal,SVG} units" or similar - something that makes clear that this is the unit stored in the resulting SVG document. (Problem: We used to call "Display units" "Document units" before 0.92, which was probably a bad choice and might cause ambiguity now)
Potentially collapse the whole "Scale" section by default (not just the "Viewbox" part) - users should probably never change it anyway (unless they know what they're doing) and usually they also should not have to. Add a big warning sign: "Changing scaling will change the layout of your document - is this really what you want?"
Rethink if "Scale" is a suitable term for what we are doing here. If I double the scale my document does not change it's size (but instead my content is scaled down). Maybe this is a language problem but my general impression is that in software "Scale" usually refers to "scaling (up) the whole image" (which we do not do) and not "changing the scale as on a map" (which is what we do).
*Optionally* expose "user units" (with a proper alias) as a dropdown - if the user sets "display units" and "user units" to mm the scale will become "1". (Problem: How do we now what to put for "user units" when opening a file? For new files we could store it. For old files we could do the math and try to guess, but it might be hard to impossible in many cases).
Regards, Eduard
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
That's what I'm trying to say. The actual pixels in the doc should not change. 1px should always equal 1px, regardless of what nonsense the CSS workgroup is doing to the dpi conversion. The user should expect to have to set the dpi themselves if they want a mm conversion from pixels. The css default could therefore change to 300 dpi, and nothing would change. This is the workflow I use: if I'm exporting to PNG I always use the dialog, and I set the pixel values to whatever. No changing of the document is necessary to export pixels. It would be great if Inkscape did this automatically when determining pixel width for xport of SVG for web. That's part of what I'll be looking into this weekend.
Thanks for the comments and support. -C
On 26 Sep 2017 12:59, "Eduard Braun" <eduard.braun2@...173...> wrote:
Am 26.09.2017 um 11:49 schrieb C R:
The user should not have to understand native units. The implementation is what I'll be trying to figure out.
If the user selects mm as the default units, regardless of what the user units are, Inkscape should serve up a document for a mm workflow. If the user selects px as the default value it should serve up a document that does not care what physical mm dimensions are used.
Most importantly, when the CSS workgroup changes the value of "px" again (corresponding to user units), it should not break backward compatibility with mm formatted documents, nor should it change the pixel dimensions of previous templates.
I mostly agree with you but I'm not sure I understood the last part of this sentence: In the special case that a document that has px as user unit and a document size given in px it probably *should* adjust the pixel dimensions to whatever CSS dictates. Otherwise a full HD wallpaper (1920x1080 px²) would suddenly not have the proper document size in px any more. A second case (I don't think we have a template for that, though, so I hope there's not much content around that would be affected) that could prove difficult in that respect: If a document has px as user unit and a document size given in px but really is for example an A4 document, we have no way of knowing it's supposed to be A4.
Regards, Eduard
Whatever is necessary to guarantee that, I'm all for.
I have to understand all possible solutions before suggesting one that works, and a ui implementation that supports it best. I'll do that this weekend.
Thanks for the thoughts/direction/preferences everyone. :) -C
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:05 AM, brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote:
I'm totally happy with the first section, where you describe how users see this issue. But I disagree with your possible solutions.
I don't think "user units" should be used at all. I don't think even the concept of user units should be used. Even after your generous explanation for me, all I got from it (so far, without re-reading and studying) is that I think "user units" means px, but it means a lot more than that too, which is still fuzzy. (Maybe it needs a better name as well?)
Of the 2 options:
1 -- go back to the old tried and true, px for native units 2 -- keep the new system but make it easier to use
I would prefer going back to the tried and true. Because even making the new system easier to use, there will still be times when the user needs to really understand it, to be able to set up Inkscape for some unique project. (And those who provide support need to really understand it, to be able to provide support for it.)
Is it really so necessary for Inkscape to use mm for native units? Is it really fair to make it so complicated for those who don't use mm? Going back to the old way doesn't make it harder for the mm users. They don't lose anything by going back. The old way makes it just the same for all use cases and user groups.
You know what all this sounds like to me? It sounds like finding a way to bend over backwards to touch your feet, even though bending over the front way already works very well (and has worked well from the beginning). Oh, don't worry, it won't hurt as much if you do it this way. If you can't do it that way, you'll have to do it this other way. But either way, now we all have to be gymnasts.
How I see it, is no one wins with this. It's a new feature which doesn't provide anything new or better. It just makes it harder for users who don't use mm, or who change their units often (including who provide support for them).
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I will try to study all the messages and try to understand better. I don't have much hope of success, but I promise I will keep trying.
I thought I already posted that I made the feature request to revert, but I don't see the message. So here's the report I made:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1719162
And now I'll sign off for this topic, and let the developers do their thing :-)
Thanks again!
All best, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Eduard Braun Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:40 AM To: brynn ; inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Inkscape User Community Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] [Inkscape-devel] the Scale setting and Display units
Am 24.09.2017 um 11:33 schrieb brynn: Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to use. Now, it is not.
I think one of the main sources of confusion is the wording and design of the document properties dialog, not the choice of units themselves:
We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to only influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should be able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document) However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will change too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's very bad as then they'll mess up their drawing)
The help of the "Scale" input is not helpful: "User units per {display unit}" As a user I ask myself: What is a "user unit"? If I (the user) just set "display units" to what I (the user) want to be displayed - is that a "user unit"? It obviously is not... A user unit is (even if it has a name that might suggest differently) something the user should not be bothered with (we don't have that term explained or used anywhere else in Inkscape I think).
While I'm no UI expert (who is ever? ;-) ) I think a possible solution to that would be:
Rephrase "user units" to "{document,internal,SVG} units" or similar - something that makes clear that this is the unit stored in the resulting SVG document. (Problem: We used to call "Display units" "Document units" before 0.92, which was probably a bad choice and might cause ambiguity now)
Potentially collapse the whole "Scale" section by default (not just the "Viewbox" part) - users should probably never change it anyway (unless they know what they're doing) and usually they also should not have to. Add a big warning sign: "Changing scaling will change the layout of your document - is this really what you want?"
Rethink if "Scale" is a suitable term for what we are doing here. If I double the scale my document does not change it's size (but instead my content is scaled down). Maybe this is a language problem but my general impression is that in software "Scale" usually refers to "scaling (up) the whole image" (which we do not do) and not "changing the scale as on a map" (which is what we do).
*Optionally* expose "user units" (with a proper alias) as a dropdown - if the user sets "display units" and "user units" to mm the scale will become "1". (Problem: How do we now what to put for "user units" when opening a file? For new files we could store it. For old files we could do the math and try to guess, but it might be hard to impossible in many cases).
Regards, Eduard
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
+1 It's been a long time since I recommended a similar approach to be taken into consideration. IMHO the move from 90 to 96 DPI was the right moment to implement this and it would have saved a lot of headaches to developers and users. Consider that legacy 90 DPI document wouldn't have needed any conversion at all, just adding a 90 DPI specification! Today it's too late for this simple solution because there are around both 90 and 96 DPI documents so where anything is specified we cannot assume anymore that it was 90 DPI. If only the "new 96 convention" tag I suggested was added...
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Not sure if this suggestion made it to this list... apologies if it's redundant, NB new addendum below.
A suggestion from the peanut gallery...
1) All future releases have default.svg with the display units set for px, scale= 1uu/px
2) Move the scale controls to another tab in the Document Properties panel, with language to describe function.
3) Expose the "Set page to drawing or selection" toolset (which is often overlooked) on the Page tab of the Document properties panel.
Mockup of modified Document properties panel:
https://inkscape.org/en/~TylerDurden/%E2%98%85document-properties-panel-revi...
The above changes should alleviate much of the confusion and retain the controls for scale. Typical users needn't be concerned with scale and its complicated workings.
Thank you for your time and consideration, TD
Addendum:
A recent query* by a user seems to indicate confusion regarding the scale tools: the user trying to fit a large 1:1 drawing onto a smaller sheet of paper, in the same way a drafting program might use "scale". This reinforces the suggestions that language in the UI should clearly differentiate Inkscape's use of the term "scale" from the frequent use in drafting.
* http://www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32988
TD
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
+1
-----Original Message----- From: TylerDurden Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 8:02 AM To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units
Not sure if this suggestion made it to this list... apologies if it's redundant, NB new addendum below.
A suggestion from the peanut gallery...
1) All future releases have default.svg with the display units set for px, scale= 1uu/px
2) Move the scale controls to another tab in the Document Properties panel, with language to describe function.
3) Expose the "Set page to drawing or selection" toolset (which is often overlooked) on the Page tab of the Document properties panel.
Mockup of modified Document properties panel:
https://inkscape.org/en/~TylerDurden/%E2%98%85document-properties-panel-revi...
The above changes should alleviate much of the confusion and retain the controls for scale. Typical users needn't be concerned with scale and its complicated workings.
Thank you for your time and consideration, TD
Addendum:
A recent query* by a user seems to indicate confusion regarding the scale tools: the user trying to fit a large 1:1 drawing onto a smaller sheet of paper, in the same way a drafting program might use "scale". This reinforces the suggestions that language in the UI should clearly differentiate Inkscape's use of the term "scale" from the frequent use in drafting.
* http://www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32988
TD
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
I don't disagree with you, a meter (why are we using mm? ;-)
Because no one measures A4 paper in fractions of a meter when you can have nice precise integer values. :) Part of the nice thing about the metric system.
A user wants to design a screenshot for their full HD screen? Let's tell them to make their document 1920x1080 mm² because "1 mm will always be 1 mm"
Of your output is a particular pixel value, by all means set the units to pixels for your template/export. I don't think anyone is arguing that it shouldn't be allowed at all. That's quite different from having it be the default.
But for now they still have their uses and it's not for us to decide!
I rather think it is. :) But again, no one is suggesting it be disallowed, just not be the default. If the user doesn't care at all about the physical size of the output, pixels are just fine. It's trying to assign a set physical value to the pixel value that has gotten our round pegs stuck in square holes.
At the very least I think we need a possibility to select the default template via UI (I even opened a bug about that some time ago: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1673608) so users can make a choice on their own without too much hassle.
Agreed. +1
-C
Regards, Eduard
Luca
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Crazy idea - couldn't we just NOT change the DPI value for a pixel? I mean it's bullshit conversion anyway. Wouldn't that also solve all the problems?
On 21 Sep 2017 9:59 p.m., "C R" <cajhne@...400...> wrote:
I don't disagree with you, a meter (why are we using mm? ;-)
Because no one measures A4 paper in fractions of a meter when you can have nice precise integer values. :) Part of the nice thing about the metric system.
A user wants to design a screenshot for their full HD screen? Let's tell them to make their document 1920x1080 mm² because "1 mm will always be 1 mm"
Of your output is a particular pixel value, by all means set the units to pixels for your template/export. I don't think anyone is arguing that it shouldn't be allowed at all. That's quite different from having it be the default.
But for now they still have their uses and it's not for us to decide!
I rather think it is. :) But again, no one is suggesting it be disallowed, just not be the default. If the user doesn't care at all about the physical size of the output, pixels are just fine. It's trying to assign a set physical value to the pixel value that has gotten our round pegs stuck in square holes.
At the very least I think we need a possibility to select the default template via UI (I even opened a bug about that some time ago: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1673608) so users can make a choice on their own without too much hassle.
Agreed. +1
-C
Regards, Eduard
Luca
-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Am 21.09.2017 um 11:14 schrieb Eduard Braun:
I'm not sure if your comment on manufacturers is based on actual experience (maybe you could elaborate on that),
I'd like to contribute my experience to this discussion:
Corel/Illustrator/Inkscape are important tools to create drawings for 2D lasercutting and sometimes outline milling, as a full-blown 2D-CAD program is too complicated for novice users and unsuitable for decorative shapes or art (text, bezier curves, path editing).
For those who haven't seen it yet, this is lasercutting: http://www.cutlasercut.com/getting-started/what-is-laser-cutting-laser-cutti... And this is how people use inkscape for it: http://www.cutlasercut.com/resources/drawing-guidelines/styles-examples
Lasercutter manufacturers tend to suggest Corel Draw, but that costs money and is not available for Linux. Inkscape works good enough for the casual or hobbyist user. During the last five years I've seen almost all possible values of scaling errors between Illustrator, Inkscape and the open source lasercutting software VisiCut, but since 0.92 at least Inkscape does everything right.
VisiCut uses SVG as import format; if a file contains no viewbox, it has to fall back to guessing the DPI based on "Inkscape"/"Illustrator" comments in the SVG. Switching between Inkscape and Illustrator may cause scaling errors, as Illustrator is (sometimes?) too stupid to import/export standards-compliant SVGs.
It is always annoying to have px as the default *measurement* unit in the GUI; Corel Draw also has mm as the default. The SVG-internal units don't matter, except for cooperation with other software which is too stupid to parse the viewbox and assumes some fixed DPI (often 72 and not 96). Changing the internal units is annoying, because suddenly users need to remember a different scaling factor to fix up the broken import of whatever driver they use.
If I could choose the defaults, I would therefore vote for mm in the GUI and 96-DPI-pixels in the SVG internal units (plus viewbox, just as it was in 0.92). This should also match the defaults of Corel/Illustrator, except maybe for their arbitrary choice of DPI.
Please don't add any more question dialogs that the average user doesn't understand, as the current DPI-conversion one is already enough (but was unavoidable).
Regards,
Max
As it just came to me: What if we implemented a selection when the user creates a new document so they can actually choose what fits their needs best? (Possibly with a checkbox "remember as default")
Pop up a window and ask "What content do you want to create?" Two options: - "digital art (pixel based)" - "content for print (mm based)" (I imagine a big button for each with one showing a computer display / smartphone and the other showing a piece of paper).
Option one would create a pixel based document with a useful size (e.g. 800 x 600 px²). Option two would create a scaled document (e.g. A4) with mm units (i.e. the current default template)
Maybe we could even add a dropdown to the latter where the user can select (mm, meter, inch, ... or even px)-based so most bases should be covered. (An inch-based default template could even further be specialized to be letter-sized)
I think that might solve a lot of confusion and frustration around the whole "default" template as one default might just not be enough...
Thoughts? ;-)
Best Regards, Eduard
As it just came to me: What if we implemented a selection when the user creates a new document so they can actually choose what fits their needs best? (Possibly with a checkbox "remember as default")
The user can already choose a document that best fits their needs. File > New from Template
+1 for the "remember as default" option though.
Another way to look at it: A4 has a definite size, and it's one people are familiar with. But what should the default canvas size in pixels be? 1024x768? And when people with virtually any new computer come to the forums because thair machine is sporting a full HD screen, or even a 4K monitor... "my graphics are way too small, why is the default SO SMALL!" ;)
Anyway. When people print their work off of a desktop printer, it would be lovely if it were of reasonable size compared to the canvas.
Getting close to 50p, but there you have it. :) -C
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, C R <cajhne@...400...> wrote:
As it just came to me: What if we implemented a selection when the user creates a new document so they can actually choose what fits their needs best? (Possibly with a checkbox "remember as default")
The user can already choose a document that best fits their needs. File > New from Template
+1 for the "remember as default" option though.
Can this be a option when one boots up Inkscape? I would love to see document page option start up, and then I create a new document. (This is how Illustrator and Affinity works) I'm not seeing px being useful for anything other than exports to bitmap programs. Not all digital art is pixel based. If I had to make bitmap images, I'd use anything other than Inkscape or Illustrator. In rare cases, I will find myself exporting to bitmap so that I can do my work faster. On 9/21/2017 5:26 AM, Eduard Braun wrote:
As it just came to me: What if we implemented a selection when the user creates a new document so they can actually choose what fits their needs best? (Possibly with a checkbox "remember as default")
Pop up a window and ask "What content do you want to create?" Two options:
- "digital art (pixel based)"
- "content for print (mm based)"
(I imagine a big button for each with one showing a computer display / smartphone and the other showing a piece of paper).
Option one would create a pixel based document with a useful size (e.g. 800 x 600 px²). Option two would create a scaled document (e.g. A4) with mm units (i.e. the current default template)
Maybe we could even add a dropdown to the latter where the user can select (mm, meter, inch, ... or even px)-based so most bases should be covered. (An inch-based default template could even further be specialized to be letter-sized)
I think that might solve a lot of confusion and frustration around the whole "default" template as one default might just not be enough...
Thoughts? ;-)
Best Regards, Eduard
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
participants (11)
-
brynn -
C R -
Eduard Braun -
Ivan Louette -
LucaDC -
Marc Jeanmougin -
Martin Owens -
Maximilian Gaukler -
Miguel Lopez -
Ryan Gorley -
TylerDurden