I'm curious...
why is the precision for grids, guides and tiled clones only 0.00 while you can readily place objects with a precision of 0.000? Is there any special reason for the lower precision?
I have already posted this as a request for higher precision and as a bug for inconsistency.
And while I'm thinking about it...
how about the same level of precision for angles of rotation?
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 05:53 -0700, Tony Vigil wrote:
I'm curious...
why is the precision for grids, guides and tiled clones only 0.00 while you can readily place objects with a precision of 0.000? Is there any special reason for the lower precision?
AFAIK about grids, there is no reason for it. I did not think about it that much. It should be very easy to make it 0.000. (Perhaps a precision preference should be made...)
Can you program? I am certain that you'd be able to 'fix' this, even if you only have very little or no experience in programming.
Cheers, Johan
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:42:09 +0200, Johan Engelen <j.b.c.engelen@...1578...> wrote:
AFAIK about grids, there is no reason for it. I did not think about it that much. It should be very easy to make it 0.000.
I almost always set grids with three digits of precision (e.g. 0.125), though I have to do so "blindly"; this is actually an issue that came up in the talk that John Bintz and I gave at LGM.
(Perhaps a precision preference should be made...)
I don't really see a need for preference.
-mental
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 09:57 -0700, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:42:09 +0200, Johan Engelen <j.b.c.engelen@...1748.....> wrote:
AFAIK about grids, there is no reason for it. I did not think about it that much. It should be very easy to make it 0.000.
I almost always set grids with three digits of precision (e.g. 0.125), though I have to do so "blindly"; this is actually an issue that came up in the talk that John Bintz and I gave at LGM.
(Perhaps a precision preference should be made...)
I don't really see a need for preference.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a "units"? So you could set it to 0.2 m or 0.2 cm. I think that there is a usability issue here, too many digits make the arrows harder to use. And, of course, there is the issue of when the next person asks for 4 digits of precision how do we reply? 5? 8? 20?
--Ted
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:12:08 -0700, Ted Gould <ted@...11...> wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a "units"? So you could set it to 0.2 m or 0.2 cm.
We already have that, up to a point -- there is a choice of inches, cm, mm, etc.
But some people (like myself) specifically want to set grids in eighths of an inch, for which there's not really a corresponding unit...
We should probably also choose the increment for the spin buttons carefully based on the unit, and independent of how many digits of precision we show in the widget. A reasonable increment for inches is proabbly 1/8" or 1/4", whereas for metric units, 0.1 seems best.
And, of course, there is the issue of when the next person asks for 4 digits of precision how do we reply? 5? 8? 20?
If people really do ask for them, I think four places is the cutoff where we need to start considering other UI approaches.
-mental
participants (4)
-
Johan Engelen -
MenTaLguY -
Ted Gould -
Tony Vigil