FWIW, what most people expect from layer locking is just "make this layer safe so I don't accidentally change it (or the objects on it)".
After some thought, I think the best set of behaviors are these:
* tools capable of selection only select objects if they are visible, unlocked, and all of their parents are unlocked
* drawing tools can only draw if the current layer and all its ancestors are visible and unlocked
* locking a layer unselects all selected descendants of that layer, but locking an object does not unselect that object
Per Peter's suggestion, "locked" may not be the most appropriate label for the per-object locking (since it doesn't render the object immutable, really), although I think "insensitive" is marginally too jargony.
Inverting the meaning and labeling it "selectable" might be most appropriate.
Layer locking ought to remain called "locking", though, since that is the common and expected term.
-mental
- tools capable of selection only select objects if they are visible, unlocked, and all of their parents are unlocked
Mostly done, except Find and Tab key
- drawing tools can only draw if the current layer and all its ancestors are visible and unlocked
Yep, this needs coding
- locking a layer unselects all selected descendants of that layer, but locking an object does not unselect that object
Mmm, I still can see how it may be useful to retain selection when you lock a layer. But maybe what you propose would be more intuitive.
Per Peter's suggestion, "locked" may not be the most appropriate label for the per-object locking (since it doesn't render the object immutable, really), although I think "insensitive" is marginally too jargony.
If "lock" is good for layers, it's good for objects too. It's the same thing. It is indeed slightly wrong in its semantics, but then, "sensitive" is not much better (it assumes sensitivity to some changes or influences, not selectability/unselectability) whereas "lock" is more laconic. I like "lock".
Inverting the meaning and labeling it "selectable" might be most appropriate.
"selectable" is the most precisely descriptive for objects, but not appropriate for layers. I would prefer using the same term for both layers and objects.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 02:02:30AM -0500, bulia byak wrote:
["locked", "in/sensitive", "un/selectable", etc.]
We can add TRANSLATORS: comments to let other languages choose their own compromise between descriptiveness and brevity.
"selectable" is the most precisely descriptive for objects, but not appropriate for layers. I would prefer using the same term for both layers and objects.
The tooltips can make the sameness clearer if different words are chosen. E.g. the tooltip for layer sensitivity might mention the word used in the item properties dialog.
pjrm.
participants (3)
-
bulia byak -
MenTaLguY -
Peter Moulder