In the bug report # 285966 (avoid inheriting transparency when it's set to 0) I commented about the problems of the style inheritance in new shapes. New users seem to be very confused by this feature, and in the particular case of creating a shape after setting a gradient (the style of the last stop is preserved, so the last style memorized is A=0) it leads to recurring bug reports because people don't get it and tend to think that there's something broken. I've been thinking about the inheritance of opacity and honestly, I find it rather annoying in most of the cases.
At the moment is marked as a wishlist item, but I'm starting to think that it's probably an usability bug.
I think that should be better to avoid opacity inheritance as default and make it optional via preferences (i.e.: preserving fill and stroke but not opacity unless the user select the proper option in the prefs).
What do you think?
Guillermo Espertino wrote:
In the bug report # 285966 (avoid inheriting transparency when it's set to 0) I commented about the problems of the style inheritance in new shapes. New users seem to be very confused by this feature, and in the particular case of creating a shape after setting a gradient (the style of the last stop is preserved, so the last style memorized is A=0) it leads to recurring bug reports because people don't get it and tend to think that there's something broken. ...
Actually I can't reproduce this. It seems to remember the last solid color I used. (When drawing rectangles at least.)
... I think that should be better to avoid opacity inheritance as default and make it optional via preferences (i.e.: preserving fill and stroke but not opacity unless the user select the proper option in the prefs).
What do you think?
Imagine being used to drawing an object, changing its style, then drawing another object and seeing that it has the same look as the earlier shape. Wouldn't it then be very weird if opacity was NOT remembered? You'd then probably get bug reports (again) about how new shapes have a different color from previous shapes, etc., etc.
It would be ten times nicer if we could simply make it more obvious what's going on, and make things more consistent (in one of the bug reports the confusion started because paths behaved differently from shapes for example).
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@...528...> wrote:
It would be ten times nicer if we could simply make it more obvious what's going on
I think it's obvious enough. Just look at the right end of the controls bar to see what style will be used for the next object you create. Click that widget and you will see all the available options for the next created object's style.
bulia byak wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@...528...> wrote:
It would be ten times nicer if we could simply make it more obvious what's going on
I think it's obvious enough. Just look at the right end of the controls bar to see what style will be used for the next object you create. Click that widget and you will see all the available options for the next created object's style.
I think it's obvious, you think it's obvious, but apparently not everyone agrees. So if some change to the interface is made I don't think it should focus on simply disabling the functionality, but rather at the real cause of confusion.
For example, I think the complaint that the behaviour was (by default?) not consistent across tools is a very valid one.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@...528...> wrote:
For example, I think the complaint that the behaviour was (by default?) not consistent across tools is a very valid one.
OK, let's discuss that :) Each tool has some reasons to use the default it uses. Please put forward your suggestions for which (all?) tools should use which defaults and why.
participants (3)
-
bulia byak -
Guillermo Espertino -
Jasper van de Gronde