On 6-8-2011 18:47, Tavmjong Bah wrote:

On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 18:30 +0200, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote:

...

Am Samstag, 6. August 2011 schrub Johan Engelen:

...

Hi all,

Hi.

...

Do more people agree with me that when a node is created (by ctrl+alt

or double-click) that it should be snapped to the grid?

I'd prefer to have it on the curve so that the shape isn't changed (as it's now).

I agree, don't change the shape! (Actually, in 0.48 there seems to be a bug where the shape isn't always being preserved.)

Do you guys use the grid? For tech drawing, I find it very annoying that newly created nodes are not snapped, so I always have to drag them once after creation. Seems we have to make an option for it...

Ciao, Johan

2011/8/7 Josh Andler <scislac@...400...>:

For Illustration, it's not really useful. For Technical drawing I see a usability win. I say yes to having it optional.

Here's a proposal: 1. Grid snapping off: create on curve. 2. Grid snapping on: 2a. Segment is Bezier: create on curve. 2b. Segment is line: snap to grid.

Regards, Krzysztof

On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 08:59 +0200, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:

2011/8/7 Josh Andler <scislac@...400...>:

...

For Illustration, it's not really useful. For Technical drawing I see a usability win. I say yes to having it optional.

Here's a proposal:

1. Grid snapping off: create on curve.
2. Grid snapping on:

2a. Segment is Bezier: create on curve. 2b. Segment is line: snap to grid.

With grid snapping turned on I'd expect snapping to occur regardless of segment type. Isn't it why we call it snapping?!

Regards, Vlada

Regards, Krzysztof

On 08/07/2011 08:18 PM, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:

This wouldn't be an issue if the snap toggles on the right were better. Right now you first turn on things to snap and then turn on things to be snapped to. It would be more intuitive if there was no hierarchy and you enabled each thing both as a snap source and snap target.

That would be a mess! There are simply to much possible snap sources and snap targets to give them all an individual toggle. Besides, we do not enable snapping bounding boxes to paths and vice-versa, see [1] for an explanation. This is what's being communicated by dividing the snap toggles in three groups. Although I agree that the snapping toggles could be more intuitive, I don't know of an easy solution that would fit all.

The current implementation at least this gives you an easy way to (for example) first snap some bounding boxes, turn it bounding box snapping off with one-click, and then continue snapping paths, without having to think about each toggle individually.

We could then set whether inserted smooth nodes snap to the grid or not.

There's already a "snap to smooth-nodes". We could think of changing this into a "snap _from_ & to smooth-nodes". Or do you propose to insert a tool-specific toggle on the snap toolbar?

Diederik

[1] http://www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5837&p=24720#p24720

On 08/09/2011 08:30 AM, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:

W dniu 7 sierpnia 2011 23:34 użytkownik Diederik van Lierop <mail@...1689...> napisał:

...

That would be a mess! There are simply to much possible snap sources and snap targets to give them all an individual toggle. Besides, we do not enable snapping bounding boxes to paths and vice-versa, see [1] for an explanation. This is what's being communicated by dividing the snap toggles in three groups. Although I agree that the snapping toggles could be more intuitive, I don't know of an easy solution that would fit all.

I'm not advocating snapping between bboxes and nodes, but I think that when you turn on the snap toggle for smooth nodes, they should both snap and be snapped to.

I'm currently refactoring snapping preferences code, which turned into quite a mess over the past few years. After that's been finished, it will be easier to do some experimenting with the snap toolbar and try to find out what works best. We could try if the distinction between snap sources and snap target should be removed, and if we should remove the group toggles.

This way we could also get rid of the rather unintuitive group controls (snap bboxes / snap nodes / snap other).

IMHO these group toggles are quite handy; I use them a lot myself. These could be removed, but currently they also implicitly serve to toggle snapping of many snap sources and targets which don't have a toggle them selves (such as image corners, quadrant points of ellipses, etc). So removing them would require adding at least one new, and would also hurt my productivity. I know, _my_ workflow should not be leading ;-)

Diederik

On 7-8-2011 8:59, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:

2011/8/7 Josh Andler<scislac@...400...>:

...

For Illustration, it's not really useful. For Technical drawing I see a usability win. I say yes to having it optional.

Here's a proposal:

1. Grid snapping off: create on curve.
2. Grid snapping on:

2a. Segment is Bezier: create on curve. 2b. Segment is line: snap to grid.

I could live with that.

Just wondering: what is the use case for adding a node with grid on, and not snapping it to the grid? Shape preserving is too weak an argument for me; in that case, why add a node at all? I presume you want to add a node to change the looks of the path! (either change slope, or move the node, in which case the node will snap to grid?)

Ciao, Johan

On Aug 7, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote:

Am Sonntag, 7. August 2011 schrub Johan Engelen:

...

On 7-8-2011 8:59, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:

Just wondering: what is the use case for adding a node with grid on, and not snapping it to the grid? Shape preserving is too weak an argument for me; in that case, why add a node at all? I presume you want to add a node to change the looks of the path! (either change slope, or move the node, in which case the node will snap to grid?)

I do that all the time to have one part of the path stay where it is and only change the other part. To do this I add a node, set it to be non-continuous and start editing the nodes on one side, which can use the grid.

Ditto