Hi,
ACSpike have added a "Fit canvas to selection" button, which is a great addition when creating SVG images for a web page.
I have a couple of suggestions:
1) Should the numbers in the "Custom size" just above the button be updated? 2) Should the word "canvas" replace with "page", to be consistent with the "Page size" and "Page orientation" just above? 3) Would it be more logical to have the button inside the "Custom Size" box?
Note also that:
the "page size" menu has a big empty gap above the "custom", but when I scroll down, the gap disapear.
I'm running Inkscape 0.43+devel, built Apr 22 2006, on Win2k.
Joc
On 4/24/06, Jocelyn Doire <jdoire@...1248...> wrote:
- Should the numbers in the "Custom size" just above the button be
updated?
Of course they should, and the page size drop-down should also be scrolled, if necessary, from a standard size to "custom" (this will be done automatically, hopefully, once you set a value to width/height spinbuttons). Aaron: I think in a previous email I described what needs to be done for this to happen automatically (you need to add a listener to root svg node).
- Should the word "canvas" replace with "page", to be consistent with the
"Page size" and "Page orientation" just above? 3) Would it be more logical to have the button inside the "Custom Size" box?
Yes. Actually I don't even like the "fit" part either. What about "Resize to fit selection", and since it's inside "custom size" we don't even need to say _what_ to resize.
Note also that:
the "page size" menu has a big empty gap above the "custom", but when I scroll down, the gap disapear.
Yeah, it's a GTK "feature" that drives me crazy too. For some reason they decided that it's a smart way to open drop-downs so that the selected item is under mouse. Sometimes I wonder if GTK developers actually use any GTK software.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
Hi,
unless there is a problem with the available space, I think it's best to keep the word "page" because the button is easier to understand that way and it's more consistend with the text above: "Page size" and "Page orientation".
I find "Fit page to selection" easier to understand than "Resize to fit selection".
Joc
Of course they should, and the page size drop-down should also be scrolled, if necessary, from a standard size to "custom" (this will be done automatically, hopefully, once you set a value to width/height spinbuttons). Aaron: I think in a previous email I described what needs to be done for this to happen automatically (you need to add a listener to root svg node).
- Should the word "canvas" replace with "page", to be
consistent with the
"Page size" and "Page orientation" just above? 3) Would it be more logical to have the button inside the "Custom Size" box?
Yes. Actually I don't even like the "fit" part either. What about "Resize to fit selection", and since it's inside "custom size" we don't even need to say _what_ to resize.
Note also that:
the "page size" menu has a big empty gap above the "custom", but when I scroll down, the gap disapear.
Yeah, it's a GTK "feature" that drives me crazy too. For some reason they decided that it's a smart way to open drop-downs so that the selected item is under mouse. Sometimes I wonder if GTK developers actually use any GTK software.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
On Apr 24, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Joc wrote:
I find "Fit page to selection" easier to understand than "Resize to fit selection".
And actually....
"resize" tends to carry some baggage of scaling things around. If anything, we might actually want to use "Crop" instead, since that implies cutting of as opposed to squishing down.
On 4/25/06, Jon A. Cruz <jon@...18...> wrote:
And actually....
"resize" tends to carry some baggage of scaling things around. If anything, we might actually want to use "Crop" instead, since that implies cutting of as opposed to squishing down.
Are you serious? :)
"Resize" and "crop" are "destructive" terms and this is about changing view, not changing actual settings of a document, right?
Alexandre
On Apr 24, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
Are you serious? :)
"Resize" and "crop" are "destructive" terms and this is about changing view, not changing actual settings of a document, right?
Actually... it does change settings on a document.
On 4/25/06, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
"Resize" and "crop" are "destructive" terms and this is about changing view, not changing actual settings of a document, right?
Actually... it does change settings on a document.
But only view settings, while "crop" in the first place means changing "physical" width and height of a page, not adjusting its display.
The term "fit" is used in several more applications and I don't remember anyone complaining about it. And since noone complained before I suggest to not switch to a term that will sound doubly.
Alexandre
On Apr 24, 2006, at 8:55 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
But only view settings, while "crop" in the first place means changing "physical" width and height of a page, not adjusting its display.
Actually, this does change the width and height of the page, but it's display stays the same for me.
Export and such then will get different results. Also, the image size and placement when viewed from other things change.
On 4/24/06, Jon A. Cruz <jon@...18...> wrote:
"resize" tends to carry some baggage of scaling things around. If anything, we might actually want to use "Crop" instead, since that implies cutting of as opposed to squishing down.
You're right, except that sometimes it does not crop but does the opposite - augments/enlarges/spreads to fit a larger selection. So "crop" will not work either.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
"Crop" also carry the baggage that some part of the image is cut off, which is not the case. If the selected object(s) is bigger than the page, the page could increase in size.
The word "fit" carry the meaning that the size is adjusted to match the content.
Joc
-----Original Message----- From: Jon A. Cruz [mailto:jon@...18...] Sent: April 24, 2006 8:41 PM To: _InkScape@...1248... Cc: bulia byak; Aaron Spike; inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] RE: "Fit canvas to selection" button.
On Apr 24, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Joc wrote:
I find "Fit page to selection" easier to understand than "Resize to fit
selection".
And actually....
"resize" tends to carry some baggage of scaling things around. If anything, we might actually want to use "Crop" instead, since that implies cutting of as opposed to squishing down.
participants (5)
-
Alexandre Prokoudine -
bulia byak -
Joc -
Jocelyn Doire -
Jon A. Cruz