Documentation Brainstorming for Shape Controls
Inkscape has wonderful capabilities, among them, the ability to edit basic shapes after they've been initially created via the various shape tools stands out. There isn't, as far as I can tell, any consistent or particularly descriptive way of talking about these capabilities presently in use.
I need some help coming up with a clever and descriptive name for the ability to edit shapes (polygon, rectangle, ellipse, spiral) with their respective tools (and the Tool Controls bar). "Shape Control" doesn't quite cut it, imo. Just looking for some brainstorming on this, so please throw out some suggestions.
Thanks, -Kevin
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:04:58 -0500, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
I need some help coming up with a clever and descriptive name for the ability to edit shapes (polygon, rectangle, ellipse, spiral) with their respective tools (and the Tool Controls bar). "Shape Control" doesn't quite cut it, imo. Just looking for some brainstorming on this, so please throw out some suggestions.
"Name for the ability"? Or a name for the on-screen control? Or for the toolbar control? Can you give an example context where you would use the term you're looking after?
Actually, Bulia, right now I'm working on the revision to the Inkscape for Adobe Illustrator Users document, and I'm at that part where you said "richer shape controls" and I'm trying to say the same thing except I'm trying to phrase it in terms of what Inkscape can do that Illustrator can't instead of what Inkscape can do better. So it needs a name, I think, for that functionality...
Things Inkscape can do that Adobe Illustrator can not:
* Edit SVG source directly * Clones, tile clones, edit clones on canvas * Keys to move/rotate/scale by screen pixels * Shape control, aka form editing aka form-centric control aka form control aka ...
Only one of the aka's will be used, of course. But there will be other places where a name for this functionality will be required.
bulia byak wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:04:58 -0500, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
I need some help coming up with a clever and descriptive name for the ability to edit shapes (polygon, rectangle, ellipse, spiral) with their respective tools (and the Tool Controls bar). "Shape Control" doesn't quite cut it, imo. Just looking for some brainstorming on this, so please throw out some suggestions.
"Name for the ability"? Or a name for the on-screen control? Or for the toolbar control? Can you give an example context where you would use the term you're looking after?
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:39:41 -0500, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
Things Inkscape can do that Adobe Illustrator can not:
* Edit SVG source directly * Clones, tile clones, edit clones on canvas * Keys to move/rotate/scale by screen pixels * Shape control, aka form editing aka form-centric control aka form control aka ...Only one of the aka's will be used, of course. But there will be other places where a name for this functionality will be required.
Why not call it simply "Shapes", as opposed to paths. That's exactly what we have what AI does not. No need to water it down with "control" etc., it's redundant. (When you need to explain what it is, you can say that you can control them in such and such a way, but in a heading, just "Shapes" is best imho.)
Quoting Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...>:
I need some help coming up with a clever and descriptive name for the ability to edit shapes (polygon, rectangle, ellipse, spiral) with their respective tools (and the Tool Controls bar). "Shape Control" doesn't quite cut it, imo. Just looking for some brainstorming on this, so please throw out some suggestions.
"Shape tweaking"? i.e. Inkscape's drawing tools can also tweak existing shapes.
-mental
I like "shape tweaking" a lot but lets keep the ideas coming.
-Kevin
mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...>:
I need some help coming up with a clever and descriptive name for the ability to edit shapes (polygon, rectangle, ellipse, spiral) with their respective tools (and the Tool Controls bar). "Shape Control" doesn't quite cut it, imo. Just looking for some brainstorming on this, so please throw out some suggestions.
"Shape tweaking"? i.e. Inkscape's drawing tools can also tweak existing shapes.
-mental
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id%14396&op%C3%8Ck _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
I like that too. Although "shape tweaking" is really growing on me.
Jon A. Cruz wrote:
Kevin Wixson wrote:
I like "shape tweaking" a lot but lets keep the ideas coming.
For marketspeak we might get
"Live Shapes"
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:01:43 -0500, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
I like that too. Although "shape tweaking" is really growing on me.
I prefer "live shapes" or "editable shapes" to "shape tweaking." The latter implies that when there are shapes (just any shapes), Inkscape can "tweak" them. What's the big deal, the reader might say? The "live shapes" or "editable shapes", on the contrary, convey the idea that Inkscape's shapes are special, and that's exactly the idea we must make clear.
bulia byak wrote:
I prefer "live shapes" or "editable shapes" to "shape tweaking." The latter implies that when there are shapes (just any shapes), Inkscape
Sounds like we have a concensus, then. Let them be "Live shapes". Huzaa! If someone has a better idea or bone to pick, speak now.
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 14:52 -0500, Kevin Wixson wrote:
bulia byak wrote:
I prefer "live shapes" or "editable shapes" to "shape tweaking." The latter implies that when there are shapes (just any shapes), Inkscape
Sounds like we have a concensus, then. Let them be "Live shapes". Huzaa! If someone has a better idea or bone to pick, speak now.
Gosh, come on, I really prefer the simple "shapes" as opposed to "paths". We don't need to through in useless words, just because companies like doing that.
David
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:15:11 +0200, David Christian Berg <david@...407...> wrote:
Gosh, come on, I really prefer the simple "shapes" as opposed to "paths". We don't need to through in useless words, just because companies like doing that.
I agree in principle, but this document is being written for AI users, who may have trouble understanding too succint explanations without a dose of marketing-speak :)
For the user manual, yes, these should be just "shapes". The "live shapes" metaphor can be used once in explanations, but not more.
--- bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:15:11 +0200, David Christian Berg <david@...407...> wrote:
Gosh, come on, I really prefer the simple "shapes" as opposed to "paths". We don't need to through in useless words, just because companies like doing that.
I agree in principle, but this document is being written for AI users, who may have trouble understanding too succint explanations without a dose of marketing-speak :)
For the user manual, yes, these should be just "shapes". The "live shapes" metaphor can be used once in explanations, but not more.
yeah, the point is we're trying to differentiate between the shape tools their used to where as soon as its created it becomes a path, and the parametric nature of our tools. The term "live shapes" is just to differentiate between the dumb shapes in AI and our smart ones. Kinda thing we should explain once then go back to refering to just shapes.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
John Cliff wrote:
Kinda thing we should explain once then go back to refering to just shapes.
I can make lots of shapes in Inkscape that aren't created with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Star or Spiral tool. How shall I refer to those without confusing the reader? You are insisting I have to use a word other than "shapes" because "shapes" is reserved for the special meaning of those objects created by the Ellipse, Rectangle, Star or Spiral tool and can still be transformed using the tool that created them. I'm saying that's a bad idea.
David Christian Berg wrote:
Gosh, come on, I really prefer the simple "shapes" as opposed to "paths". We don't need to through in useless words, just because companies like doing that.
David
I can make lots and lots of "shapes" in Inkscape that aren't created with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tool, and I need a way to refer to them without confusing the reader. I don't think it's really possible to refer to "shapes" and mean exclusively those objects created by the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral and Star tools in Inkscape. You will confuse readers and hamstring writers by making it so they have to explain, every time they want to use the word "shape" or "shapes" and are referring to the meaning of the word in everyday English, as in "you can create different shapes," that they don't mean "those special shapes in Inkscape made with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral and Star tool and can still be transformed with those tools."
In spite of how the term was presented, this has nothing to do with marketing, and everything to do with clarity. I intend to use the phrase "live shapes" beyond just the one AI related document, too.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:00:16 -0500, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
I can make lots and lots of "shapes" in Inkscape that aren't created with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tool, and I need a way to refer to them without confusing the reader.
Call them what they are - paths or objects.
I don't think it's really possible to refer to "shapes" and mean exclusively those objects created by the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral and Star tools in Inkscape.
It is. Just a matter of getting used to.
You will confuse readers and hamstring writers by making it so they have to explain, every time they want to use the word "shape" or "shapes" and are referring to the meaning of the word in everyday English, as in "you can create different shapes," that they don't mean "those special shapes in Inkscape made with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral and Star tool and can still be transformed with those tools."
No. You can create different objects. Some of the objects are paths. Some are shapes. Some are neither. What's wrong with that? Why can you use "paths" as a term but cannot use "shapes" as another term?
bulia byak wrote:
No. You can create different objects. Some of the objects are paths. Some are shapes. Some are neither. What's wrong with that? Why can you use "paths" as a term but cannot use "shapes" as another term?
A trapezoid is a shape, but you can't create it with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools in Inkscape in such a way that you can use one of those tools to transform it later. A trapezoid is a "shape" whether I draw it in Inkscape or with a ruler and pencil on a piece of paper. A trapezoid I draw on a piece of paper is not a "path" or an "object". "Paths" is not a term typically used in art or illustration, and (for the benefit of you programmers) doesn't have a "conflicting namespace" in everyday English. If you were insisting on calling a "path" a "line" I would probably have the same issue. Objects include things that aren't shapes, so that's not a very descriptive term. So, "shapes" play a role in talking about illustrations, illustrating and illustration applications that is more generic than "an object made with the Eillipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools," more accessible and meaningful to artists than "path", and more specific than "object." That's what's wrong with that.
What's wrong with referring to "shapes made with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools that can still be transformed with the tool that created them" by calling them "live shapes"? I think that's one heck of an easy optimization that doesn't have the downside of hijacking the otherwise useful word "shapes" for such narrow purposes.
Kevin Wixson continuò:
No. You can create different objects. Some of the objects are paths. Some are shapes. Some are neither. What's wrong with that? Why can you use "paths" as a term but cannot use "shapes" as another term?
A trapezoid is a shape, but you can't create it with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools in Inkscape in such a way that you can use one of those tools to transform it later. A trapezoid is a "shape" whether I draw it in Inkscape or with a ruler and pencil on a piece of paper. A trapezoid I draw on a piece of paper is not a "path" or an "object". "Paths" is not a term typically used in art or illustration, and (for the benefit of you programmers) doesn't have a "conflicting namespace" in everyday English. If you were insisting on calling a "path" a "line" I would probably have the same issue. Objects include things that aren't shapes, so that's not a very descriptive term. So, "shapes" play a role in talking about illustrations, illustrating and illustration applications that is more generic than "an object made with the Eillipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools," more accessible and meaningful to artists than "path", and more specific than "object." That's what's wrong with that.
What's wrong with referring to "shapes made with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools that can still be transformed with the tool that created them" by calling them "live shapes"? I think that's one heck of an easy optimization that doesn't have the downside of hijacking the otherwise useful word "shapes" for such narrow purposes.
Speaking as a translator, I think Bulia proposal will be less of a problem to internationalize, while "live shapes" is very difficult to render in a language which is not english...
participants (8)
-
unknown＠example.com -
bulia byak -
cedric -
David Christian Berg -
Emanuele Aina -
John Cliff -
Jon A. Cruz -
Kevin Wixson