On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 12:53 +0200, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:

Currently there are four offset-related items in the menu, but we actually need only one, Dynamic Offset. It could be renamed to Offset or Offset Path.

The current Inset and Outset items are practically useless, because they use a fixed, non-configurable width (or it's hidden somewhere in the prefs). Linked Offset is redundant, because this action could be represented by using Dynamic Offset on a clone.

What do you think?

I'd like to see that simplified and the menu item moved out of the menu and into the path/node toolbar.

Being able to nudge the object in and out is very useful. We can use the same keys ',' and '.' which is used to nudge the selected nodes in and out. (similar functionality, but different)

Martin,

The main benefit I see to keeping the current destructive operations is that they apparently take the Join type into account. I linked an image (1) which shows how the Join affects Outsetting.

Also linked is an image (2) comparing Outset to Offset. The results differ for each of them with the Offset producing the cleanest result (by far). I will say though that there are aspects of the Outset results which could be sylistically desirable (the G outset 1px 5 times on the right text looks interesting to me).

If I recall correctly, they use the same code under the hood, however Offset seems to not be influenced by join type. This to me would be the biggest drawback of an Offset only approach with how it currently exists. I did try to get the experimental Offset LPE into play here, but it is broken and can also easily trigger crashes. In LPE form, it would be nice to have the ability to toggle either a "cusp" mode, or to take join type into consideration.

(1) http://i.imgur.com/IRUbglT.png (2) http://i.imgur.com/VtU9KTa.png

Just my .02 on it atm.

Cheers, Josh

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Dmitry Kirsanov <buliabyak@...400...>wrote:

I support removing linked offset - it was added long ago, before even clones were made usable, and has nasty bugs. Unfortunately we'll still have to support them under the hood so that the old files render properly (at least until 1.0?) but I hope they can be eventually retired in favor of LPEs with clones.

As for simple non-dynamic offsets, however, I'd hate to see them go - it's so easy and intuitive to use, without having to bother with any LPEs, knots, etc. I think both "plain simplify" and "plain offset" that act destructively on a path need to be preserved. The fact that you can't easily adjust the amount is no more harmful than the fact that you can't do that for moving by arrow keys: using Alt (1 screen pixel) with zooming and Shift (10x) is usually a good enough solution. Yes, these actions are not revertible other than by Undo, but that's their whole point.

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Krzysztof Kosiński <tweenk.pl@...847...0...> wrote:

...

Currently there are four offset-related items in the menu, but we actually need only one, Dynamic Offset. It could be renamed to Offset or Offset Path.

The current Inset and Outset items are practically useless, because they use a fixed, non-configurable width (or it's hidden somewhere in the prefs). Linked Offset is redundant, because this action could be represented by using Dynamic Offset on a clone.

What do you think?

Regards, Krzysztof

---

...

"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform

available

...

Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> wrote:

I'd like to see that simplified and the menu item moved out of the menu and into the path/node toolbar.

We're going to need to address that toolbar at some point given the number of buttons it has. I'm thinking going the MyPaint route (1) for some of our Tool Control Bar buttons would be really useful and help to simplify/organize the UI. Primarily for things that won't be toggled often, but make sense to keep in the toolbar only 1 more click away.

Being able to nudge the object in and out is very useful. We can use the same keys ',' and '.' which is used to nudge the selected nodes in and out. (similar functionality, but different)

One thing about insetting and outsetting that's handy is it isn't tool/context dependent. Scaling is though. If you have objects selected with the Selector Tool and hit ',' or '.' it scales them (same in the node tool with a node selection).

To change this to an inherently destructive operation by default would be a bad idea. If you use the scale keys now in the Selector Tool with a text object it remains text, change the shortcut behavior and it's then converted to a path. Likewise, if you changed it to do that in the node tool with no nodes selected, it fundamentally changes the path structure.

(1) http://i.imgur.com/b2zfiaa.jpg

Cheers, Josh

2014-05-16 16:05 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Kirsanov <buliabyak@...400...>:

As for simple non-dynamic offsets, however, I'd hate to see them go - it's so easy and intuitive to use, without having to bother with any LPEs, knots, etc. I think both "plain simplify" and "plain offset" that act destructively on a path need to be preserved.

You can get destructive offset by using Object to Path on a dynamic offset (modulo the join inconsistency). Or am I missing something here?

Regards, Krzysztof