11:48 p.m.
Hi there fellas!
How would you feel about dropping the dropshadow for the document canvas
border? It's visually distracting for small icons. While I'd like to
have a very light outline to see where the edge is, I don't like the
border taking too much attention away from the actual artwork and that's
what happens thanks to its non-symmetric look.
cheers
--
Jakub Steiner <jimmac@...659...>
Novell, Inc.
3:43 a.m.
Seconded,
Just change the default template to not include a shadow.
It was easy to remove in the icon templates I use but im sure other
users would appreciate it aswell.
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:48:44 +0100, Jakub Steiner <jimmac@...659...> wrote:
Hi there fellas!
How would you feel about dropping the dropshadow for the document canvas
border? It's visually distracting for small icons. While I'd like to
have a very light outline to see where the edge is, I don't like the
border taking too much attention away from the actual artwork and that's
what happens thanks to its non-symmetric look.
cheers
--
Jakub Steiner <jimmac@...659...>
Novell, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------
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(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
12:19 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 00:48 +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote:
Hi there fellas!
How would you feel about dropping the dropshadow for the document canvas
border? It's visually distracting for small icons. While I'd like to
have a very light outline to see where the edge is, I don't like the
border taking too much attention away from the actual artwork and that's
what happens thanks to its non-symmetric look.
cheers
I understand this makes sense for drawing icons, but it doesn't for
creating flyers or posters (let it only be drafts). As for now you
cannot drop just the shadow in the document properties, only the whole
frame. That means shadow and frame should be independent from one each
other and I'll agree. If they aren't, removing the shadow will leave you
with no way to reenvoke it -- and I want my shadow :)
David
12:55 p.m.
David Christian Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 00:48 +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote:
>Hi there fellas!
>How would you feel about dropping the dropshadow for the document canvas
>border? It's visually distracting for small icons. While I'd like to
>have a very light outline to see where the edge is, I don't like the
>border taking too much attention away from the actual artwork and that's
>what happens thanks to its non-symmetric look.
>
>cheers
I understand this makes sense for drawing icons, but it doesn't for
creating flyers or posters (let it only be drafts). As for now you
cannot drop just the shadow in the document properties, only the whole
frame. That means shadow and frame should be independent from one each
other and I'll agree. If they aren't, removing the shadow will leave you
with no way to reenvoke it -- and I want my shadow :)
No, you can change the offset of the shadow to 0 (zero) so that there is no
shadow, in the preferences xml. I just added this preference to my inkscape
preferences GUI and I'll commit it here b4 the end of the day. I used to
shut this off and previously had been overruled on removing the shadow. I
personally find it annoying, but others might like it...
Jon
-------------------------------------------------------
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(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
--
Jon Phillips
USA PH 510.499.0894
jon@...235...
http://www.rejon.org
Inkscape (http://inkscape.org)
Open Clip Art Library (www.openclipart.org)
CVS Book (http://cvsbook.ucsd.edu)
Scale Journal (http://scale.ucsd.edu)
5:35 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 04:55 -0800, Jon Phillips wrote:
No, you can change the offset of the shadow to 0 (zero) so that there
is no
shadow, in the preferences xml. I just added this preference to my inkscape
preferences GUI and I'll commit it here b4 the end of the day. I used to
shut this off and previously had been overruled on removing the shadow. I
personally find it annoying, but others might like it...
This is a good approach. I like how GIMP puts the "advanced" (mostly
crack, really ;) preferences and options to the rc files and doesn't
expose them in the GUI. It makes it easier to find the common options
while not really removing the configurability.
On the other hand a lot of hackers prefer to add options when they
should have made a decision really. So having sane defaults shoudln't be
underestimated either.
cheers
P.S. GNOME has the gconf-editor for that sort of stuff, but I guess
depending on gconf isn't such a good idea for a multiplatform app.
--
Jakub Steiner <jimmac@...653...>
5:47 p.m.
On Sunday 20 February 2005 18:35, Jakub Steiner wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 04:55 -0800, Jon Phillips wrote:
>No, you can change the offset of the shadow to 0 (zero) so that there is
> no shadow, in the preferences xml. I just added this preference to my
> inkscape preferences GUI and I'll commit it here b4 the end of the day. I
> used to shut this off and previously had been overruled on removing the
> shadow. I personally find it annoying, but others might like it...
This is a good approach. I like how GIMP puts the "advanced" (mostly
crack, really ;) preferences and options to the rc files and doesn't
expose them in the GUI. It makes it easier to find the common options
while not really removing the configurability.
This is also the reason many people avoid Gnome. The dumbing down of the
interface in the various config areas - just to then expose a worse than
regedit interface in gconf. Meh!
Craig
Scribus
6:13 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 18:47 +0100, Craig Bradney wrote:
This is also the reason many people avoid Gnome. The dumbing down of
the
interface in the various config areas - just to then expose a worse than
regedit interface in gconf. Meh!
That's why there is "advanced setting" gui tools such as Powertools on
windows or Gnome powertools. I understand there is people who like to
spend a lot of time tweaking stuff (I used to be one of them), but I
would think most people just want to get stuff done.
I have been in your phase. I've been loving the fact I can tweak an
application so that it behaves exactly how I like it. I felt
"empowered". This doesn't come for free though. It costs complexity
(more option combinations), maintanability (more code paths), stability
(impossible to test all combinations), usability (application appears
more complex), support (you cannot really help someone with all these
option combinations).
As a developer, even if you think configurability is a good thing, DO
TRY TO COME UP WITH DECISIONS. Pick the right defaults. Those, that will
work for most of your user. For your TARGET AUDIENCE. Adding an option
toggle just because there's more ways to do something and "you can
always stuff it up in the preferences" will end up in a miserable
interface.
Good read:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000059.html
http://ometer.com/free-software-ui.html
cheers
--
Jakub Steiner <jimmac@...659...>
Novell, Inc.
6:31 p.m.
On Sunday 20 February 2005 19:13, Jakub Steiner wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 18:47 +0100, Craig Bradney wrote:
>This is also the reason many people avoid Gnome. The dumbing down of the
>interface in the various config areas - just to then expose a worse than
>regedit interface in gconf. Meh!
That's why there is "advanced setting" gui tools such as Powertools on
windows or Gnome powertools. I understand there is people who like to
spend a lot of time tweaking stuff (I used to be one of them), but I
would think most people just want to get stuff done.
I have been in your phase. I've been loving the fact I can tweak an
application so that it behaves exactly how I like it. I felt
"empowered". This doesn't come for free though. It costs complexity
(more option combinations), maintanability (more code paths), stability
(impossible to test all combinations), usability (application appears
more complex), support (you cannot really help someone with all these
option combinations).
My phase.. has lasted well over 15 years :) hehe.
However, remember the users out there. They DO NOT want to go to the
console/text editor and edit an rc or xml file manually. They also dont wish
to run an abomination like regedit or gconf. Exposing the users in the "right
way" to the configuration is more important than development time.
As a developer, even if you think configurability is a good thing,
DO
TRY TO COME UP WITH DECISIONS. Pick the right defaults. Those, that will
work for most of your user. For your TARGET AUDIENCE. Adding an option
toggle just because there's more ways to do something and "you can
always stuff it up in the preferences" will end up in a miserable
interface.
Of course...
cya
Craig
5:30 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 13:19 +0100, David Christian Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 00:48 +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote:
> Hi there fellas!
> How would you feel about dropping the dropshadow for the document canvas
> border? It's visually distracting for small icons. While I'd like to
> have a very light outline to see where the edge is, I don't like the
> border taking too much attention away from the actual artwork and that's
> what happens thanks to its non-symmetric look.
>
> cheers
I understand this makes sense for drawing icons, but it doesn't for
creating flyers or posters (let it only be drafts). As for now you
cannot drop just the shadow in the document properties, only the whole
frame. That means shadow and frame should be independent from one each
other and I'll agree. If they aren't, removing the shadow will leave you
with no way to reenvoke it -- and I want my shadow :)
Can you explain why the shadow is important? To me this is another fine
example how to pollute preferences making it hard to find the important
ones.
cheers
--
Jakub Steiner <jimmac@...653...>
5:41 p.m.
>with no way to reenvoke it -- and I want my shadow :)
Can you explain why the shadow is important? To me this is another fine
example how to pollute preferences making it hard to find the important
ones.
hmm, I'm not sure, I just think for publications it gives you a better
idea of how it's gonna look like once printed.
David
5:49 p.m.
It's just a matter of feel. For me and I think others, it does not
feel right without the shadow. Of course there's little practical use
in it being there, but neither there's any practical justification for
removing it - it's also a matter of feel. Therefore I propose to add a
user setting and be done with it.
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:41:45 +0100, David Christian Berg
<david@...407...> wrote:
> >with no way to reenvoke it -- and I want my shadow :)
>
> Can you explain why the shadow is important? To me this is another fine
> example how to pollute preferences making it hard to find the important
> ones.
hmm, I'm not sure, I just think for publications it gives you a better
idea of how it's gonna look like once printed.
David
-------------------------------------------------------
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(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
6:03 p.m.
David Christian Berg wrote:
>>with no way to reenvoke it -- and I want my shadow :)
>>
>>
>Can you explain why the shadow is important? To me this is another fine
>example how to pollute preferences making it hard to find the important
>ones.
>
>
hmm, I'm not sure, I just think for publications it gives you a better
idea of how it's gonna look like once printed.
David
Something that I sometimes had felt the urge for is to only show the
stuff in the drawing area, I belive InDesign has this functionality.
Great when drawing stuff that must be clipped in the final product. That
combined with no borders/shadow might be something to consither. Might
call it preview mode or
something.
Just an idea.
- Andreas Nilsson
6:27 p.m.
Something that I sometimes had felt the urge for is to only show the
stuff in the drawing area, I belive InDesign has this functionality.
Great when drawing stuff that must be clipped in the final product. That
combined with no borders/shadow might be something to consither. Might
call it preview mode or
something.
Just an idea.
- Andreas Nilsson
I'm not sure, if InDesign has it, but it is definitely a real good idea!
Should be in the view menu, to easily be able to toggle it.
David
6:35 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 19:27 +0100, David Christian Berg wrote:
> Something that I sometimes had felt the urge for is to only show
the
> stuff in the drawing area, I belive InDesign has this functionality.
> Great when drawing stuff that must be clipped in the final product. That
> combined with no borders/shadow might be something to consither. Might
> call it preview mode or
> something.
> Just an idea.
> - Andreas Nilsson
I'm not sure, if InDesign has it, but it is definitely a real good idea!
Should be in the view menu, to easily be able to toggle it.
David
so maybe: shadow when clipped and not shadow when not clipped.... that
would make sense and therefore is a good default saving more options.
6:50 p.m.
David Christian Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 19:27 +0100, David Christian Berg wrote:
>>Something that I sometimes had felt the urge for is to only show the
>>stuff in the drawing area, I belive InDesign has this functionality.
>>Great when drawing stuff that must be clipped in the final product. That
>>combined with no borders/shadow might be something to consither. Might
>>call it preview mode or
>>something.
>>Just an idea.
>>- Andreas Nilsson
>>
>>
>I'm not sure, if InDesign has it, but it is definitely a real good idea!
>Should be in the view menu, to easily be able to toggle it.
>
>David
>
>
so maybe: shadow when clipped and not shadow when not clipped.... that
would make sense and therefore is a good default saving more options.
I think I had just the opposite picture in my head. How silly. :)
I don't know why really, maybe something to do with "How will the
picture look like when I have printed it out on paper" or something like
that.
Well, nothing important really. I can live with it both ways.
- Andreas Nilsson
7:18 p.m.
I think I had just the opposite picture in my head. How silly. :)
I don't know why really, maybe something to do with "How will the
picture look like when I have printed it out on paper" or something like
that.
Print Preview perhaps? [1]
- Alan
[1] Always avoid alliteration and acronyms, for good writing style.
6789
days inactive
6790
days old
inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org
15 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Alan Horkan -
Andreas Nilsson -
Andy Fitzsimon -
bulia byak -
Craig Bradney -
David Christian Berg -
Jakub Steiner -
Jon Phillips