Re: [Inkscape-devel] Help with more grid problems
No, this is wrong. You almost always want to snap to nodes.
I can see valid uses for both kinds of snapping.
they can use stroke to path to convert the shape to a new set of nodes. Please, don't start making preferences for everything!
I see absolutely no problem with Inkscape becoming the most configurable vector editor ever, even if some options are used by 0.001% of users. Besides their direct value of configurability, options also have educational value: if they're logically named and laid out, looking at the preference dialog page instantly gives you a good idea of the program's capabilities.
_________________________________________________________________ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI...
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 19:01, bulia byak wrote:
I see absolutely no problem with Inkscape becoming the most configurable vector editor ever, even if some options are used by 0.001% of users. Besides their direct value of configurability, options also have educational value: if they're logically named and laid out, looking at the preference dialog page instantly gives you a good idea of the program's capabilities.
Configurable is a good thing, but I think that too many preferences can significantly effect usability. We need to be careful not to let things that don't have a reasonable reason to be configured be configurable.
That being said, I think both types of snap to grid are important and should be configurable :)
--Ted
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Ted Gould wrote:
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 19:01, bulia byak wrote:
I see absolutely no problem with Inkscape becoming the most configurable vector editor ever, even if some options are used by 0.001% of users. Besides their direct value of configurability, options also have educational value: if they're logically named and laid out, looking at the preference dialog page instantly gives you a good idea of the program's capabilities.
Configurable is a good thing, but I think that too many preferences can significantly effect usability. We need to be careful not to let things that don't have a reasonable reason to be configured be configurable.
*nods*. I'm sure I've once read a good article on the web about having too many configuration options. Can't find it right now, though.
Cheers
Carl
Carl Hetherington ricordò:
Configurable is a good thing, but I think that too many preferences can significantly effect usability. We need to be careful not to let things that don't have a reasonable reason to be configured be configurable.
*nods*. I'm sure I've once read a good article on the web about having too many configuration options. Can't find it right now, though.
Perhaphs the article from Havoc Pennington? http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Ted Gould wrote:
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 19:01, bulia byak wrote:
I see absolutely no problem with Inkscape becoming the most configurable vector editor ever, even if some options are used by 0.001% of users. Besides their direct value of configurability, options also have educational value: if they're logically named and laid out, looking at the preference dialog page instantly gives you a good idea of the program's capabilities.
Configurable is a good thing, but I think that too many preferences can significantly effect usability. We need to be careful not to let things that don't have a reasonable reason to be configured be configurable.
I agree configurability is important, although it would probably be a good idea to make sure every option is documented someplace as to what it does.
Bryce
participants (5)
-
Bryce Harrington -
bulia byak -
Carl Hetherington -
Emanuele Aina -
Ted Gould