On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:41:20 -0500, Jozsef Mak <j_mak3@...9...> wrote:
Examples: the Object properties palette is a puzzle; I expected that this would be one of the most important panels where the essential parameters of the selected object can be found and edited. I've found nothing to edit there.
I don't understand you. It provides access to the id and per-object visibility and lock. That's exactly what I would call "object properties" because they universally apply to all objects. What were you expecting to see there?
The font palette looks like it was borrowed from an office suite.
Could you elaborate? What's wrong with it specifically?
The implementation of gradients are so weird that hard to describe.
You may not bother yourself describing it :) It will be redesigned. It's one of the worst (and most difficult to change) interface aspects we inherited from Sodipodi. We're working towards changing it entirely, though so far most of the work was in the internals.
The Export Bitmap dialog box is poorly designed, the window wouldn't even close after saving files.
OF COURSE if would not close. That's the point. In cases like this, I'd suggest that you try to understand Inkscape's natural workflow better, instead of criticising it for not fitting your pre-formed idea of a workflow. The fact that this is a regular non-modal dialog that stays open while I can select various objects on the canvas, and see the export parameters of each one at once (by the way they are stored with the objects), and then export with a single click - this is one of the most convenient aspects of the program.
The program lacks the tool to group panels into different panel groups.
Some work on this was being done, so hopefully it will be finished sometime. Though honestly I don't see much pressing need for this.
In addition, most of the features are incomplete. The new text on path is nice but, if you design a circular logo, most of the time, you would want to put text on the top and on the bottom of the circle. Can you do this in Inkscape? I couldn't figure out.
There are many ways to do this. I can give you details if you really need them, though I think it's not that difficult to figure out. Certainly we will add more obvious controls for text stuff, but even as is, it's quite powerful.
Also when export text on path, it exports the path as well, which is unacceptable.
It exports exactly what you tell it to export. If you don't want the path to export, just hide it! Implementing arbitrary special-case rules like "when exporting textpath do not export its path", as you suggest, would be a usability nightmare.
Another example: the implementation of patterns. It is nice to have it but it is basic to have the tool to edit it after applied to a shape (moving, scaling and so on). Without this the feature has limited use.
Didn't you notice the handles that allow you do exactly this?
Well, admittedly it's incomplete. E.g. the handles don't always work (only for shapes, not paths I think). Scaling patterns can only be uniform so far. This is all known problems, we're working on them.
I also couldn't rename pattens but stuck with the generic names.
Yes, that needs to be added too.
I missed the preset zoom settings at the left bottom corner, as well.
Right-click on the zoom control.
A word on priorities. In my view adding features should proceed from the most essential toward the less important. At the hart of a vector drawing program one expect to find tools, such as swatches, gradients, tints and pattern palettes and the capacity to to export and import them from one document to the other. Symbols are also essential to work efficiently.
We appreciate any input from the users on what features are the most important for them. They do affect our implementation priorities. That said, please don't assume that what you consider "basic" is indeed basic for everyone. Every user has his own specific needs and priorities. Lots of people find the program perfectly usable, i.e. it fills all of _their_ basic needs.
For me, for example, most of what you list above is just un-essential niceties which would be good to have, but they don't block me. E.g. when I need to copy a gradient or pattern to another document, I just copy/paste an object with that gradient or pattern to the new document. Instead, there are other basic things that _I_ miss but which you didn't even notice, etc.
Until they are implemented pointless adding less commonly used ones like bitmap tracing, for instance. Any graphic artist can tell that this is a relatively seldom used tool in the actual work environment.
I think such comments are not productive. You are welcome to suggest what needs to be done, but telling us that something should _not_ have been done is, you know, rather useless :) (Unless of course you're suggesting specific ways in which it should have been done _differently_.)
A programmer needed this feature and implemented it. Lots of people appreciate that. What's wrong with that?
I found great that I could export a selection rather than the entire ardboard; this feature dearly missed even in adobe illustrator.
Yeah, and if you think about it, you will realize why our export dialog does not close when you do export (see above).
My conclusion: before adding additional features polish up and complete the existing ones. Also before go on adding more tools implement the fundamentals (swatches, tints, gradients, patterns, symbols and so on) and redo the interface from scratch.
My conclusions for you :)
- Before suggesting something, examine Inkscape in detail. What you want might already be there, though not packaged exactly as you would expect.
- If something is done differently in Inkscape, give it a thought. It might be for a reason (though it might just as well be not). And it might be more convenient, once you get the hang of it. And if you're sure that something can indeed be done more convenient in some way, feel free to suggest, no matter how small or big is the suggestion. We DO appreciate that.
- When suggesting, please be as specific as possible. Just saying "it's badly designed" is not enough. Do some interface mock-ups or detailed "ideal" workflow descriptions, that will really help us (implementors). Do ask on the list first, however, because the area which you're interested in may already be under a redesign, or planned to be redesigned shortly.
- Try not to sound too authoritative (OK, I know I'm prone to this myself, but still :) You know, "I think this is important" sounds much better than "Any graphic artist will tell you that this is important." :)
Thanks for your input!