Hello,
I've just downloaded the latest windows-build and found that 'snap to grid/guide' no longer works for me. I've enabled all the settings necessary with no success. Did something change in the last versions?
best Steffen
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:20:01 +0100, Steffen Glückselig <glueckselig@...278...> wrote:
Hello,
I've just downloaded the latest windows-build and found that 'snap to grid/guide' no longer works for me. I've enabled all the settings necessary with no success. Did something change in the last versions?
Works for me. What exactly does not work and what are the settings in document prefs?
Works for me. What exactly does not work and what are the settings in document prefs?
Well, it does not snap. I can move things about the guides or the raster and they won't stick. I've made a screenshot of my settings: http://www.gungfu.de/temp/snap.jpg
best Steffen
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:30:54 +0100, Steffen Glückselig <steffen@...278...> wrote:
Works for me. What exactly does not work and what are the settings in document prefs?
Well, it does not snap. I can move things about the guides or the raster and they won't stick. I've made a screenshot of my settings: http://www.gungfu.de/temp/snap.jpg
Have you zoomed close enough to see the snapping? You have the grid spaced 1pt, which means the snaps are quite small and you may simply not notice them if you're not zoomed. Note that in zoom-out, not all grid lines are shown, and it may actually snap to the invisible grid lines in between the visible ones.
Have you zoomed close enough to see the snapping? You have the grid spaced 1pt, which means the snaps are quite small and you may simply not notice them if you're not zoomed. Note that in zoom-out, not all grid lines are shown, and it may actually snap to the invisible grid lines in between the visible ones.
I now zoomed close. It seems there is snapping but it does not feel as hard as it used to. It's quite easy to leave the snap.
Maybe it's some setting. Or maybe I fool myself...
best Steffen
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:01:04 +0100, Steffen Glückselig <steffen@...278...> wrote:
Have you zoomed close enough to see the snapping? You have the grid spaced 1pt, which means the snaps are quite small and you may simply not notice them if you're not zoomed. Note that in zoom-out, not all grid lines are shown, and it may actually snap to the invisible grid lines in between the visible ones.
I now zoomed close. It seems there is snapping but it does not feel as hard as it used to. It's quite easy to leave the snap.
The "strength" of snapping is the Snap Distance setting. Per your screenshot, it's 1pt as well, so it must snap everywhere. By default in 0.41, it's 0.4px while grid spacing is 1px, which means there is some no-snap zone 0.2px wide in between the grid lines.
However you give me an idea:
- What if we allow it to snap only to the visible grid lines, i.e. only to 10px lines if 1px lines are too dense and thus hidden?
- With this change, the snap distance should be made a percentage of grid spacing rather than a fixed value.
What do others think?
Have you zoomed close enough to see the snapping? You have the
grid
spaced 1pt, which means the snaps are quite small and you may
simply
not notice them if you're not zoomed. Note that in zoom-out, not
all
grid lines are shown, and it may actually snap to the invisible
grid
lines in between the visible ones.
I now zoomed close. It seems there is snapping but it does not feel
as
hard as it used to. It's quite easy to leave the snap.
The "strength" of snapping is the Snap Distance setting. Per your screenshot, it's 1pt as well, so it must snap everywhere. By default in 0.41, it's 0.4px while grid spacing is 1px, which means there is some no-snap zone 0.2px wide in between the grid lines.
However you give me an idea:
- What if we allow it to snap only to the visible grid lines, i.e.
only to 10px lines if 1px lines are too dense and thus hidden?
- With this change, the snap distance should be made a percentage of
grid spacing rather than a fixed value.
What do others think?
Sounds good to me... almost what would be expected since it is what you are seeing. (vs snapping to the hidden grid lines because you are zoomed out too far)
-Josh
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 17:31 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
However you give me an idea:
- What if we allow it to snap only to the visible grid lines, i.e.
only to 10px lines if 1px lines are too dense and thus hidden?
- With this change, the snap distance should be made a percentage of
grid spacing rather than a fixed value.
What do others think?
I totally like the idea. Similarly I love Alt+cursors to move by pixel units. The more you zoom into the artwork, the more fine-grained control you wish to have.
cheers
bulia byak wrote:
However you give me an idea:
- What if we allow it to snap only to the visible grid lines, i.e.
only to 10px lines if 1px lines are too dense and thus hidden?
- With this change, the snap distance should be made a percentage of
grid spacing rather than a fixed value.
What do others think?
With out very deep consideration that sounds odd to me. I think that if I set the grid to 1/8th inch I would always want it to snap to 1/8th inch. Then again I haven't tried it so I'm not sure. Perhaps a checkbox for "Snap only to visible grid lines." But you don't want to and to many confusing configuration options either.
Aaron Spike
Aaron Spike wrote:
bulia byak wrote:
However you give me an idea:
- What if we allow it to snap only to the visible grid lines, i.e.
only to 10px lines if 1px lines are too dense and thus hidden?
- With this change, the snap distance should be made a percentage of
grid spacing rather than a fixed value.
What do others think?
With out very deep consideration that sounds odd to me. I think that if I set the grid to 1/8th inch I would always want it to snap to 1/8th inch. Then again I haven't tried it so I'm not sure. Perhaps a checkbox for "Snap only to visible grid lines." But you don't want to and to many confusing configuration options either.
Aaron Spike
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-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
I use rather guidelines than grid. But I imagine I can use grid for designs that are modulable so if I can't snap to the same points no matter the zoom it doesn't sound good for me.
Cristian Balan
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:50:13 +0200, Cristian Balan <cristian.balan@...389...> wrote:
I use rather guidelines than grid. But I imagine I can use grid for designs that are modulable so if I can't snap to the same points no matter the zoom it doesn't sound good for me.
What's the use in snapping to a point which you don't have visualized in any way? If you don't see the gridline, snapping to it is unexpected. Doing anything unexpected is bad UI.
péntek 11 február 2005 23.02 dátummal bulia byak ezt írta:
What's the use in snapping to a point which you don't have visualized in any way? If you don't see the gridline, snapping to it is unexpected. Doing anything unexpected is bad UI.
Dear Bulia,
I think you (as developer) try to think instead of the user. What can be a little dangerous ;)
It is absolut necessary to snap to grid without see any grid. 1., With complex graphics it is very embarrassing to see grids, (grid points is bad, bad gridlines worst (btw is there any way to use points instead of gridlines?))
2., The actual gridlines will be hided with zoom off, so in this way you can snap, but can't see grids / but you can see thick gridlines, brrrr :(
Give the possibility to hide grids (with snap on). It is unnecessary restriction (terror) to forbit it.
Bye, Aewyn
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:38:44 +0100, Aewyn <aewyn@...94...> wrote:
I think you (as developer) try to think instead of the user. What can be a little dangerous ;)
I AM a user. I use it every day. And though I don't use all features, I use grid snapping fairly often.
It is absolut necessary to snap to grid without see any grid. 1., With complex graphics it is very embarrassing to see grids, (grid points is bad, bad gridlines worst
It's one key press to turn it off. If you don't want to see it, likely you just want to view your image - turn grid off then. But if you want to move something AND snap when moving, press # to turn it on, so you can actually see WHAT is not yet snapped and WHERE it will snap when you move it.
(btw is there any way to use points instead of gridlines?))
Not currently, please file an RFE.
2., The actual gridlines will be hided with zoom off, so in this way you can snap, but can't see grids / but you can see thick gridlines, brrrr :(
This is exactly what I proposed to fix. It must snap only to those lines that are visible, which may be a subset of all lines, depending on zoom.
Give the possibility to hide grids (with snap on). It is unnecessary restriction (terror) to forbit it.
Wow. I didn't know I can become a terrorist by fixing bugs :)
If you really need that, you can just make your grid lines fully transparent, i.e. invisible.
szombat 12 február 2005 14.37 dátummal bulia byak ezt írta:
I AM a user. I use it every day. And though I don't use all features, I use grid snapping fairly often.
This is one kind of user behaviour. I got another one. Others have other ones. Let us the possibility of chose. A possibility to change.
Now there is no option. I mean terror ;) for it. The program forces to me his opinion, does not let me the change.
It's one key press to turn it off.
I'd like to spare my presses. I'd like to work. If it works without presses why should I press anything. Ergonomy. Like zoom out with right mouse button (when selected zoom tool). Now it is one keypress+ one mouse press, but it could be one mouse press.
(it is two press to access # in my keyboard: AltGr+X, so i MUST to get off my hand from mouse to press AltGr+X, then I can continue the work with mouse. So I must move my hand between mouse and keyboard, what is not too comfortable, not to fast, not too... So it is what about I am speaking for. The program forces something to me, but the program does not think about consequences.)
(Again: # is two(!) hands shortcut, what is terrible itself. Let's kill all twohands shortcuts ;)
This is exactly what I proposed to fix. It must snap only to those lines that are visible, which may be a subset of all lines, depending on zoom.
nononono. Snapping depends on zoom factor? Oh no, please.
Thanks, Aewyn
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:12:16 +0100, Aewyn <aewyn@...94...> wrote:
nononono. Snapping depends on zoom factor? Oh no, please.
Exactly the fact that it did not depend on zoom caused the original complaint in this thread. A person did not realize it was snapping because the snap was too small to see it at the current zoom. An interface which is so misleading must be fixed.
bulia byak wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:12:16 +0100, Aewyn <aewyn@...94...> wrote:
nononono. Snapping depends on zoom factor? Oh no, please.
Exactly the fact that it did not depend on zoom caused the original complaint in this thread. A person did not realize it was snapping because the snap was too small to see it at the current zoom. An interface which is so misleading must be fixed.
Yes, but if it depend on zoom how I'll now on which point it snap (0,5cm, 1cm, 5cm or 10cm)?
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-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
Quoting Cristian Balan <cristian.balan@...389...>:
Yes, but if it depend on zoom how I'll now on which point it snap (0,5cm, 1cm, 5cm or 10cm)?
I think I misunderstood your question before. I will try to give a better answer now.
If you requested snapping at 5cm, no matter how far you zoom in, it would still snap to 5cm.
However, if you've zoomed out so far that 5cm would represent a fraction of a pixel, snapping mouse movements to 5cm isn't possible.
Instead, our idea is to snap to the lowest multiple of 5cm that is easily resolvable at that zoom level.
This (should) be consistent with the way we already selectively show grid lines at such small zooms.
-mental
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 00:04 +0200, Cristian Balan wrote:
bulia byak wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:12:16 +0100, Aewyn <aewyn@...94...> wrote:
nononono. Snapping depends on zoom factor? Oh no, please.
Exactly the fact that it did not depend on zoom caused the original complaint in this thread. A person did not realize it was snapping because the snap was too small to see it at the current zoom. An interface which is so misleading must be fixed.
Yes, but if it depend on zoom how I'll now on which point it snap (0,5cm, 1cm, 5cm or 10cm)?
I understand that the Inkscape developers want to avoid having a mess of configuration options, but this zoom-grid interaction seems like it would be greatly simplified by a radio button in the grid preferences panel with two (mutually exclusive) options of "Snap to all gridlines" and "Snap to visible gridlines only".
If anyone is confused about why snapping is working the way it is, the first thing they will do is go to the grid preferences to make sure the settings are right. They will see that one of the two options is selected, and immediately understand why the program is behaving the way it is.
Personally, I will get used to it either way. But I do have to agree that, from a UI point of view, the application should do what I tell it. If I tell it to make a grid of X mm, and sometimes it doesn't snap to X mm, I would be confused.
Quoting Richard Kowalczyk <richk@...489...>:
If I tell it to make a grid of X mm, and sometimes it doesn't snap to Xmm, I would be confused.
The existing situation we're trying to address here is that the application doesn't appear to be snapping at all if you're zoomed too far out to the point where your requested Xmm is something like 0.01 of a pixel.
In those situations we currently show a subset of grid lines ... as far as I can tell it makes the most sense to snap only to those. If you need to snap to finer increments, don't you have to zoom more closely to see them anyway?
-mental
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 5:32 pm, mental@...32... wrote:
If you need to snap to finer increments, don't you have to zoom more closely to see them anyway?
Speaking from a CAD background, in my experience snap to grid and grid visibility are, and should be, independent. I frequently run snap to grid on an invisible grid. It is useful to not clutter the screen with a grid when all I need is the snap. High-density grids also have a history of causing slow screen repaints in CAD programs.
As someone else said, look at the rulers. In most CAD programs, there is also a small numerical display indicating position. This feature is also present in inkscape.
But in CAD, it would be silly to try to snap to a grid which was smaller than a pixel. Qcad handles this situation by switching to the smallest sensible multiple of the specified grid.
In a broader sense, vector graphic programs like inkscape are bound to see some convergence with CAD in the future. I know that I have seen features on each side that I would like to see implemented on the other.
The major single design point that is missing from most graphics applications is precision. It really needs to be designed in. Trying to patch it in later doesn't make sense. So IMHO, the more precise, the better. Vector graphics are precise by definition, so it should be a basic program design philosophy to maintain UI access to whatever level of precision is required for the job at hand.
Quoting Carl Brown <cbsled@...483...>:
But in CAD, it would be silly to try to snap to a grid which was smaller than a pixel.
Exactly. Silly. Which is where problems start to creep in.
Qcad handles this situation by switching to the smallest sensible multiple of the specified grid.
I was thinking that it would be a good idea to do so. Additionally, having some warning indicator for 'zoomed out of snap' would be good. And for good measure, we probably would want it to pop up a dialog warning the user when it turns on for the first time in a session.
Oh, and probably include a "don't show this again" checkbox so it doesn't annoy us to death.
whew.
So I guess we'll just need someone to submit a patch for that.
bulia byak wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:50:13 +0200, Cristian Balan <cristian.balan@...389...> wrote:
I use rather guidelines than grid. But I imagine I can use grid for designs that are modulable so if I can't snap to the same points no matter the zoom it doesn't sound good for me.
What's the use in snapping to a point which you don't have visualized in any way? If you don't see the gridline, snapping to it is unexpected. Doing anything unexpected is bad UI.
First off, I would like to try snapping that adapts to zoom before I decide that it absolutely prevents me from working in a way that makes sense to me.
But if I configure the grid for 1 mm spacing. And then I configure snapping to grid. And then the program only chooses to snap to 1 cm intervals. To me that would truly be unexpected. Unless a manual told me to expect the program to work that way.
I think the point of this tread is that different people will expect different things. Implementing only a single behavior limits one group. And I wouldn't be suprised if you find bug reports complaining of unexpected behavior no matter what you implement.
I think a manual would help to influence peoples expectations and answer their questions. But I think it would be really cool if you could make snapping and gridding sufficiently separate and configurable in the underlying code, so that educated users can fine tune the behavior to meet their expectations using the scripting support when it matures.
Aaron Spike
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 17:31 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
However you give me an idea:
- What if we allow it to snap only to the visible grid lines, i.e.
only to 10px lines if 1px lines are too dense and thus hidden?
- With this change, the snap distance should be made a percentage of
grid spacing rather than a fixed value.
What do others think?
I think that is a good idea. Just as an FYI for if you start implementing this -- the shown grid lines will not always be just the majors. The algorithm continues to trim the number as you zoom out, just the first step is to the major lines.
--Ted
Ted Gould wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 17:31 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
However you give me an idea:
- What if we allow it to snap only to the visible grid lines, i.e.
only to 10px lines if 1px lines are too dense and thus hidden?
- With this change, the snap distance should be made a percentage of
grid spacing rather than a fixed value.
What do others think?
I think that is a good idea. Just as an FYI for if you start implementing this -- the shown grid lines will not always be just the majors. The algorithm continues to trim the number as you zoom out, just the first step is to the major lines.
--Ted
Hi all, is it possible to enable snapping to non visible grid in latest cvs?
Michal
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 08:49 +0100, Michal Žeravík wrote:
Hi all, is it possible to enable snapping to non visible grid in latest cvs?
While I'm aware most graphic apps have that functionality, can you give us some use cases where such functionality is needed?
Personally I prefer Inkscape's way of only snapping to a visible grid since it very much simplifies the interface and gives great feedback to the user as of what behavior to expect. If I want to snap obejcts to grid, I can see where it will snap to. If I have the grid visible, I'm seeing why I cannot move an object freely. It's not like Inkscape is missing a feature. In my opinion, Inkscape implements a more sane interface to grid functionality.
If Bulya is going to implement the "smart" snapping, it pretty much depends on having the grid visible when snapping.
cheers
Jakub Steiner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 08:49 +0100, Michal Žeravík wrote:
Hi all, is it possible to enable snapping to non visible grid in latest cvs?
While I'm aware most graphic apps have that functionality, can you give us some use cases where such functionality is needed?
Personally I prefer Inkscape's way of only snapping to a visible grid since it very much simplifies the interface and gives great feedback to the user as of what behavior to expect. If I want to snap obejcts to grid, I can see where it will snap to. If I have the grid visible, I'm seeing why I cannot move an object freely. It's not like Inkscape is missing a feature. In my opinion, Inkscape implements a more sane interface to grid functionality.
If Bulya is going to implement the "smart" snapping, it pretty much depends on having the grid visible when snapping.
cheers
Why I need to have grid visible having grid enabled?
Michal
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 17:27 +0100, Michal Žeravík wrote:
Why I need to have grid visible having grid enabled?
Because it gives you a visual feedback why the move tool changes behaviour. So now that I answered your question, please provide a use case why you want to have the snap to grid functionality without having the grid visible.
cheers
Jakub Steiner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 17:27 +0100, Michal Žeravík wrote:
Why I need to have grid visible having grid enabled?
Because it gives you a visual feedback why the move tool changes behaviour. So now that I answered your question, please provide a use case why you want to have the snap to grid functionality without having the grid visible.
cheers
Well, if I use pixels for artwork and do a web graphics, I need to snap all graphics with 1px to have all 1:1. I don't need to see 1px grid, I want only to use it and snap elements by 1px. Having rectangle in pixels x:10.234,y:13.875,w:300.754,h:234.345 really confusing me. Does it make a sense?
thx Michal
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 17:58 +0100, Michal Žeravík wrote:
Well, if I use pixels for artwork and do a web graphics, I need to snap all graphics with 1px to have all 1:1. I don't need to see 1px grid, I want only to use it and snap elements by 1px. Having rectangle in pixels x:10.234,y:13.875,w:300.754,h:234.345 really confusing me. Does it make a sense?
For your icon projects, you may simply want to make the grid color less dramatic and/or make it fully transparent to have that functionality. I do icons myself and I'd find adding independent snap and visibility toggle for grid a step back.
cheers
participants (12)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Aaron Spike -
Aewyn -
bulia byak -
Carl Brown -
Cristian Balan -
Jakub Steiner -
Joshua A. Andler -
Michal Žeravík -
Richard Kowalczyk -
Steffen Glückselig -
Ted Gould