Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to use. Now, it is not.

I'm totally happy with the first section, where you describe how users see this issue. But I disagree with your possible solutions. I don't think "user units" should be used at all. I don't think even the concept of user units should be used. Even after your generous explanation for me, all I got from it (so far, without re-reading and studying) is that I think "user units" means px, but it means a lot more than that too, which is still fuzzy. (Maybe it needs a better name as well?) Of the 2 options: 1 -- go back to the old tried and true, px for native units 2 -- keep the new system but make it easier to use I would prefer going back to the tried and true. Because even making the new system easier to use, there will still be times when the user needs to really understand it, to be able to set up Inkscape for some unique project. (And those who provide support need to really understand it, to be able to provide support for it.) Is it really so necessary for Inkscape to use mm for native units? Is it really fair to make it so complicated for those who don't use mm? Going back to the old way doesn't make it harder for the mm users. They don't lose anything by going back. The old way makes it just the same for all use cases and user groups. You know what all this sounds like to me? It sounds like finding a way to bend over backwards to touch your feet, even though bending over the front way already works very well (and has worked well from the beginning). Oh, don't worry, it won't hurt as much if you do it this way. If you can't do it that way, you'll have to do it this other way. But either way, now we all have to be gymnasts. How I see it, is no one wins with this. It's a new feature which doesn't provide anything new or better. It just makes it harder for users who don't use mm, or who change their units often (including who provide support for them). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I will try to study all the messages and try to understand better. I don't have much hope of success, but I promise I will keep trying. I thought I already posted that I made the feature request to revert, but I don't see the message. So here's the report I made: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1719162 And now I'll sign off for this topic, and let the developers do their thing :-) Thanks again! All best, brynn -----Original Message----- From: Eduard Braun Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:40 AM To: brynn ; inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Inkscape User Community Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] [Inkscape-devel] the Scale setting and Display units Am 24.09.2017 um 11:33 schrieb brynn: Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to use. Now, it is not. I think one of the main sources of confusion is the wording and design of the document properties dialog, not the choice of units themselves: We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to only influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should be able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document) However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will change too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's very bad as then they'll mess up their drawing) The help of the "Scale" input is not helpful: "User units per {display unit}" As a user I ask myself: What is a "user unit"? If I (the user) just set "display units" to what I (the user) want to be displayed - is that a "user unit"? It obviously is not... A user unit is (even if it has a name that might suggest differently) something the user should not be bothered with (we don't have that term explained or used anywhere else in Inkscape I think). While I'm no UI expert (who is ever? ;-) ) I think a possible solution to that would be: Rephrase "user units" to "{document,internal,SVG} units" or similar - something that makes clear that this is the unit stored in the resulting SVG document. (Problem: We used to call "Display units" "Document units" before 0.92, which was probably a bad choice and might cause ambiguity now) Potentially collapse the whole "Scale" section by default (not just the "Viewbox" part) - users should probably never change it anyway (unless they know what they're doing) and usually they also should not have to. Add a big warning sign: "Changing scaling will change the layout of your document - is this really what you want?" Rethink if "Scale" is a suitable term for what we are doing here. If I double the scale my document does not change it's size (but instead my content is scaled down). Maybe this is a language problem but my general impression is that in software "Scale" usually refers to "scaling (up) the whole image" (which we do not do) and not "changing the scale as on a map" (which is what we do). *Optionally* expose "user units" (with a proper alias) as a dropdown - if the user sets "display units" and "user units" to mm the scale will become "1". (Problem: How do we now what to put for "user units" when opening a file? For new files we could store it. For old files we could do the math and try to guess, but it might be hard to impossible in many cases). Regards, Eduard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

Am 26.09.2017 um 11:49 schrieb C R: > The user should not have to understand native units. The > implementation is what I'll be trying to figure out. > > If the user selects mm as the default units, regardless of what the > user units are, Inkscape should serve up a document for a mm workflow. > If the user selects px as the default value it should serve up a > document that does not care what physical mm dimensions are used. > > Most importantly, when the CSS workgroup changes the value of "px" > again (corresponding to user units), it should not break backward > compatibility with mm formatted documents, nor should it change the > pixel dimensions of previous templates. > I mostly agree with you but I'm not sure I understood the last part of this sentence: In the special case that a document that has px as user unit and a document size given in px it probably *should* adjust the pixel dimensions to whatever CSS dictates. Otherwise a full HD wallpaper (1920x1080 px²) would suddenly not have the proper document size in px any more. A second case (I don't think we have a template for that, though, so I hope there's not much content around that would be affected) that could prove difficult in that respect: If a document has px as user unit and a document size given in px but really is for example an A4 document, we have no way of knowing it's supposed to be A4. Regards, Eduard > Whatever is necessary to guarantee that, I'm all for. > > I have to understand all possible solutions before suggesting one that > works, and a ui implementation that supports it best. I'll do that > this weekend. > > Thanks for the thoughts/direction/preferences everyone. :) > -C > > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:05 AM, brynn <brynn@...3089...> wrote: > >> I'm totally happy with the first section, where you describe how users >> see >> this issue. But I disagree with your possible solutions. >> >> I don't think "user units" should be used at all. I don't think even the >> concept of user units should be used. Even after your generous >> explanation >> for me, all I got from it (so far, without re-reading and studying) is >> that >> I think "user units" means px, but it means a lot more than that too, >> which >> is still fuzzy. (Maybe it needs a better name as well?) >> >> Of the 2 options: >> >> 1 -- go back to the old tried and true, px for native units >> 2 -- keep the new system but make it easier to use >> >> I would prefer going back to the tried and true. Because even making the >> new system easier to use, there will still be times when the user needs >> to >> really understand it, to be able to set up Inkscape for some unique >> project. >> (And those who provide support need to really understand it, to be able >> to >> provide support for it.) >> >> Is it really so necessary for Inkscape to use mm for native units? Is it >> really fair to make it so complicated for those who don't use mm? Going >> back to the old way doesn't make it harder for the mm users. They don't >> lose anything by going back. The old way makes it just the same for all >> use >> cases and user groups. >> >> You know what all this sounds like to me? It sounds like finding a way >> to >> bend over backwards to touch your feet, even though bending over the >> front >> way already works very well (and has worked well from the beginning). >> Oh, >> don't worry, it won't hurt as much if you do it this way. If you can't >> do >> it that way, you'll have to do it this other way. But either way, now we >> all have to be gymnasts. >> >> How I see it, is no one wins with this. It's a new feature which doesn't >> provide anything new or better. It just makes it harder for users who >> don't >> use mm, or who change their units often (including who provide support >> for >> them). >> >> Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I will try to study >> all >> the messages and try to understand better. I don't have much hope of >> success, but I promise I will keep trying. >> >> I thought I already posted that I made the feature request to revert, >> but I >> don't see the message. So here's the report I made: >> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1719162 >> >> And now I'll sign off for this topic, and let the developers do their >> thing >> :-) >> >> Thanks again! >> >> All best, >> brynn >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Eduard Braun >> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:40 AM >> To: brynn ; inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> Cc: Inkscape User Community >> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] [Inkscape-devel] the Scale setting and >> Display >> units >> >> >> Am 24.09.2017 um 11:33 schrieb brynn: >> Before 0.92, it was very, very simple, and easy to understand and easy to >> use. Now, it is not. >> >> I think one of the main sources of confusion is the wording and design of >> the document properties dialog, not the choice of units themselves: >> >> >> We have a setting called "Display units". As a user I'd expect this to >> only >> influence display (as the name suggests) but nothing else (i.e. I should >> be >> able to switch this at will without causing any change for my document) >> However, as soon as the user changes "display units" the "Scale" will >> change >> too! As a user I'm now frightened: Did I just change the size of my >> document? Should I revert to "Scale" = 1? (if they choose to do so it's >> very >> bad as then they'll mess up their drawing) >> >> The help of the "Scale" input is not helpful: "User units per {display >> unit}" >> As a user I ask myself: What is a "user unit"? If I (the user) just set >> "display units" to what I (the user) want to be displayed - is that a >> "user >> unit"? >> It obviously is not... A user unit is (even if it has a name that might >> suggest differently) something the user should not be bothered with (we >> don't have that term explained or used anywhere else in Inkscape I >> think). >> >> While I'm no UI expert (who is ever? ;-) ) I think a possible solution to >> that would be: >> >> >> Rephrase "user units" to "{document,internal,SVG} units" or similar - >> something that makes clear that this is the unit stored in the resulting >> SVG >> document. >> (Problem: We used to call "Display units" "Document units" before 0.92, >> which was probably a bad choice and might cause ambiguity now) >> >> Potentially collapse the whole "Scale" section by default (not just the >> "Viewbox" part) - users should probably never change it anyway (unless >> they >> know what they're doing) and usually they also should not have to. >> Add a big warning sign: "Changing scaling will change the layout of your >> document - is this really what you want?" >> >> Rethink if "Scale" is a suitable term for what we are doing here. If I >> double the scale my document does not change it's size (but instead my >> content is scaled down). Maybe this is a language problem but my general >> impression is that in software "Scale" usually refers to "scaling (up) >> the >> whole image" (which we do not do) and not "changing the scale as on a >> map" >> (which is what we do). >> >> *Optionally* expose "user units" (with a proper alias) as a dropdown - if >> the user sets "display units" and "user units" to mm the scale will >> become >> "1". >> (Problem: How do we now what to put for "user units" when opening a file? >> For new files we could store it. For old files we could do the math and >> try >> to guess, but it might be hard to impossible in many cases). >> >> Regards, >> Eduard >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------------ >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> _______________________________________________ >> Inkscape-user mailing list >> Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user >> >