Here is another proposal i have made for a New Inkscape "Contour FX" Icon & tool bar...
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Davidhewitt#New_Inkscape_.22Contour_FX.22_Icon_.26_tool_bar...
Contour FX! (New Suggestion)
Re: Contour FX! (New Suggestion)
Notice how when a shape is reduced and then re-expanded that that
calculations do not refer back to the original shape.
If you want to preserve a reference to the originally shape then use dynamic offset instead.
For your points 1, 2 and 3, it's not something I require. For the few times I might require it I can make do with with the few extra steps it requires to get this behaviour already. But I can appreciate that there might be artists out their desperate for something like this.
Point 5 seems like it could only be useful for the one and only example you provide. So, more so than 1,2 and 3, I feel point 5 would be a very rarely required function and again, for the few times that I would need it, I could make do with the few extra steps to get it already (with the exception of capping the sliced area, which, again, would be a very specific requirement).
In point 6 I think you've miss-used the term "feather". Is it a feather or a blur? If you do indeed mean "feather" you should modify your examples to illustrate how it is a feather and not a blur. If you mean "blur" then I think it's an interesting way to control the amount of blur. I think Inkscape use of a percent for blur is less useful than if it used a a pixel value. Your example would also provide a more meaningful control to the amount of blur. But for the most part, being able to resize the object and resize the blur relevant to each other is sufficient without needing to making them independent as you describe.
- David Hewitt
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:10 pm
Re: Contour FX! (New Suggestion)
Your right i did realize that at the very end but after all that work couldn't stomach changing the graphic...
I personally like a polished UI...
If your fluent in all the keyboard shorts then perhaps its below your radar...
But personally i cant see myself embracing any app whose UI is not ergonomic.
As a general rule any novice should be able to start fiddling and in a minute or so figure out almost any function...
There are simply too many areas of inkscape that don't stand up to this test. (im not putting down its capabilities)
But theres allot of keyboard combos ETC.....to hold things together where proper GUI is required.
ALL im trying to do is make it something i would like to use.....not just persisting with despite big frustrations because it's free.
And Im not doing it for experienced users...experienced users probably adore the fact that they have mastered something that by its nature turns away all but the most dedicated. It puts them in a league of their own.
And i also think that being an expert at inkscape may well be a big liability with respect to being objective with respect to how it should best be improved UI wize and so on...
As the long and rocky road to reaching this state no-doubt weeds out everyone that appreciates something that is easy to use from day 1. (Don't hate me dood... thats not a stab at you personally... I have respect for your opinions and responses but you are talking from the top of the mountain looking down rather than from the bottom looking up...
(A chair lift is not a bad thingLOL)
P.S. dont get me wrong i realize learning inkscape is not akin to like....Trekking to the south pole or anything....
But my point is that i think its UI needs to be polished to be more acceptable to the mainstream.
I personally like a polished UI...
If your fluent in all the keyboard shorts then perhaps its below your radar...
But personally i cant see myself embracing any app whose UI is not ergonomic.
As a general rule any novice should be able to start fiddling and in a minute or so figure out almost any function...
There are simply too many areas of inkscape that don't stand up to this test. (im not putting down its capabilities)
But theres allot of keyboard combos ETC.....to hold things together where proper GUI is required.
ALL im trying to do is make it something i would like to use.....not just persisting with despite big frustrations because it's free.
And Im not doing it for experienced users...experienced users probably adore the fact that they have mastered something that by its nature turns away all but the most dedicated. It puts them in a league of their own.
And i also think that being an expert at inkscape may well be a big liability with respect to being objective with respect to how it should best be improved UI wize and so on...
As the long and rocky road to reaching this state no-doubt weeds out everyone that appreciates something that is easy to use from day 1. (Don't hate me dood... thats not a stab at you personally... I have respect for your opinions and responses but you are talking from the top of the mountain looking down rather than from the bottom looking up...
(A chair lift is not a bad thingLOL)
P.S. dont get me wrong i realize learning inkscape is not akin to like....Trekking to the south pole or anything....
But my point is that i think its UI needs to be polished to be more acceptable to the mainstream.
Re: Contour FX! (New Suggestion)
David Hewitt wrote:Your right i did realize that at the very end but after all that work couldn't stomach changing the graphic...
So it is a feather? You're diagram makes more sense then. Is there a reason why you didn't describe a similar control for blur?
Off topic:
David Hewitt wrote:If your fluent in all the keyboard shorts then perhaps its below your radar...
I'm actually not that familiar with the keyboard shortcuts. I know to hold Ctrl, Shift or Alt to force constraints objects I'm manipulating but I can never remember which does what--it doesn't really matter as I just release one and try the other. These are standard keys in most, if not all, graphics software. I also know the shotcuts for changing the node types--that's because I use it frequently and it's faster than clicking the icon on the tool control bar. The rest I'm not that familiar with. I used to know a lot more of the illustrator ones, but that's because Illustrator was frustrating and they had a few different tools for managing nodes, unlike Inkscape.
David Hewitt wrote:As a general rule any novice should be able to start fiddling and in a minute or so figure out almost any function...
Ideally, yes. But I've used Photoshop for years, bought books, and read countless web tutorials and I'm still don't know everything there is to know. It's not uncommon for powerful application to also be complicated.
David Hewitt wrote:But theres allot of keyboard combos ETC.....to hold things together where proper GUI is required.
I am aware of just a very small handful of functions that can only be accessed using a shortcut. Shift + R is one for reversing a gradient and there's another shifting individual characters in a text block. That's all I can think of. I'm surprised you've managed to find "lots". What are some?
David Hewitt wrote:experienced users probably adore the fact that they have mastered something that by its nature turns away all but the most dedicated.
This is an unfair statement. I used Illustrator before using Inkscape. I felt I was constantly fighting with Illustrator to do the simplest things. From the moment I used Inkscape I found it liberating. I was able to work faster, with less mistakes, and everything seemed more obvious. There were functions I did not know where to find in Inkscape, but I had to do the same with Illustrator, and far more often in Illustrator. The problems I do have with Inkscape I cut slack for, as it's still in its infancy, and nobody is stopping me to fixing those problems myself.
David Hewitt wrote:But my point is that i think its UI needs to be polished to be more acceptable to the mainstream.
We seem to have diverted a lot from discussing your ideas for new tools. If you're bothered by my negative reaction to your ideas, I'm sorry. I judge the usefulness of a tool based on how frequently I would use it, and how much time it will save me. When the paint bucket tool was introduced in 0.46 I knew I would use it all the time and it would save me a lot of time--compared with creating paths manually. There are some illustrations I would never have attempted if not for the new tools that have been introduced in the last version and even in the development version now. Some new functions I will rarely use, but if I did need the effect it would be next to impossible to achieve if the function didn't exist. Your ideas in 1, 2, 3 and 5 would rarely be used by myself and the effect you describe isn't that time consuming to achieve now. Some people (including yourself?) may need to do exactly what you've describe all the time--so a new tool may be a huge time saver for them.
My negative opinion on an idea is only an opinion. I'm not a developer, and I don't decide what goes in and what stays out. If you post an idea here, it's expected you want criticism so you can refine the idea. Otherwise there's no point posting it here because this isn't an official forum, and it's not a developers forum.
- David Hewitt
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:10 pm
Re: Contour FX! (New Suggestion)
thats ok... I don't mind disagreeing and to be honest i respect the fact that you have taken the time to say what your thinking...(i'm inclined to do the same and it gets me into trouble on a regular basis)
Some people would rather simply cast aspersions on the message giver than bother out-lining logically the reasons for any objections which usually defuses any frustrations anyway....
So im not offended in any way (why would i be?)...i know i sometimes ask pointed questions and so expect some direct answers.
Just as a side dish to this conversation:
Do you think that perhaps your transition from an illustrator background to inkscape puts you on a better footing inkscape wise, than would be the case from a corel one?.....(IE You Vs Myself?)
I really dont know the answer to this one...
I did take a look at illustrator (from the same corel centric perspective) some years back and did not find it inviting...
And was not motivated to invest my time there when i could do what i wanted in corel....
But never the less was a bit disapointed that i couldn't just take to it....armed with quite a respectable grasp of corel's capabilities.....
I digress.....
anyway i guess this is how i would like to see these functions work on-screen....
As for the blur/feather issue there:
i guess i was not taking the "blur" (proper) function into account with this proposal as i had our recent conversation in mind re: the differences between the 2 in the back of my mind and i wanted this to be a one-stop shop for functionality related to the periphery of the object ETC I.E expand/contract...feather.....and a few variations there which are based around them...
But i don't see why the same inner/outer extent control system could not be employed for blur ...
But that did not enter my mind and also i had not as assured with blur as i was with feather....
As it is also possible with a transparent blurred object to created such an object that has no periphery (inner or outer) with which such a UI device could apply. This discrepancy did occur to me.
Some people would rather simply cast aspersions on the message giver than bother out-lining logically the reasons for any objections which usually defuses any frustrations anyway....
So im not offended in any way (why would i be?)...i know i sometimes ask pointed questions and so expect some direct answers.
Just as a side dish to this conversation:
Do you think that perhaps your transition from an illustrator background to inkscape puts you on a better footing inkscape wise, than would be the case from a corel one?.....(IE You Vs Myself?)
I really dont know the answer to this one...
I did take a look at illustrator (from the same corel centric perspective) some years back and did not find it inviting...
And was not motivated to invest my time there when i could do what i wanted in corel....
But never the less was a bit disapointed that i couldn't just take to it....armed with quite a respectable grasp of corel's capabilities.....
I digress.....
anyway i guess this is how i would like to see these functions work on-screen....
As for the blur/feather issue there:
i guess i was not taking the "blur" (proper) function into account with this proposal as i had our recent conversation in mind re: the differences between the 2 in the back of my mind and i wanted this to be a one-stop shop for functionality related to the periphery of the object ETC I.E expand/contract...feather.....and a few variations there which are based around them...
But i don't see why the same inner/outer extent control system could not be employed for blur ...
But that did not enter my mind and also i had not as assured with blur as i was with feather....
As it is also possible with a transparent blurred object to created such an object that has no periphery (inner or outer) with which such a UI device could apply. This discrepancy did occur to me.
Last edited by David Hewitt on Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Contour FX! (New Suggestion)
David Hewitt wrote:Do you think that perhaps your transition from an illustrator background to inkscape puts you on a better footing inkscape wise, than would be the case from a corel one?
It may have given me a better impression of it