Hey all, I'm a professional graphic designer and illustrator working in one of the many t-shirt printers around the world. It's a fun and decent job. I use Illustrator. It's not just convention I've fallen into by force of habit; every chance I get I try to branch out, experiment, and use other techniques. I paint by hand, I use clipart (even the ancient kind where you actually have an enormous book that you have to photograph, though I've found it's not really that useful), use Photoshop, manipulate the print by hand, airbrush over designs, and, when necessary, sweet-talk the customer into being totally convinced I did not screw up their shirts. I've tried a lot of techniques that turned out to be totally worthless. Sadly, open-source graphic design software was one of those techniques.

I don't know where to start in how Inkscape gets everything wrong. I suppose I can start off with what it gets right. I like the complex grid controls. I like being able to simply warp a shape onto a path. I like the slightly more advanced bitmap export options. But everything else is god-awful (speaking as an atheist, I can assure you that that's pretty bad).

I can't wrap my head around the design choices. What logic went behind the keyboard shortcuts? In Blender, for example, there was a very specific point to make useful functions rest on the home row. In Illustrator, there's a clear decision to keep the letter keys generally uncluttered with functions and use Control+ functions (and organize similar functions as Control+Shift or Control+Alt in a fairly consistent manner). Inkscape just throws logic out the window, with the apparent philosophy that if there's a key, it should immediately do something. There's no mnemonic or sense behind it. Alright, what do you think the "I" key should do? Well, in Illustrator, there's a handy little mnemonic: I is pronounced "eye" and is used to select the eyedropper tool. But press I in Inkscape and you get the spiral tool. Why in the hell is there a spiral tool? Why does it need a hotkey? It's probably the most useless tool I've encountered and it doesn't even really have any great functionality. Once you do track down the eyedropper tool, it turns out it's also totally useless because it only copies the color below it into the fill, no matter what other effects and properties could be copied.

But despite having a shortcut to make an impossible to edit 3D box (why, again, does this need a tool at all?), shape editing controls, while they exist, are not only obscured away in an online documentation (because apparently Inkscape developers would rather not have their dropdown menus cluttered than they would have to stop working to go look up shortcuts), but they're unintuitive. Granted, there's no great reason to use Adobe or Corel conventions (okay there's a great reason not to use Corel conventions, they suck), but in Adobe's case they have a pretty complete suite of software that generally follows the same standards. Ctrl+0 views full screen, Ctrl+Shift+ does the opposite of Ctrl+ in most cases (so Ctrl+Z does undo, while Ctrl+Shift+Z with redo), &c. across most of the software they make. Open Source doesn't seem to have standards. The entire community appears to be made up of idealistic nutcases with arbitrary standards of interface perfection that necessarily cannot overlap with anyone else. Why, when the rest of the world as long as I have been alive uses Ctrl for functions, does Inkscape have to use Shift? There's no good reason and it's infuriating.

Even with unintuitive keyboard controls, I could probably get used to them if the mouse controls weren't inspired by the sensation of performing oral surgery with your instruments tied to the ends of pool noodles. Nothing makes a lick of sense. By the way, did anyone think that was a legitimately useful tool? It's not. It's like a brush in Illustrator but without really being useful. Half of my clicks don't register as anything meaningful and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Is there a reason clicking on a point can't select it? Must I double click? Why can't I box-select points with a click-and-drag? Is it absofuckinglutely necessary to have an entire object within my selection box for it to be selected? These are all just idiotic decisions. I don't necessarily believe that "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is always ideal, but there comes a time when we ask "Standard or Metric?" and you reply "Neither! my tools are based on the width of my thumb divided into 37ths!" and you're not being innovative or interesting, you're just being stupid.

I could go on about the text editing tools, window layouts, nonsensical icons, crummy performance, &c. all day, but it brings back bad memories of using your broken software. I'll just close by saying congratulations, you've effectively killed my ever bothering to use Open-Source software for graphic design again. That makes me kind of sad; I enjoy MyPaint and Blender, and Audacity gets the job done, among others, but I've never seen and OS Alternative that would convince me not to spend a few hundred dollars on functional software instead. I went in using Inkscape to do a quick commission and finished having to start everything over in Illustrator because it edited so badly and the end format was so useless. I'm disappointed.



Let the empty retorts commence.

This may or may not be the best audience for your rant. Most developers don't visit very often. Also, there have been other messages posted by people who don't like Inkscape. So you may find some answers already posted, via search. Although you do seem to have some unique complaints, I'll say that!

Also, some of your issues may be due to Inkscape being a vector graphics editor. While Adobe and Corel may offer vector formats, I don't think they're entirely vector, and some of the reasons for the differences from Inkscape may be of necessity, to allow for both vector and raster editing. Isn't that a reasonable argument?

Open Source doesn't seem to have standards.

I don't think you'd do well participating in an open source project. To my understanding, at least part of the idea for not having (many) standards, is to allow for thinking outside the box. For people who need rules in life to function, I can see where it could be an uncomfortable way to work! On the other hand, I'm not sure what W3C or XML or SVG are, if not entirely defined by standards (in the case of Inkscape)!

I can't speak to why or how the developers decided to use which keyboard shortcuts for what. But it sounds like you might not have found or learned the proper selection techniques for some things (I mean selecting elements on the canvas, I'm not talking about shortcuts for tools or commands here).

Personally, I don't use keyboard shortcuts much. But I have noticed a lot that seem quite logical. z for Zoom tool, r for Rectangle, e for Ellipse, * for Star, p for Pencil, b for Bezier, c for Calligraphy, g for Gradient, d for Dropper, E for Eraser, a for Spray (sounds like a)..... It really goes on forever, as far as shortcuts. Maybe developers thought it would be better to use the first letter of the tool (or command, etc.) than to put them all on one row of keys? (Isn't that mnemonic?) But again, I can't speak for them.

...impossible to edit 3D box ....

Have you found the Node tool ("n" key, omg)?

Even with unintuitive keyboard controls, I could probably get used to them if the mouse controls weren't inspired by the sensation of performing oral surgery with your instruments tied to the ends of pool noodles.

I'm not sure what a "pool noodle" is -- slang or maybe European term for "pool cue, stick, or cue-stick"? Or maybe you could explain what you expect the mouse sensation to be? I do know that many Inkscape users, especially sketch artists, use a graphics table to improve over the traditional mouse.

By the way, did anyone think that was a legitimately useful tool? It's not. It's like a brush in Illustrator but without really being useful. Half of my clicks don't register as anything meaningful and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Is there a reason clicking on a point can't select it?

I will certainly agree that the Calligraphy tool is difficult to control with a mouse. It's main use is with graphics tablets, especially for the pressure sensitivity. Someone recently posted a message asking (I think) what you're asking. It seems that it can't make dots. I don't remember the full explanation, but dots can be made with the Pen or Pencil tools using Ctrl + click. It was a recent message, and a search should turn it up quickly.

When you say "clicking on a point", by "point", do you mean "node"? Again, you'll have to switch to the Node tool to select a node.

Is it absofuckinglutely necessary to have an entire object within my selection box for it to be selected?

For the Selection tool, yes. Or you can just click on an object to select it, as well. But again, it sounds like you may not have found the Node tool ?

I don't necessarily believe that "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is always ideal, but there comes a time when we ask "Standard or Metric?" and you reply "Neither! my tools are based on the width of my thumb divided into 37ths!" and you're not being innovative or interesting, you're just being stupid.

I'm not sure if you might be referring to the various different kinds of units from which you can choose, in many different places in Inkscape? Or maybe you haven't sorted out the difference between raster and vector graphics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics

Let the empty retorts commence.

You're right, I probably should not have bothered. It sounds like you're set in your ways, and not an atheist at all, as far as computer graphics! But I doubt if you posted this message without hoping for comments (or a cursing out)(just remember that A - you started it, and B - we're a polite forum). If you haven't thoroughly offended most others, you'll probably get more informed replies as to developers' intentions than mine.

(This reply did not appear to go through earlier, so lets see if it does this time)

I'm not involved with Inkscape development, only as a professional artist who has to use vector graphics a lot. You seem to be pretty high and mighty about what terminology I use, which I think kind of supports my point. You can call them vertices, nodes, anchors, or points, but the exact terminology isn't relevant. I've gone a decade as a professional learning my tools by ear. This should be perfectly sufficient, but sadly with this crummy piece of software it isn't. Every little function and shortcut demands I look up online documentation. Even Blender, which is notorious for its custom UI and strange shortcut keys, is pretty efficient because it at least puts the keyboard shortcut and Python function right where the user can see during regular use. I'm sure the XML and SVG standards are very elegant and consistent, but that has no bearing on my experience as a user.

But that's just restating my earlier points. Let me explain my metaphors you had so much trouble understanding:

A pool noodle is a toy children play with in swimming pools. It's buoyant, foam, and floppy, and it's difficult to coordinate with. Similar to Inkscape's mouse commands. When selecting an object is done with a double click, which also happens to be function to add a node on a path, that's bad design. When box-selecting requires I have an object entirely inside the selection box, even when the object does not fit entirely on screen where I want to edit, or there are other object I do not want to select sitting within that area, that's bad design. Not only good design fairly intuitive, it's not all that technically complicated.

The thumb metaphor has nothing to do with raster or vector. I know the difference, and I have to deal with both on a daily basis (often in combinations, which makes me wish Verse wasn't abandonware). Even though I don't know that your proprietary name for a vertex on a bezier path is "node", I have a handle on the basics of image formats. Going back to the metaphor itself, the point I was making was this: As far as UI, the developers had a lot of standards to follow if they wanted to. But, from where I stand, it feels to me like they rejected all existing standards in favor of a totally new one that happened to be immediately convenient to themselves even if noone else. I'll throw out another terrible design decision: What key combination, would you guess, makes the artboard (or drawing area, for those who require exact Inkscape specific terminology) fill the window? If you guessed Ctrl+0, as it does in every Microsoft or Adobe product, you're wrong. It's 5. Why 5? I have no idea. I'll grant that someone had enough sense to use space+mouse drag to pan, as not only Adobe but even Gimp and MyPaint do, but it's an option you have to go out of your way to check. Why not default? I have no idea. In games or touch-screen applications, inconsistency is excusable and even expected, but vector graphics editors are tools, not toys. Inkscape, unfortunately, comes across as a very elaborate toy.

There's more stupid bull. The ellipse tool doesn't create a useful bezier path so much as a bizarre object that follows its own rules. The 3D box tool is extremely inflexible and becomes uneditable once you do something that isn't working on that same box. "Undo" while making a path, instead of undoing the last thing you did to the path, undoes the entire path. Node control points take up so much visual space you can't see what you're working on. I can go on and on an if I made a huge list it might make this project vaguely usable, but I don't have the time to invest in this for people who think I'm an ign'ant bumpkin who doesn't know the difference between a pixel and a path. It's too much of a mess; it needs a complete overhaul and then some, and until that day comes, I will not recommend your software to anyone who needs to do more than draw text bubbles (which is exactly what I did for Tracy Butler, so don't think it's all venom coming from my mouth). I say it how I see it and as best as I can see, Inkscape is not a tool for anyone who wants to do anything resembling serious work.

A lot of your complaints seem to result from your failure to use the correct tool for what you want to do. You seem to expect to use to select any object or path and have Inkscape anticipate what you want to do with or to the object. For instance, if you've drawn a 3D box and then moved on to some other object but later use to select the 3D box you won't be able to edit it as a shape until you choose the correct tool, .

Your complaint about the shortcuts appears to be based not on a lack of underlying logic (as brynn has pointed out that most of them follow a consistent logic), but rather on a lack of conforming to the logic of other proprietary software. I'm not sure that is a reasonable complaint. Inkscape is not a project to create an Illustrator or CorelDRAW clone, thus there is no reason to follow the arbitrary decisions developers of those programs made.

Inkscape is not Illustrator. Illustrator has some functionality that Inkscape does not (and may never) have. However most of these limitations have work-arounds such that any work produced in Illustrator can be reproduced in Inkscape. Inkscape is absolutely my favorite piece of open source software. I find it straight forward and simple, but then, I didn't have to unlearn a lot of ingrained Adobe-isms.

Yes, you're right, I do place a lot of importance on terminology. That's because Inkscape is the only graphics program I know well enough to use effectively (and help other people learn to use). I'm only careful about terminology, to be sure I understand what someone is asking about, and to be sure my suggestions match the language used in the manual and tutorials. I think it helps new users learn and understand better. I thought, and still do think, that perhaps you don't understand some of the features that you're having trouble with, possibly because you haven't taken the time to learn how to use Inkscape (or possibly because it's taking longer than you hoped).

When selecting an object is done with a double click, which also happens to be function to add a node on a path, that's bad design. When box-selecting requires I have an object entirely inside the selection box, even when the object does not fit entirely on screen where I want to edit, or there are other object I do not want to select sitting within that area, that's bad design.

Selecting an object is done with a double-click, only in certain few situations. Most of the time, it's done with a single-click, or a click-drag. You don't have to be able to drag all the way around an object to select it. You can just click on it (as I mentioned in my previous reply). You don't need to have the whole object on the screen, just a big enough space to click on, once. There's no conflict with double-clicking with the Selection tool, and adding new nodes, because that is done with the Node tool.

The ellipse tool doesn't create a useful bezier path so much as a bizarre object that follows its own rules.

That's because the Ellipse tool is a shape tool. It does follow its own rules, just like the Rectangle, Star, 3D Box and Spiral. They are all shape tools, and not intended to draw paths with. Shapes can be converted to paths quite simply, with Path menu > Object to Path (or some shortcut, as I've said, I don't use key shortcuts much).

The 3D Box tool is extremely inflexible and becomes uneditable once you do something that isn't working on that same box.

"Inflexible"? You can adjust every angle, every length, width and depth. You can even move the horizons. And that's just as a shape. You can edit as a path, if you use Object to Path. Although please note that once you change it to a path, you can't edit it as a shape any longer, only as a path (paths). The only way it becomes uneditable, is if you forget to switch back to the 3D Box tool, after working on something else (or forget to convert to path or switch to Node tool).

"Undo" while making a path, instead of undoing the last thing you did to the path, undoes the entire path.

That's because undo is not the proper way to do this. Undo button does undo the last edit that you made to a path using the Node tool. If you are still drawing a path, for example with the Pen/Bezier tool, and you place some new nodes, then realize they aren't in the right place, you should use Backspace key. That will delete the last node that you placed and allow you to continue drawing and placing nodes, until you decide to end the path (by double-clicking). You can backspace as many times as you have nodes, but if you backspace once more after that, the line is gone and you have to start again.

Node control points take up so much visual space you can't see what you're working on.

This is one of the reasons why we have a Zoom tool, and zoom functionality in general.

I can go on and on an if I made a huge list it might make this project vaguely usable, but I don't have the time to invest in this for people who think I'm an ign'ant bumpkin who doesn't know the difference between a pixel and a path.

I apologize. I did not mean to insult you. I was way more aggressive in my reply than usual, because you wrote a pretty aggressive complaint. But I have a lot of patience, and if you care to make a huge list, I would be more than happy to help you learn how to use each and every item on your list.

But I'm afraid that you might not have enough patience. It sounds like you've probably already made a decision not to use Inkscape. And that's fine with me. If you decide that you do want to learn Inkscape, that's why this forum is here, to help. Or of course, there are tutorials all over the internet, and in the manual as well. I found the tutorials in the Help menu very well written for new users.

Best wishes, whatever is your choice

That's how you deal with UI complaints? You say "No, you're doing it wrong, duh"? Honestly most of my complaints are indefensible. Now, I can honestly see some value in having shapes operate differently than regular paths, I'll grant some potential merit to that, sure, why not. And the gradient tools are slightly more intuitive than they are in Illustrator, which is also nice. But arguing that I'm just using it wrong? That's absurd. Here, first thing you can put on the to-do list is making the node editing graphics less obtrusive. That's a legitimate complaint that interferes with usability. Are you going to say, "okay, let's fix it", or "no, we don't fix things that work"? Well, you already suggested a nonanswer hack that's less useful than a pork pie in a synagogue, so if that's what I can expect from everyone I suppose I may as well consider this a lost cause.

Firstly, Inkscape does indeed have a flawed UI. There is no doubt about that. Anyone who would suggest otherwise clearly is not knowledgeable enough on the subject to have a valid opinion. You barely scratched the surface of the UI issues that Inkscape has--in fact, the ones you did list are the most trivial.

Hotkeys are an issue. They are poorly advertised within the application, and in some cases you can't perform a function without knowing the hotkey.

Having said that 'Open source' is not a suite, it's a license. There is no centralised body ensuring consistency between products. There is little to no relationship between Inkscape, GIMP and Blender. So the idea that you would expect to see this consistency between Open Source products, as you do with Adobe products, is ridiculous.

Well, in Illustrator, there's a handy little mnemonic: I is pronounced "eye" and is used to select the eyedropper tool.

We have to be careful not to draw criticism just because Inkscape is different. So Inkscape didn't use 'I' for the 'eye'-dropper. It did use 'S' for the 's'elector tool when Illustrator used 'V'.

By the way, did anyone think that was a legitimately useful tool? It's not. It's like a brush in Illustrator but without really being useful.

I did. It's one of the great feature I switched to Inkscape for. It makes inking line-art a pleasure. Inkscape had this tool long before Illustrator introduced it (along with many other features Illustrator has since adopted). You have to click and drag to use the tool--like you do with raster tools. But you do have to drag at least a little bit--a click won't work. How do you use Illustrator brush tool if it doesn't work the same way?

Is there a reason clicking on a point can't select it?

You need to use to select node points. Is that different to Illustrator?

Must I double click?

No. With the object selected you can just switch to the node tool as mention above. Double-clicking is a shortcut to switch you to the node tool and begin editting the selected object. I'm positive that Illustrator is the same in that you have one tool for selecting objects so you can transform, rotate and move them, and another tool for editting it's anchor points. Perhaps this changed in more recent versions and you've never had to deal with this before.

Is it absofuckinglutely necessary to have an entire object within my selection box

Yes it is. Both the Illustrator method and the Inkscape method have their pros and cons and neither option is more correct. AutoCAD is the only tool I've used that satisfies both. Depending on if you drag to the let or right effects if it selects fully enclosed objects or only touched objects. Inkscape has an alternative selection method where you can simply draw a freehand line over the objects you want to select, which is a good compromise for people who need the alternative behaviour.

but there comes a time when we ask "Standard or Metric?" and you reply "Neither! my tools are based on the width of my thumb divided into 37ths!" and you're not being innovative or interesting, you're just being stupid.

Wrong. Firstly I think you meant to say 'imperial or metric'--two competing standard. But what you ave been comparing are merely 'conventions', not standards. There is no standard that defines what a products shortcuts should be, or how a selection box has to work.

The ellipse tool doesn't create a useful bezier path so much as a bizarre object that follows its own rules.

It does not follow it's own rules, it follows the rules of the SVG standard. And your observation is correct--it's an object, which differs from bezier path by defining rules about how it can be edited. The rectangle is also an object, not a bezier path which has it's own rules. Likewise for circles, polygons and so forth. Does you experience really tell you that an ellipse should behave different too all other objects and produce a freely editable bezier? I would complain to Adobe for being inconsistent and not using standards seen in other software (like AutoCAD)

"Undo" while making a path, instead of undoing the last thing you did to the path, undoes the entire path.

Use backspace. If you want a conventions to relate that to, 'undo' when writing text remove the last complete change, not the last character you typed. If you want to remove the last character you typed, you use backspace. Likewise for Inkscape when creating nodes.

You are not incorrect that there are major issues with Inkscape in terms of usability. And there are indeed many situations where Inkscape does not follow the conventions (not standards) of other software. But my comments above are just to illustrate where Adobes way is not necessarily the best way, and to help you get a grasp of Inkscape. You might also like to read my quick guide at http://www.microugly.com/inkscape-quickguide/ -- I came from a background in Illustrator and wrote the guide to familiarise myself with the differences between Inkscape and Illustrator.

Luftmensch wrote:That's how you deal with UI complaints? You say "No, you're doing it wrong, duh"?

What response were you hoping for when posting UI complaints to a 'users' forum.

But arguing that I'm just using it wrong? That's absurd.

If I went to a Illustrator forum and started listing complaints about how Illustrator is different to Inkscape, I think I might expect the Illustrator users to defend and explain the differences.

Here, first thing you can put on the to-do list is making the node editing graphics less obtrusive.

a) Whose todo list? You are in as good as position to make these changes as the rest of the forum members here.
b) The 'obtrusive' nodes are one of the reasons I was drawn to Inkscape. At the time Illustrator didn't have configurable anchor sizes. The odds of mis-clicking a node was too great and would drive me crazy when working with gradient-meshes especially. Inkscapes larger nodes was literally refreshing and vector work felt much less like a chore, for me.

Are you going to say, "okay, let's fix it", or "no, we don't fix things that work"?

You've posted on the wrong site if you were expecting either of those responses You might get a 'so go write the code to make it better'. But just in case you do, please make it configurable as I'll go insane if I have try and click nodes that are only 4x4 pixels again

Cute. I was mistakenly under the impression this was a moderated official support/discussion forum for graphic design software, but I can see now from the responses of the site administrator that no, this is a GameFAQs for a toy.

Whats the point in answering the complains of a pedantic moron? Can we just ignore this guy?

Luftmensch wrote:Cute. I was mistakenly under the impression this was a moderated official support/discussion forum for graphic design software, but I can see now from the responses of the site administrator that no, this is a GameFAQs for a toy.

Inkscape.org is not a business, it does not pay employees. We are a community--and you are now a participant in that community. You downloaded software you did not have to pay for, that was developed entirely by volunteers, then entered the community with "Inkscape gets everything wrong..." Is this sort of behaviour politely tolerated where come from?

I do not apologise for the response of this forums members. I do not apologise for any negativity you read in my own posts. You got a response. Whether you wanted it or not, you got help. But you had one post to make an impression, and you got the response you invited.

Refer to Where to report bugs and software issues for how you can request changes to the software. But, again, "volunteers" is the keyword. Nothing happens unless someone is will to give up their free time and make it happen. If they do it, they are giving you a gift even though you have given nothing--not even appreciation for the work they have already done.

Uktrunie wrote:Whats the point in answering the complains of a pedantic moron? Can we just ignore this guy?

I'm doing just that - oh no! Look what you made me do!

On the other hand, I`m fully with this guy.

He made me think about those days of professionalism, when there was no limits or borders, no rule not to be broken, and to boldly go where no decent man has gone before. Those were the days. Now a days, I`m used to say Thank you when people respond to my questions.

Luftmensch wrote:Cute. I was mistakenly under the impression this was a moderated official support/discussion forum for graphic design software, but I can see now from the responses of the site administrator that no, this is a GameFAQs for a toy.

So not only are you incapable of recognizing that software unrelated to Illustrator will operate differently from Illustrator, but you are also incapable of recognizing that this is a USERS forum and not a developers forum. It says quite clearly on the index page of this forum:

This forum is for Inkscape users to share and gain experience with the software.

Perhaps this is not the format that Adobe user forums express their purpose, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Luftmensch wrote:That's how you deal with UI complaints? You say "No, you're doing it wrong, duh"?

I'll say for now the 3rd or 4th time (including PMs) not many developers participate here. If you want to reach the developers, you should contact the developers' mailing list. Link on this page: http://inkscape.org/mailing_lists.php?lang=en.

But I doubt they will respond at all to a rant. If you plan to send them a message like the ones you posted here, the developers will no doubt ignore it. If you've ever volunteered your time and energy for any sort of project or cause, you will understand how a rant to the developers will probably be ignored. Thoughtful, measured, and polite comments, which are clearly based on an understanding, at least, of how Inkscape's features work, and at most an understanding of why Inkscape's features are made the way they are, will be more likely to get a response. Especially it will be better received if you can provide a mockup of your ideal interface; but if that's not possible, at least give a detailed verbal description of the changes you'd like to see. Politely! Rather than tell them what's wrong with Inkscape, suggest what might make it better

Yes folks, there is a way to ignore a member(s). In the User Control Panel > Friends and Foes tab > Manage Foes. I've never used it, but I think you can see some sort of entry for the message, like the topic title, I suppose, but you don't see the text of their messages.

Luftmensch wrote:That's how you deal with UI complaints? You say "No, you're doing it wrong, duh"?

So, did you fill out a bug report for each of your complaints or did you just decide to go on a tear to make yourself feel better?

Luftmensch wrote:Now, I can honestly see some value in having shapes operate differently than regular paths, I'll grant some potential merit to that, sure, why not.

Inkscape uses SVG as its native format and that places restrictions on what it can do. In SVG, shapes are different from paths, so Inkscape has to live with it. Another example: there are no layers in SVG. Inkscape uses groups to emulate layers but this means layer must behave like groups. You cannot group objects in separate layers together because, in SVG, groups can only be wholly nested in other groups.

From your original post, you seem to use a lot of different graphics software because no one seems to do everything you want it to. Why should Inkscape be different? Inkscape, like every other tool, has its limitations and since it depends on SVG, its has SVG limitations too.

He's Trolling

Stop arguing guys.



DNFTT!