Question on fill angle

Hello Folks!

A user reported a "bug" where gradient angle (and presumably bitmap
pattern as well) did not rotate with the object/group. I've always
considered that as a "feature" but I am curious what others think. I
don't know if it is reasonable to even change the behavior with respect
to existing documents. Discussion welcome. Thanks, Deron

--
Deron Kazmaier - support%40pagestream.org">supportpagestream.org
Grasshopper LLC Publishing - http://www.pagestream.org
PageStream DTP for Amiga, Linux, Macintosh, and Windows

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

PageStream Support wrote:
>
>
> Hello Folks!
>
> A user reported a "bug" where gradient angle (and presumably bitmap
> pattern as well) did not rotate with the object/group. I've always
> considered that as a "feature" but I am curious what others think. I
> don't know if it is reasonable to even change the behavior with respect
> to existing documents. Discussion welcome. Thanks, Deron

It shouldn't rotate with the object, should it? It's a printing matter,
not an art matter, isn't it?

--
DAVID L. STEVENS -- TEAM AMIGA --Chapter Chat Publisher
Windows XP user (:^(> on Acer Aspire 9810 2.16 GHz Notebook
2 GB RAM; 2 120-GB Hard Drives; CanoScan LIDE 20
Canon i860 & Brother HL-5050 PageStream v5.0.2.10Pro
<http://dave_stevens.home.comcast.net>

---
You can build a throne with bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long.
Boris Yeltsin

Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

David L. Stevens wrote:
&gt; PageStream Support wrote:
&gt;
>>; Hello Folks!
&gt;>
&gt;> A user reported a "bug&quot; where gradient angle (and presumably bitmap
&gt;> pattern as well) did not rotate with the object/group. I've always
&gt;> considered that as a "feature" but I am curious what others think. I
>&gt; don't know if it is reasonable to even change the behavior with respect
>> to existing documents. Discussion welcome. Thanks, Deron
&gt;>
>
> It shouldn't rotate with the object, should it? It's a printing matter,
> not an art matter, isn't it?
>

Why not? The bitmap fill can be expressive when it turns with the shape...
Say you have same shapes filled with the same fill, all the shapes have
different angles and including the fill which turns likewise.

The looks will be different for each shape.
I like the idea that the fill will rotate with the shape.

If only the ellipse with different angles will not give spikes to the
left... Deron. Bug 55 and even bug 207.
(I wonder who reported those ).

Theo

Messages in this topic (3) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

On Saturday 24 May 2008, PageStream Support wrote:
&gt; Hello Folks!
&gt;
> A user reported a "bug&quot; where gradient angle (and presumably bitmap
&gt; pattern as well) did not rotate with the object/group. I've always
&gt; considered that as a "feature" but I am curious what others think. I
> don't know if it is reasonable to even change the behavior with respect
> to existing documents. Discussion welcome. Thanks, Deron

If I understand the question correctly I would expect the gradient angle to
rotate with the object but I think the answer really depends on what you are
trying to do.

In my view I would have created an object and if I want it presented at a
different (rotated) angle then that is how I want it presented -- any
gradient angle is with respect to the object, not the page as a whole.

However, if you view the objects as being view ports onto something else (a
gradient or bitmap pattern) then rotating the object should not also rotate
the thing being viewed.

I see this as really being a matter of perspective and I can find value in
both. For an individual wanting the opposite of what PgS does I see two
options:

1. PgS makes the rotation/non-rotation of the gradient angle optional (via a
checkbox?) the disadvantage here being it clutters the user interface

2. Instead of using a simple rotate object function a script is used which
preserves/alters the rotation of the gradient angle.

Personally, I think not changing the current behavior is best by default
simply because user expectations don't have to change. Further, either it
doesn't alter for previously created documents (which creates a difference in
behavior and inconsistency is not good) or it does (which is bad because the
previous document certainly was expected to display a certain way).

Tim Doty

Messages in this topic (4) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

PageStream Support wrote on 24.05.2008
about <[PageStreamSupport] Question on fill angle> the following:

> Hello Folks!

hi deron.

> A user reported a "bug&quot; where gradient angle (and presumably bitmap
> pattern as well) did not rotate with the object/group. I've always
> considered that as a "feature" but I am curious what others think.

in gerneral i'd expect the fill pattern (gradient/bitmap) to rotete with the
object - yes! at least if the object has a rotation angle set.

> I don't know if it is reasonable to even change the behavior with respect
> to existing documents. Discussion welcome. Thanks, Deron

to be compatible and comfortable i'd like to see a "relative to" field in
the fill pattern requester. two possible values are "object" and "page".

how are the amiga versions going along? (mostly interested in the os4
version!!)

thanks and
byebye...
--
Michael Merkel (MiMeIRC)
Michael.Merkel%40gmx.net">Michael.Merkelgmx.net
http://www.mirime.de/Michael
Member of http://www.amiga-freunde.de

Messages in this topic (5) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.