In v1.9.13-pre I can see a new node shape. According to history_en.txt
Add new node shape "invisible" for nodes with invisible node border, therefore map xml version number is incremented
The shape is a rectangle with no border.
Maybe in the future we'll also have a border-less oval, and other types of shapes.
To me, "invisible" is missing the nature of the shape; "border-less rectangle" would be more appropriate.
What are your thoughts, folks?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'm not sure if I understand this new shape. Isn't it the same as picking Rectangle shape and making the border 100% transparent?
Isn't it an unnecessary proliferation of shapes? I remember there was a movement of simplifying the shapes, without losing functionality, some time ago.
Btw, if someone asked me to suggest a new shape, I would say that an arrow shape can be quite useful in a mindmap, especially because FP don't have arrow tips in the edges, nor edge labels. Arrow shapes would fill this gap and allow better representation of precesses. Look how cool it would look (the example would be better if it was a process, but you get my point) (arrow inserted in Paint):
Anyway, I agree that "border-less rectangle" would be a better name.
Wait, I think I understood the new shape. If you have the background and the node background with the same color, and use "Rectangle+invisible node border" (b node, in the example below), then, the fold/unfold circle gets invisible. With the new shape, it can be made visible by changing the node border color ("a" node):
Oh, I think I the idea came up when Dimitry saw me trying to use "invisible" shapes. There were a bunch of ways a user could go about it at the time:
One is of course choosing if an Invisible node shape is available
Another is checking if the Node Border size can be 0px (which is not really how that option works as Dimitry told me)
And of course choosing a color for the Node Border and have it 100% Transparent or putting a value of 0 on the Alpha channel.
So he added the Invisible I guess to show that choosing the Invisible Node Shape is the intended way of achieving that result instead of hacking your way into 0px border size or fully transparent colors
I don't really think of the rectangle shape all that much (as I use an invisible Node Background color too). I also never noticed that the un/fold circle actually disappears 😅 and I don't know of any use a different shape would offer if the user just wants an Invisible shape. Of course if this is inconsistent or cluttering the other options I'd support for this to be named differently. Perhaps if Invisible is selected, the Node Border options would be grayed out to keep it consistent.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
@rexelbartolome Thanks for mentioning the zero-Alpha-channel trick to achieve borderless shapes.
The reason I'm proposing to rename "Invisible" to "Borderless rectangle" is that a node shape determines not only the shape of the background but also the text area that is available to the node, as well as the position of details, attributes or note displayed below the node.
All of the shapes in the attached picture (except for Fork) have horizontal margin = 2 pt, vertical margin = 1 pt. "Invisible" looks like "Rectangle" without a border, doesn't it?
Ohhh that's interesting, I've never thought about using other shapes in my maps. But yea in this case, it makes sense to have it named this way. Though it would lead to questions like "how come other shapes aren't available as borderless?" and a new user would less likely understand the concept of a "borderless rectangle" rather than "invisible" so maybe the ideal solution would be for the invisible option actually be implemented on the Node Border, instead of the Node Shape, that way all shapes have access to this Invisible mode. For now I'm alright with renaming it, if reimplementation is harder to do. I feel like I'm the only one who's going to use it anyway 😅
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I introduced invisible shape in January 2022 after Rexel showed me nodes with transparent both the background and the border. They never became a part of a stable release. Because it looks like the be shape raise many questions and the same functionality can be achieved using transparent colors I do not see any longer why it should be kept. I can not include it into a stable release until the questions are resolved. Therefore I am going to remove this option for now integrating internal logic which maps INVISIBLE shapes to usual RECTANGLE so that you the maps still can be loaded and no exception is thrown.
The actual problem with the border width is that usually all widths are scaled when the map is zoomed, and historically width set to 0 had a meaning of not scaling 1 pixel width. Also current element for width selection currently selects length units, it is not a drop-down box. Therefore I could not found how to use the same UI element for showing no border at all.
And if you can achieve effectively the same result using transparent edge color it seems there is no need to have this option.
Please let me know how you see it, the question is a blocker for the next stable release.
I am going to remove this option for now integrating internal logic which maps INVISIBLE shapes to usual RECTANGLE so that you the maps still can be loaded and no exception is thrown
It makes sense to me.
And if you can achieve effectively the same result using transparent edge color it seems there is no need to have this option.
I would propose that next to Color Property there is a button which makes the color transparent (maybe by setting Alpha to 0). This way it will be clear that each object which has a color can be made transparent, removing the need to have additional logic about border size or node shape.
I'd like to take this opportunity to popularize Copy Color and Paste Color by having buttons also for these two actions.
the same functionality can be achieved using transparent colors I do not see any longer why it should be kept
exactly!
I don't understand why there is a suggestion to add certain shapes with specific attributes. if so, why not adding "rectangle with a large border?" (of course it is a bad idea as well). I mean, if things like colors can be configured outside of the shape, it shouldn't be a separate shape...
Either this or I am missing some very basic logic.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Yea I think Dimitry just wanted future users to not think of the Node Border size in a way that you can input 0px and get an Invisible Node Border as a result since he saw me fiddling with it in that way 😅 I guess we just need a better way of showing new users you can achieve an invisible border through changing the alpha and color, and not the Node Border line width.
Probably not that big of a deal, a very niche problem for a new user for sure. Though maybe something that can be solved by an onboarding of the Formatting Panel in general, once we get there
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I implemented last idea by macmarrum in 1.9.13_16 and even improved transparent and partually transparent colors are shown. I am not sure if I like it because 3 additional small icons feel cluttered, not seeing them felt better.
Ideas?
Last edit: Dimitry Polivaev 2022-02-21
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I tried it and like it. It could be better if a button of transparent text color is also implemented. Copy and paste buttons look similar. A darker color on one could be easier to tell the difference.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I too think it's a bit cluttered, though we can keep the transparent button (or checkbox?) but implement the copy paste function in another way: A solution in Blender is when a user hovers over a color box and presses Ctrl-C or Ctrl-V, it would copy/paste the color without manually typing in the hexcode. Though this might be a bit more complicated to do
Copy and paste actions are available from the button popup menu, I have not removed them.
They are just not likely to be discovered there if you don't know about them.
Do you think it is sufficient?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I support a simple interface without extra buttons that are not being used frequently. that is why i support the decision to remove the copy paste buttons. the user can do it easily with right click.
I even don't think that the transparent button is really needed. if you want to have a transparent color, you can do it from within the color picking tool (change alpha). Its just not such a common task - and once you configure it you can copy paste it easily anyway.
Having said so, if you do choose to keep the transparency buttons, they are very buggy at 1.9.13_17. they show the transparency status incorrectly. its even hard to describe the issue, just play 2 minutes with the buttons and you will see some bugs.
Last edit: sifran 2022-02-24
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
if you do choose to keep the transparency buttons, they are very buggy at 1.9.13_17. they show the transparency status incorrectly. its even hard to describe the issue, just play 2 minutes with the buttons and you will see some bugs.
I generally need bug reports to fix bugs. I am sorry but without a detailed bug report no fix is possible. The bug report could describe the expected behavior, show the observed behavior and explain the differences so that I can reproduce it and either explain what and why happens or implement a fix.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I don't mind the extra space taken by the three additional buttons. I believe the functionality they bring is unlikely to be discovered, unless a user knows where to look. Having the buttons advertises the functions. On the other hand, each UI control makes the app feel more crowded and I can understand the reasons for wanting a cleaner UI.
I think it's also beneficial to have the Make Transparent button for Cloud color, e.g. to add extra space around a group of nodes, which separates them from others, but without the actual Cloud.
Many thanks, Dimitry. I really like the new buttons. I've been using them since Sunday without any issue. In my compilation of Freeplane I will keep all three buttons, with Make Transparent enabled also for Cloud.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In v1.9.13-pre I can see a new node shape. According to history_en.txt
The shape is a rectangle with no border.
Maybe in the future we'll also have a border-less oval, and other types of shapes.
To me, "invisible" is missing the nature of the shape; "border-less rectangle" would be more appropriate.
What are your thoughts, folks?
I'm not sure if I understand this new shape. Isn't it the same as picking Rectangle shape and making the border 100% transparent?
Isn't it an unnecessary proliferation of shapes? I remember there was a movement of simplifying the shapes, without losing functionality, some time ago.
Btw, if someone asked me to suggest a new shape, I would say that an arrow shape can be quite useful in a mindmap, especially because FP don't have arrow tips in the edges, nor edge labels. Arrow shapes would fill this gap and allow better representation of precesses. Look how cool it would look (the example would be better if it was a process, but you get my point) (arrow inserted in Paint):
Anyway, I agree that "border-less rectangle" would be a better name.
Last edit: euu 2022-02-10
Wait, I think I understood the new shape. If you have the background and the node background with the same color, and use "Rectangle+invisible node border" (b node, in the example below), then, the fold/unfold circle gets invisible. With the new shape, it can be made visible by changing the node border color ("a" node):
Last edit: euu 2022-02-12
Oh, I think I the idea came up when Dimitry saw me trying to use "invisible" shapes. There were a bunch of ways a user could go about it at the time:
One is of course choosing if an Invisible node shape is available
Another is checking if the Node Border size can be 0px (which is not really how that option works as Dimitry told me)
And of course choosing a color for the Node Border and have it 100% Transparent or putting a value of 0 on the Alpha channel.
So he added the Invisible I guess to show that choosing the Invisible Node Shape is the intended way of achieving that result instead of hacking your way into 0px border size or fully transparent colors
I don't really think of the rectangle shape all that much (as I use an invisible Node Background color too). I also never noticed that the un/fold circle actually disappears 😅 and I don't know of any use a different shape would offer if the user just wants an Invisible shape. Of course if this is inconsistent or cluttering the other options I'd support for this to be named differently. Perhaps if Invisible is selected, the Node Border options would be grayed out to keep it consistent.
@rexelbartolome Thanks for mentioning the zero-Alpha-channel trick to achieve borderless shapes.
The reason I'm proposing to rename "Invisible" to "Borderless rectangle" is that a node shape determines not only the shape of the background but also the text area that is available to the node, as well as the position of details, attributes or note displayed below the node.
All of the shapes in the attached picture (except for Fork) have horizontal margin = 2 pt, vertical margin = 1 pt. "Invisible" looks like "Rectangle" without a border, doesn't it?
Ohhh that's interesting, I've never thought about using other shapes in my maps. But yea in this case, it makes sense to have it named this way. Though it would lead to questions like "how come other shapes aren't available as borderless?" and a new user would less likely understand the concept of a "borderless rectangle" rather than "invisible" so maybe the ideal solution would be for the invisible option actually be implemented on the Node Border, instead of the Node Shape, that way all shapes have access to this Invisible mode. For now I'm alright with renaming it, if reimplementation is harder to do. I feel like I'm the only one who's going to use it anyway 😅
Interesting conversation.
I introduced invisible shape in January 2022 after Rexel showed me nodes with transparent both the background and the border. They never became a part of a stable release. Because it looks like the be shape raise many questions and the same functionality can be achieved using transparent colors I do not see any longer why it should be kept. I can not include it into a stable release until the questions are resolved. Therefore I am going to remove this option for now integrating internal logic which maps INVISIBLE shapes to usual RECTANGLE so that you the maps still can be loaded and no exception is thrown.
The actual problem with the border width is that usually all widths are scaled when the map is zoomed, and historically width set to 0 had a meaning of not scaling 1 pixel width. Also current element for width selection currently selects length units, it is not a drop-down box. Therefore I could not found how to use the same UI element for showing no border at all.
And if you can achieve effectively the same result using transparent edge color it seems there is no need to have this option.
Please let me know how you see it, the question is a blocker for the next stable release.
@rexelbartolome
@euu
@macmarrum
It makes sense to me.
I would propose that next to Color Property there is a button which makes the color transparent (maybe by setting Alpha to 0). This way it will be clear that each object which has a color can be made transparent, removing the need to have additional logic about border size or node shape.
I'd like to take this opportunity to popularize Copy Color and Paste Color by having buttons also for these two actions.
Last edit: macmarrum 2022-02-19
It makes sense to me
i read this thread a few times, and i really don't understand why this borderless/invisible is needed.
@dpolivaev wrote
exactly!
@rexelbartolome wrote:
exactly!
I don't understand why there is a suggestion to add certain shapes with specific attributes. if so, why not adding "rectangle with a large border?" (of course it is a bad idea as well). I mean, if things like colors can be configured outside of the shape, it shouldn't be a separate shape...
Either this or I am missing some very basic logic.
Yea I think Dimitry just wanted future users to not think of the Node Border size in a way that you can input 0px and get an Invisible Node Border as a result since he saw me fiddling with it in that way 😅 I guess we just need a better way of showing new users you can achieve an invisible border through changing the alpha and color, and not the Node Border line width.
Probably not that big of a deal, a very niche problem for a new user for sure. Though maybe something that can be solved by an onboarding of the Formatting Panel in general, once we get there
I implemented last idea by macmarrum in 1.9.13_16 and even improved transparent and partually transparent colors are shown. I am not sure if I like it because 3 additional small icons feel cluttered, not seeing them felt better.
Ideas?
Last edit: Dimitry Polivaev 2022-02-21
I tried it and like it. It could be better if a button of transparent text color is also implemented. Copy and paste buttons look similar. A darker color on one could be easier to tell the difference.
I too think it's a bit cluttered, though we can keep the transparent button (or checkbox?) but implement the copy paste function in another way: A solution in Blender is when a user hovers over a color box and presses Ctrl-C or Ctrl-V, it would copy/paste the color without manually typing in the hexcode. Though this might be a bit more complicated to do
https://i.imgur.com/ZP1fTCi.mp4
This is what my clipboard looks like after copying the final green color
[0.027042, 0.154861, 0.051599, 1.000000]Copy and paste actions are available from the button popup menu, I have not removed them.
They are just not likely to be discovered there if you don't know about them.
Do you think it is sufficient?
Copy and Paste buttons are removed from color selection buttons,
Make transparent button is added to the text color selector
Preview 1.9.13_17
I support a simple interface without extra buttons that are not being used frequently. that is why i support the decision to remove the copy paste buttons. the user can do it easily with right click.
I even don't think that the transparent button is really needed. if you want to have a transparent color, you can do it from within the color picking tool (change alpha). Its just not such a common task - and once you configure it you can copy paste it easily anyway.
Having said so, if you do choose to keep the transparency buttons, they are very buggy at 1.9.13_17. they show the transparency status incorrectly. its even hard to describe the issue, just play 2 minutes with the buttons and you will see some bugs.
Last edit: sifran 2022-02-24
I generally need bug reports to fix bugs. I am sorry but without a detailed bug report no fix is possible. The bug report could describe the expected behavior, show the observed behavior and explain the differences so that I can reproduce it and either explain what and why happens or implement a fix.
posted the bug.
I don't mind the extra space taken by the three additional buttons. I believe the functionality they bring is unlikely to be discovered, unless a user knows where to look. Having the buttons advertises the functions. On the other hand, each UI control makes the app feel more crowded and I can understand the reasons for wanting a cleaner UI.
I think it's also beneficial to have the Make Transparent button for Cloud color, e.g. to add extra space around a group of nodes, which separates them from others, but without the actual Cloud.
Many thanks, Dimitry. I really like the new buttons. I've been using them since Sunday without any issue. In my compilation of Freeplane I will keep all three buttons, with Make Transparent enabled also for Cloud.