On Apr 28, 2008, at 7:50 AM, bulia byak wrote:
That was exactly my point. I think this tool needs more unique
conveniences to justify its existence as opposed to a mode of the
Also, right now it seems to use high fixation and a fixed angle of the
brush, with no way to adjust it. And making it adjustable will
basically duplicate the Calligraphic controls. Even if they use the
same code under the hood, duplicating in the UI is no less unclean
than duplicating in the code.
Yes... but only for some users and only for some modes.
The second mode that deletes all things that were touched is underway. That functionality is even more divergent. The main delay is that it takes dissecting the boolean op code in livarot.
And for the options, those are known and still are to be added and hooked up. Tuning such parameters is simple, doing complex region intersect detection is much trickier.
And the bottom line is that for users the large majority of artists, etc. that I've been able to determine tend to look for the analog to the real-world tools they've used. Very few are used to complex flipping and loading their pens up with acid to remove ink that they've drawn with. Almost every single person I've wanted pick up Inkscape for the first time over the last few years tend hunt around and try to find an eraser.
I don't think Emacs keybindings are an appropriate solution for everyone and do not try to impose them on others, despite them being one of the faster ways for me to work. For many of the same reasons I also don't think burying things as just a sub-mode of a different tool that is often thought of as serving a different purpose is good UI.