It's I can't imagine anyone preferring this over an alternative. One of the worst bases for decisions in software engineering. But isn't switching to the direct selection tool a step backward? You're dealing with anchor points rather than frame edges.Īnd your main argument is "I can't imagine anyone using this" always is They are not the same.Īcknowledged and my comments were based on using the selection tool. You are confusing the "object" with the "path". Or as Gerald mentioned, you can select the frame, switch to the direct select tool and grab the center handle (to avoid selecting the content) and the snap behavior will switch to the path. I agree that the current behavior is a pain when snapping and then editing a stroke, or when trying to align objects on opposite sides of a guide, but if you understand that changing the status of the include stroke weight option is changing what is displayed in the x/y coordinate fields you can use them to position either the path or the bounding box with absolute precision. What will the meaning be of the fit content to frame commands? Do they mean fit to the path, or to the inside of the stroke? Do you update the fit automatically if the stroke weight changes? What about when you go the other direction? Stroke aligned to the outside and then reduced in weight, for example. Is that acceptable? Probably not, so you might say just crop the image. That might be a worthy option, but it brings up the question of how do you deal with the content?ĭo you shrink the content when you force the frame to shrink by moving the stroke from inside to outside? What about when you increase the stroke weight? Shrinking the content by a fixed amount in both directions will change the aspect ratio for anything other than a square or circular frame. So it seems to me that what you are asking is that the frame be resized if you are including the stroke weight in the dimensions so that the object bounding box remains constant. If you un-select include stroke weight in the dimensions, you see the same things, but the reported dimensions never differ. Aligning the stroke to center or inside will obscure a bit of the content along the edge, but will not change the size. If the option to include stroke weight is on, aligning the stroke to the outside or center has the effect of increasing the reported object dimension, but it doesn't move or resize anything. You place an image or graphic at 100% (or any other size, but the point here is you want the image to retain the size for some reason). Suppose you draw a frame, which by default has no stroke at all, and you need it to be a particular size. The difference is including the dimension reports the size of the object bounding box while not including it reports the size of the path bounding box. You have the option to include, or not, the stroke weight in the object dimension calculations. Stroke aligned to outside: inside edge of stroke snaps to guide.Ĭhanging the stroke alignment on an object changes the dimensions of the Stroke aligned to centre: centre of stroke snaps to guide. Stroke aligned to inside: outside edge of stroke snaps to guide. This shouldn't have needed this lengthy explanation. But the user still loses the ability to snap to a guide if the stroke alignment is changed. The only stroke alignment that changes to what it should in relation to a guide is align stroke to inside. But repositioning any of these to snap to your guides again, will result in the stroke being inside. This means that if a centred alignment is snapped to guides, changing to align stroke to inside will result in a box half a stroke away from the guide, changing to align stroke to outside will result in a stroke centred on the guide. Regardless of which stroke alignment is used, a frame will always snap with the stroke to the inside. There they should be forced to ponder the quirky behaviour of snap to as it relates to stroke. If anyone begins to answer in the affirmative, then they should immediately go to jail, do not pass go. If not it should be fixed.Ĭhanging the stroke alignment on an object changes the dimensions of the object. I am wondering if anyone can defend ID's current stroking behaviour.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |