by bryhoyt » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:09 am
If you create a one-pixel-wide (non-even width) horizontal or vertical line, it should snap to a half pixel. Of course, it's the *node* that will be snapped, not the edge of the stroke, so at 100% zoom, the stroke-edge will appear on a pixel boundary, which is exactly what we want to make it look sharp. If it works any other way, can you please post a bug on the issues page:
http://code.google.com/p/pixelsnap/issues/list. Thanks!
Regarding my workflow, perhaps yes it is flawed. But I'm curious to know how I'm supposed to avoid the tedious process I described. I don't use Inkscape for icon design, I use it to design webpages, usually having more than 15 different objects (header image, sidebar box, separating lines, toolbars, etc etc). Sure, if I edit each object meticulously, I can keep it aligned to pixel-boundaries, with care.
But that's only one of the ways I use Inkscape. Say, for example, I have 3 pixel-perfect rectangles, grouped (for some reason I'm liking rectangles that day). Then I decide "these rectangles are awesome, but the whole cluster needs to be 50% bigger". So I use Inkscape's very useful stretch arrows, with the Ctrl-key held down to keep it proportional, and make it 50% bigger. Suddenly, even if I've got grids turned on:
1) the stroke width is 1.5 pixels wide, if I've selected the "Resize affects stroke-widths" button
2) the height & width of the rectangles is very likely a non-integer number
3) the x,y position of the rectangles is very likely a non-integer number
This is a very common scenario, and I don't see how it's using Inkscape wrongly in any way, and I don't know of any tools that Inkscape provides to avoid having to tediously edit each rectangle.
Very interested in your opinion, though! Sounds like you know what you're doing.
If you create a one-pixel-wide (non-even width) horizontal or vertical line, it should snap to a half pixel. Of course, it's the *node* that will be snapped, not the edge of the stroke, so at 100% zoom, the stroke-edge will appear on a pixel boundary, which is exactly what we want to make it look sharp. If it works any other way, can you please post a bug on the issues page: [url]http://code.google.com/p/pixelsnap/issues/list[/url]. Thanks!
Regarding my workflow, perhaps yes it is flawed. But I'm curious to know how I'm supposed to avoid the tedious process I described. I don't use Inkscape for icon design, I use it to design webpages, usually having more than 15 different objects (header image, sidebar box, separating lines, toolbars, etc etc). Sure, if I edit each object meticulously, I can keep it aligned to pixel-boundaries, with care.
But that's only one of the ways I use Inkscape. Say, for example, I have 3 pixel-perfect rectangles, grouped (for some reason I'm liking rectangles that day). Then I decide "these rectangles are awesome, but the whole cluster needs to be 50% bigger". So I use Inkscape's very useful stretch arrows, with the Ctrl-key held down to keep it proportional, and make it 50% bigger. Suddenly, even if I've got grids turned on:
1) the stroke width is 1.5 pixels wide, if I've selected the "Resize affects stroke-widths" button
2) the height & width of the rectangles is very likely a non-integer number
3) the x,y position of the rectangles is very likely a non-integer number
This is a very common scenario, and I don't see how it's using Inkscape wrongly in any way, and I don't know of any tools that Inkscape provides to avoid having to tediously edit each rectangle.
Very interested in your opinion, though! Sounds like you know what you're doing.