I think I will take you up on that offer… here’s why.
Let’s see what everyone else thinks of this idea. Instead of just using an associated icon - which would be limited to a rather small size (24x24?) - how about a larger diagram window (75x150?) next to the radio buttons showing an image of what a corner and middle of a seam would look like for each type? Kinda like the measurement diagrams only on a smaller scale. The images could be created from a sample pattern by changing the option for each corner type and capturing it.
Does this sound like a better way? If so I can figure out what size of window to use in the dialog and get back to you.
BTW… I also thought about this… the use of the term “angle” for the corner type is really incorrect. Using “angle” you would expect to put in an angle value, not a corner type. For comparison purposes I referred to Coreldraw… there it’s referred to as corner type, with 3 options… point, round, or miter. In our case we’re really dealing with what type of miter is happening at at a corner (or at a seam node point). I would propose to use the term “Miter type”… if not that, then “Corner type”… either way not “angle.”. Also looking at the Coreldraw outline dialog I was reminded by the fact that you can set a “Miter limit”… that is, at what angle or less will a corner be converted to a miter vs a point. It’s possible there is some limit now going on with the “By length” type, but what I propose to do is add an option in the Seam Allowance Prefs to set that angle.
That does sound very nice… so if I understand correctly, you will be able to choose the image of the type of corner you prefer and then have certain settings from there.
Hmmm… yes… When I think of “Miter” I’m thinking of picture frames (which is, in a way what we are doing once the garment is sewn together) or those strips that go around ceilings against the wall, however, in this case I’d prefer to go with “Corner type”, and you could still set the “Miter limit” (on one or both sides of the corner to create more length on one side or a “cut off” (beveled) corner?).
I’ll do a few mock-ups this evening or tomorrow morning… of what I’m picturing in my head and you can tell me if I’m on the right track
Would still use a set of radio buttons, and the image would change to reflect the corner type chosen. The images would just be a visual feedback to help show what the corner (or seam node such as in Susan’s issue example) might look like. Truth be told 1/2 the time I can’t remember what each type does. Lol
That’s what I thought after I looked at the dialog with fresh eyes. In an odd sort of way I’ve gotten use to lack of RT’s grasp of English semantics.
Exactly. Which ironically fits in with a post you made way back regarding the development of the seam allowance tool. I was searching for info on what the custom SA does, and came across the link for RT to look at for the article " Crafting The First Mile Of Product"… great read - I have the feeling RT probably did not read it. A prior article of Belsky “The First 15 Seconds” is even more applicable here. While I don’t want to go way off on a tangent, there are many concepts Belsky writes about , one that is so applicable to not only this one item in the SA dialog, but the program as a whole… and that is “what do I do now?”.
Hey Grace… Here’s sort of what I had in mind… not necessarily to scale. The diagram would show what the corner type does on a seam node and what it does at a corner. In all there would be 12 images. After doing this it probably would work better side by side rather than vertically placed.
Which brings up a few other issue I thought of. There are several options that you can’t select at the moment. Such as the the lower right corner in your image - you can’t select a right corner by first AND second edge. Such as:
Also cant do this… which could be part of the original bug:
Or this… which by the true definition - a mitered corner.
But here’s a good thing that I can look at implementing… Unlike a combo box you can program radio buttons to allow multiple, but still exclusive selections. So we could do something like selecting:
First edge right angle AND Second edge right angle…
If we were to leave it in the same box, & rename “nodes” in this context to “intersections”, just changing “Angle” to “Type” would work, but if we were to put it in a separate box, as in the mockup picture, maybe “Intersection Type” would work better.
A node (point) is not always an intersection… such as in Susan’s orginal example of the bug. And while it doesnt necessarily describe that example, I think “corner” type is easily understood. CorelDraw, Adobe Illustrator, and AutoCad all refer to it as a corner type.
Fair 'nuff. I guess since there isn’t really a good, recognizable word for it in English, we might as well accept the norm. Joint or Socket are the only other options I’m thinking of, & they carry their own baggage without the benefit of establishment.
Right. They’re not all intersections.
How about just ‘Type’? This avoids translation issues. The User knows they’re on the Seam Allowance tab, and they know this field defines the behavior of the seam allowance for both sides of the current point. Is there a need to provide further clarification?
I definitely don’t want to be responsible for insisting that a lot of kruft get piled on the project. That’s why I don’t like to post feature requests to the Git without invitation.
That being said… I tried a fix that I thought would fix the issue, but no good. It’s going to take some time to go through the seam allowance functions to fully grasp what RT did to create the seam allowance points and corners. Stay tuned.
That’s just too funny.
Truth be told having worked in theatre for nearly 40 years I’ve experienced meetings with directors that resemble this video. Was designing lighting for a ballet once and the director said she wanted it to look like a Siberian Sunset. Sure no problem Barb… to myself - what the heck is a Siberian Sunset?
As I’m looking into and thinking about fixes / updates to the SA corner types… does anyone have a problem if I ditch the “FancyTab” code for the SA dialog and refactor it to work like the Preferences dialogs?
It’s just more “spaghetti” thrown in that really doesn’t accomplish anything other than having to maintain those dialogs in 2 different manners.
______________________