<div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks for checking that out Tim. Just to keep this conversation in scope for everyone, we are referring to the scale and position sliders for the free transform tool.<br><br>For the position that I updated based off our conversation, it does not use relative position. It still uses absolute position x/y values. It just calculates the minimum and maximum values for the slider after it knows what the current position is. It uses the current position as the center. This concept might be too clever for people to figure out if it it doesn't make sense. Position would probably be better as a numeric input.<br><br></div><div>The scale maybe the same. You mentioned the use case of flipping the selection horizontally or vertically (-100%). That seems nice. Maybe we could even add a couple buttons next to the scale inputs to automatically do that. That seems somewhat common and would eliminate typing. <br></div><div><br>Technically we can do whatever, but I think it would be the best to design things around the most common use cases for inputs. When painting, when is exact pixel control important? I never use the position and scale sliders because I have never had a use for them while painting. I always think visually while painting, so I always use the handles for everything.<br></div><div><br>Scott<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Timothée Giet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:animtim@gmail.com" target="_blank">animtim@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Hey Scott,<br>
<br>
Thanks, I gave a try to your last changes, but it still is a big
usability regression to me..<br>
<br>
As you say, " The sliders are faster, while the input allows for
greater control.", thing is usually when needing fast transform,
one would use handles rather than the docker, and only use dockers
numerical input for precise transforms. (at least that's how I use
it). So I don't really see the point in making controls in the
docker faster if it makes them (very) restricted compared to
handles. It looks prettier at first sight, but it is actually less
usable when thinking about what they are used for.<br>
<br>
The sliders min/max are ok for a small number of actions, but make
any out-of-range transform much more tedious as they have to be
done in several steps, and doing boring calculations to split a
big transform in several ones, or rely on imprecise transform
(which is not an option most of the time when I need precise
transforms).<br>
Also changing position to relative values instead of absolute
makes it not really possible anymore to place directly a selection
at a precise pixel position in the picture.<br>
<br>
I forward the discussion on the mailing list, so we can have more
opinions on this problem.<br>
(to the list people: read previous emails below for context ;) )<br>
<br>
Timothée<br>
<br>
Le 12/11/2014 01:16, Scott Petrovic a écrit :<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>hey Tim,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
I modified the the tools a bit and commited them to master for
you to check out.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the position</div>
<div>-----------------------</div>
<div>The position limits now change based off the current
position. This is much nicer. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the scale</div>
<div>------------------------</div>
<div>I made it so you can add negative values up to -100%.
You're 'base' is at 100% now since that is that is what you
should start out at. This makes flipping something vertically
or horizontally much easier. If you need really large scaling,
you can always use the handles. Let me know if this is better
or if you have a different idea.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For typing in values outside the slider limit</div>
<div>-------------------------</div>
<div>I don't see any way currently to programmatically allow
values greater than the slider limits. If the slider only
allows up to 300, you can't type in 350. There might need to
be some compromise with this. The sliders are faster, while
the input allows for greater control.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>let me know your thoughts on what I have done.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Scott </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:30 PM,
Timothée Giet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:animtim@gmail.com" target="_blank">animtim@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi
Scott,<br>
<br>
I just noticed a bad regression in transform tool caused
by your UI changes:<br>
now it is not possible anymore to enter negative values
for scale, which is very useful when needed.<br>
<br>
In my case here I needed to use scale -100% to mirror an
object precisely, which I do quite often, and discovered
it doesn't work anymore. Of course it still works when
grabbing the anchors, but I need to can enter numeric
values for precise transformations.<br>
<br>
Please fix this by moving to 0% at the center and allowing
negative values on the left side, like you did for
position.<br>
<br>
<br>
Also, on the same topic, I really think limiting position
values to 3000px is not enough.. also ideally, if
techically possible, it should be possible to enter
manually a value that's above or below the slider limits.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Timothée<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>