MUST HAVE things for next Xara...

[michellelinzi]

Amazing...this forum is for peoples ideas of what they want, but when they post, people feel the need to come in here and tell that person why their post isnt relevant. Go to hell...

[pauland]

Amazing...this forum is for peoples ideas of what they want, but when they post, people feel the need to come in here and tell that person why their post isnt relevant. Go to hell...

No problem asking for something, but describing it as a "must-have" is something else. Nobody said your post wasn't relevant.

I guess you're not one for much of a discussion, or getting on with people.

[BONES]

I don't even know what he is talking about. "Headers" for what? If I don't even know what they are, it's hard to think Xara needs them at all, let alone needing to do something with them. And he clearly knows very little about what he is doing or he'd know that transparent backgrounds are simple.

I have to say though, seeing him put "MUST HAVE" in upper case, you just knew he was going to be a militant so and so, didn't you? Hopefully he will be ignored by the powers that be until he learns some manners.

[pauland]

Michelle, I would guess is a she. Her request has been made before and it's a legitimate thing to want but it's hardly an essential. I don't have a problem with Michelle asking for the feature.

The headers, footers and backgrounds referred to are web page headers - banners if you like - and similarly for the backgrounds and footer; all visible elements that Michelle would like to see adapt to the page width. Most people using Xara and other software fake expanding elements by using a vertically tiled background that appears to extend the header or footer at the edges.

It would be great to see Xara incorporate the feature, but it's a tough ask (which is what I was trying to explain) when you try and combine precisely positioned elements and design freedom with a fluid layout which moves things around according to rules.

We all have bad days and today is a new day, so peace to all.

[guyke]

You're too kind, Paul. Even on a bad day I wouldn't use language such as 'go to hell' in a forum environment.

[pauland]

I think TG is more about getting on together rather than falling out. I've been told worse.

[Artyboots]

I agree. We should play nice. I was not offended, except by the angry response to Michelle's fairly normal suggestions.

This section baffles me. People who don't work for Xara often respond to suggestions in the Dear Xara section (although no response is usually required). And they usually respond negatively, even if someone is only expressing ideas. Generally speaking, people who make suggestions and have ideas are not being critical of Xara. I think it's nice of people to take the time to think properly about Xara, and go to the trouble of posting here. It's free market research and feedback for Xara, and it is entirely a matter for Xara whether they want to listen or not. Presumably they do, or why have the section? It's also very nice that the Xara fanbase is so loyal, but how can there ever be any discussion if ideas are dismissed out of hand? Many features in Xara are of no interest to me in my work, but I am always interested to hear which are a must-have for other people.

If suggestions make experienced Xara users annoyed, then perhaps it would be better if they were submitted privately to Xara, so people can express their thoughts freely.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing, but must-have here is not an insult. It must mean something different in different countries? Perhaps the caps annoyed more than the words? But that's just typing.

A

[handrawn]

there has been no anger at all in this thread - frustration maybe

now a discussion is good - and this is exactly what we have here - except that Michelle is choosing not to take part, but to be defensive

it's true that language is sometimes a barrier

for example to me 'go to hell' is about as offensive as saying 'bullshit' that is hardly at all; and 'must have' is a meaningless advertising soundbite cliche - but there you go, we are all different...

[pauland]

I agree. We should play nice. I was not offended, except by the angry response to Michelle's fairly normal suggestions.

I don't see any angry responses.

This section baffles me. People who don't work for Xara often respond to suggestions in the Dear Xara section (although no response is usually required). And they usually respond negatively, even if someone is only expressing ideas. Generally speaking, people who make suggestions and have ideas are not being critical of Xara. I think it's nice of people to take the time to think properly about Xara, and go to the trouble of posting here. It's free market research and feedback for Xara, and it is entirely a matter for Xara whether they want to listen or not. Presumably they do, or why have the section? It's also very nice that the Xara fanbase is so loyal, but how can there ever be any discussion if ideas are dismissed out of hand? Many features in Xara are of no interest to me in my work, but I am always interested to hear which are a must-have for other people.

The only thing about Michelles suggestion that bothered me was that it was a must-have. Ironically she also pointed out that her reference application artisteer which did support fluid layouts was also lacking in some ways. The majority of my post was about why artisteer supported fluid layouts and why Xara currently did not, so she might have some understanding of the technologies. Nothing more.

If suggestions make experienced Xara users annoyed, then perhaps it would be better if they were submitted privately to Xara, so people can express their thoughts freely.

I'd hate that. Michelle made a perfectly sensible suggestion and none of the respondents were angered by it.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing, but must-have here is not an insult. It must mean something different in different countries? Perhaps the caps annoyed more than the words? But that's just typing.

A

Caps is rather like shouting and the insistence that it's a must-have is presumptious, not an insult. I'd be interested in knowing why Michelle feels this is a must-have. Most designers make a conscious decision to use fixed width design even though they are capable of developing sites in a fluid layout, simply because it gives them greater control of the design layout rather than letting the browser decide how the page should look.

I have no problem (nor do I think anyone else has) with the request for fluid layout support. I'm not a fan of it being described as a must-have. I really wish Michelle had had been able to explain her insistence that this is a must-have feature so that either we would see why it is so important or she might look at it differrently or we might agree to disagree.

As to whether there should be debate on Dear Xara - you are right it has often been frowned upon.