Xara Desktop Application v17.0 is all Skewed

Dear Xara...

How can you continue to get is so wrong?

Create a Rectangle.
Set up a Simple Linear Alt Rainbow Fill from one corner to another across the diagonal. Start Red and End Dark Magenta.

• Clone and rotate 90⁰. Bug - the Fill Handles no longer move with the rectangle. The rectangle seems to be transformed into a Square.
• Clone and Skew any angle on H or V axis - Bug - as above. The Fill is flipped vertically.

Your inability to deliver a clean version without introducing untold Bugs is mind-blowing.

I still have websites I dare not upgrade from v12!

This particular Bug Set has occurred since v16.3.

acorn

I can't replicate that Acorn. (XDP17 & XDP+)

I don't have XDP17 but tried it in XWDP17 and could not replicate it either Acorn Sorry no go.

Attachment 127149

Sorry both, did you then Preview?

Attachment 127150

Attachment 127151

Acorn

Sorry Acorn just tried preview in XWDP17 and in preview turned 90 degree into square and skewed not square but shortened immensely so you are correct!!!! Went back and tried in XDPX16 and worked like it is supposed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gypsyjoe

Sorry Acorn just tried preview in XWDP17 and in preview turned 90 degree into square and skewed not square but shortened immensely so you are correct!!!! Went back and tried in XDPX16 and worked like it is supposed to.

---

GJ thanks. I am sorry I abridged my experience.

My distress is around finding this muck up in a live site and having to grovel and make good.

Acorn

Ah! see what you mean now. I know we shouldn't need a workaround but if you convert to editable shapes it previews correctly.

@Egg that might work for XDP17 but there is no such option in XWDP17 So you still have the same problem

It's just another one of those ridiculous situations that have come about with Xara/Magix trying to monetise the software as much as possible Joe :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gypsyjoe

@Egg that might work for XDP17 but there is no such option in XWDP17 So you still have the same problem

---

GJ, you can get Editable shapes with XWDP.

Take any Rectangle, Ellipse or QuickShape. clone it and select both and Add Shapes.

Sadly, what I was building was a Template just using skewed Rectangles. These do not generate images just transformed SPANs and so are highly scalable with no real payload burden.

I cannot afford to build something that a later version mangles so I will have to revert to getting round it with CSS and checking it works across all browsers. Not simple as linear-gradients are not animatable across a transition.

Acorn

Thank You Acorn, would never have thought of doing that to get editable shapes.

Dare Xara...

I am actually close to tears.

Create a 256px square box. Add Bitmap Fill of the Default image you provide.
Bug - rotate or skew any amount and Preview.

Attachment 127160

Total disaster!

WHAT YOU SEE IS NO LONGER WHAT YOU GET (WYSINLWYG).

Acorn

I tried what you said about adding shapes and your rotated square 256px previews correctly if you do that, but if I just preview without cloning and adding shapes I get the same result as you in XWDP17 so acorn I think most definite bug although I don't really understand the difference between the two. Sorry if I am just plain ignorant but trying hard to follow and learn, thanks Acorn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gypsyjoe

I tried what you said about adding shapes and your rotated square 256px previews correctly if you do that, but if I just preview without cloning and adding shapes I get the same result as you in XWDP17 so acorn I think most definite bug although I don't really understand the difference between the two. Sorry if I am just plain ignorant but trying hard to follow and learn, thanks Acorn.

---

GJ, the difference is a rectangle is presented as a SPAN that gives Width, Height, (Linear) Fill and Transformation. There is no problem with scaling in the browser as it is a definition and not an image. Adding shapes changes this into an image and so you will see similar at 100% but zoom in and you get jaggies and blocky artefacts. also an image requires another HTTP call to the server and is a larger download that a definition.

If the Fill is an image itself or you use a Fractal Fill, or non-linear gradients then a bitmap has to be created.

Where possible use the rectangle Tool, even for Circles and Ellipses and use Linear Fills and Transparencies and shun Shadows & Feathering. If you need some of these, consider using CSS3.

@Xara - to recap, you have screwed up Fills BIG TIME in v17.0.

Acorn

Once again Acorn thank you for the explanation I think I understand better now, when I clone and add shapes in essence I am creating a image for the preview from what was a simple span. I think I am getting the idea.

Quote:

---

@Xara - to recap, you have screwed up Fills BIG TIME in v17.0.

---

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Do you think that anyone from Xara is a) Reading this or b) Even cares anymore.

As far as I'm aware NONE of the issues (read that as BUGS) that you are VERY conscientiously pointing out have even had a comment from XARA staff, never mind a fix. It really seems these days that for every "feature" (and I use that term VERY loosely) that they add, they break two others.