Layer Inadequacy

[MarkMyWords]

I think we should all take a breath here, this is edging toward a "yes it is" - "no it isn't" kind of argument. We just have to accept that it's different strokes for different folks.

As Remi said Bones, good for you if you are happy with the layers as they are. I'm sorry you have difficulty in understanding the need others feel for more layer features, but it seems to be one of those things where you either "get it" or you don't, no foul either way.

If Xara would be willing to implement this, we all could sit in circle and sing:
If you're happy and you know it,
clap your hands (clap clap)...

Remi

Well maybe for a little while - just until we fixate on the next "improvement" LOL!

[RedWombat]

As for me and my work flow . . . robust layers all the way!!!

I do understand, Bones, that you don't get our zeal for this feature. I propose that Xara implement it for the vast majority of us that have been asking for this for years, and you simply just don't use them. That way we're all happy.

Other than Corel being painfully slow, and Illy being, well just Illy, and a pain to use, they've got Xtreme beat hands down when it comes to layers. This is something I feel Xara has really got work on for the next release. Knowing Xara though, they'll come up with something even better than the competition!

[BONES]

The situation is simple to understand: We like Xara Xtreme's layers very much, but we want to see the move to the next level: nested layers.

Why?

No, using different layers is the best practice.

Why?

it's also easily to understand for you that _we_ want nested layers.

Why?

That's my problem, you are all talking as though it is completely obvious why making a project even more complex is a good thing, when it is not at all, or in any way, obvious to me. The examples that have been given make no sense to me as they seem to be locked into a layer mindset, rather than simply looking at the best approach.

I propose that Xara implement it for the vast majority of us that have been asking for this for years, and you simply just don't use them. That way we're all happy.

Unless it means that something that we might all benefit from doesn't get done. For every feature that gets implemented, I'm sure there are dozens that get put back to a later release, so there is no such thing as good for everyone if a feature is only needed by some people and is a complete waste of time for others.

In this instance, finding a different way to solve the problem that benefits all of us in other ways might be preferable to ploughing ahead with the first and most obvious suggestion that comes to people's minds. I think the best and most beneficial discussions are those where someone poses a problem and we all discuss possible solutions, rather than starting with a solution and working backwards. Its far more limiting, don't you think? And its hard for me to understand when I don't quite see that it is the best solution to the example problems that have come up.

[David O'Neil]

...I think the best and most beneficial discussions...

But you are not having a discussion. You are saying that your way is the best, and refusing to consider the viewpoints of others. Very like trolling, if not, in fact, exactly that.

[handrawn]

I'd rather use Word to do illustrations than Illustrator.

ah.. the light is beginning to dawn at my end.....

So my mindset is that I can do extremely complex work without using layers at all, while yours is that someone else has to fix Xara to cover for your inability to use it effectively.

and who is now being smugly superior

That is precisely what I do use layers for, and they work well enough, up to a point. But if I can get by without using them at all, then I am much, much happier and can work far more efficiently.

and the problem that anyone should have with this is?


I am inclined to agree with David.....

[BONES]

The problem is that I have to deal with layers. I have to remember which layer I am on when I create a new object, otherwise at some later time I 'll discover that I've added 20 copies of something to the wrong layer and have to move them. Its usually OK in a session but I find when I come back to something with layers, I invariably do that kind of thing. Its a lot like living in a two-storey house - if you are downstairs doing something, the next thing you need is almost invariably upstairs, and vice versa. Its an extra complication to your life that you can do without. Sure, you get used to it, I suppose, but people get used to chemotherapy and all sorts of things that I hope never to have to deal with.

But you are not having a discussion. You are saying that your way is the best, and refusing to consider the viewpoints of others. Very like trolling, if not, in fact, exactly that.

No, I'm not. I am explaining, a little bit, why I work the way I do, whilst others are mostly just saying how they work, assuming its obvious why they do so. There has been one very specific example that is probably an either/or proposition [one way being no better or worse than the other] but no-one has given any insight into how more layer complexity would simplify anyone's workflow. You know, a "if I could nest my layers, I would be able to do this thing that now takes me 10 steps and 5 minutes in 7 steps and 2 minutes" kind of thing. All I'm reading is that other packages have it so Xara should, too. Its the kind of argument you get from a 5 year-old who wants a new toy.

At the end of the day, handling objects is not something I find even remotely difficult in Xara. In fact it is probably one of Xara's biggest strengths compared to other tools I use. So I find it strange that people feel a need for improvement in this area and strive for better understanding.

[David O'Neil]

...All I'm reading is that other packages have it so Xara should, too...

There are also a couple people who have said that they use other programs just so that they can get better layer control. (As an example.) So you aren't reading very well.

You also say that your tests indicate that hiding layers doesn't speed up rendering. In the attached file, zoom in step-by-step to a high zoom factor. Then repeat the experiment after turning off layer 1.

I also gave you an example where nested layers would be beneficial. Just because you don't do that doesn't mean others don't want to. Your words come across as trolling.

[MarkMyWords]

If you don't get a speed up by turning some layers off, then you are not working on particularly complex images and this is probably the crux of the misunderstanding.

I sometimes have to turn off almost every other layer, except the one I'm working on, or the slow down is a pain. It mostly occurs during zooming, but I zoom in and out a lot while drawing. On occasion I have to make a bitmap copy and place it under the working layer so that with all the other layers turned off, I can still see the overall effect.

Working with very large numbers of objects is simplified for me by using layers, not complicated, and the extra layer features would help considerably. I'm sure several people have explained that it is a case of organising the work and others point out the use of layers to try different options. When someone says they use other software mainly because of the layers, that alone should be a strong indicator of how useful they find some layer features.

[MEB]

The problem is that I have to deal with layers. I have to remember which layer I am on when I create a new object, otherwise at some later time I 'll discover that I've added 20 copies of something to the wrong layer and have to move them. Its usually OK in a session but I find when I come back to something with layers, I invariably do that kind of thing.

That´s exactly the type of problem that nested layers will come handy.They provide a way to organize your shapes without the need to remember where you have put them. When i´m doing something complex with lots of objects i usually put the objects in their corresponding layer so i know that everything related with a specific part of the illustration is in that specific layer. Of course you have to pay attention to where you are creating the new object. But if you move it to the correct layer you shouldn´t have any problems where to find it later.
Otherwise all objects would "live" in just one layer! That´s insane for complicated projects.

Take a car illustration as an example. You can create layers for front lights, body, tyres, rims etc. Those are the "main" sections of your work.
Now imagine that the car illustration is very detailed and one layer isn´t enought to organize all the objects needed to correctly represent the rims. Then you would add some nested layers just for the rims section like: rims_base, rims_highliligts, rims_details etc
This is valid for almost everything, like a complex website or illustrations like those created by Vladimir.

With this type of "naming" and nested layers you can control precisely where your objects are. You just have to create them in the correct layer something that´s easier and intuitive than it looks since usually we are working on specific sections of our work ( i mean you don´t create one shape for the rim, then go work on the roof shape and then go to the fronts lights and back to the rim).

Besides this you can hide all the nested layers of all sections of your illustration leaving only the one you are working on open (so you can see all nested layers that compose this specific area of the work). This reduces the visual clutter of the layers tree structure and means you don´t have to scroll the layer gallery to go to the lowest layers in the gallery.

Check out this topic for a great example of illustration complexity here

[Nostaw]

Nudge the top shapes out of the way to select the lower one. You don't need to move your focus from the drawing while you work and you still get an excellent idea of how changes affect the composited image from the area that remains overlapping, or you can just select the bottom one and slide it back under before you start to work on it. Its probably about the same amount of work as stuffing around with layers, except you don't end up whining that layers are no good.

Indeed, thats workflow that you describe works on 2 overlapping objects. With any more that 5 objects ontop of each other with different transparencies (i usually have more than 5) thats a nightmare to select the right one and modify the effects, then putting it all together to view the composite image to check if everything is as it suppose to be.

For gui designs is simply no workaround other than using layers for mouse over, and click events. Complex looking Mouse Over events could be all in a folder with tons of layers inside creating the mouse over look for example.