The snapping-to-grid is absolutely shocking (in Xara Xtremem Pro5)

[shiphen]

[I tried to add a post about this issue this morning, but I can't see it - apologies if I have submitted twice!]

As a long-term user and fan of Xara (and currently a user of Xara Xtreme Pro 5), I was appalled to discover that the snapping of Xara is exceedingly counter intuitive.

For example I am trying to create "brick wall" design (with the borders of the rectangles forming the "cement" between the "bricks", it turns out the the snapping rules when first creating a rectangle are completely different from the rules when you are resizing (using the Selector tool).

See attached Xara file.

Basically when you first create a rectangle, the borders of the shape are ignored, and the Xara snaps as if there are no borders. Fair enough, but as soon as you try to resize, Xara now snaps to the OUTSIDE of the borders, and refuses to snap back to the original snap-location. And if you have a shape with thick borders (e.g. say 8pt) this can be MILES off.

Xara is such brilliant software in many ways... but Xara, you really do need to get the basics right!

I dont really care HOW Xara snaps, but why can't Xara do the intuitively obvious thing of snapping in the same way both when a shape is created an when it is adjusted?

(If necessary have both levels of snapping working at once??)




Ship

P.S. Another thing is when are we going to get lines who's arrow heads stop at the end of a line, rather than some unknown distance beyond it. It's very frustrating to create a line to a particular point and then have to completly move the end after you add a arrow head. And worse, after an arrow head has been added, if you change the line thickness the damned point of the arrow moves too!

[masque]

Hi
The way I did it was to create a rectangle and apply the required line thickness. I then converted the outline to a shape and created a new rectangle to sit behind to contain the fill. These were grouped. The edge of the brick will now snap to guides or each other and allow you to build a wall with the required size brick very quickly.
Derek

[Xhris]

Snapping is also affected by the Scale Line Widths (SLW) feature. Turn this off to make resizing snapping behave like first-drawing-snapping. When off, line widths are ignored in some operations.

For a while now I've recommended that Scale Line Widths be renamed to "include line widths" because it's not just scaling that is affected by the button. In general, if the button is active, various operations either affect (scaling) or are affected by the line widths (snapping/measurement), and the button indicates whether they will be included in resulting changes.

For further information about the SLW feature and snapping, see my associated tutorial.

[Xcellent]

It's interesting to see other users had the same problem as me a while back.

I only found out in this forum that the icon "Scale Line Widths" impacts on scaling and on snapping to the grid years ago. This icon has actually two functions combined into one, which should be really two seperate buttons!

When "Scale Line Widths" is enabled, it does:

1) Automatically adjust the line witdh when objects are scaled up/down.
2) Ignores the line witdh on the grid, just snaps to the filled part of the shape. To snap to the grid using the line thickness of any shape, "Scale Line Widths" needs to be switched off. Confusing stuff..

There should be really two buttons instead:
"Scale Line Widths" (to only turn function 1 on/off)
"Snap Line Width to Grid" (NEW button - to turn function 2 on/off)

[Odat]

As a developer, I can see the logic in using the button for both items, since if the line width will be scaled when the object is, it shouldn't also be used to calculate the size of the object.

However I agree 100% that the effect is unintuitive if you're not used to it, and poorly named, as Xhris mentioned.

[Xcellent]

Odate, to me, there are two non-related things happening in one button:

It scales the line width when switched on.
It snaps to line width only when switched off.

How does scaling and snapping relate to each other?

It's almost like someone has been to lazy to add another icon/button

[steve.ledger]

At odds with others, I find it suits my logic.
It makes sense to not include the line widths in the overall object dimensions box and not to snap to the line outside edge when SLW is off, it snaps instead at the centre line of the line thickness which is in fact the edge of the fill.
Enable SLW and the line thickness is included in the object overal dimensions and snapping then happens at the line edge because it has become part of the dimensioning calculation..

This is also explained in the help file.

[slavelle]

I find that the whole snap to grid is wierd, regardless of whether you have scale line widths on or off.

It's my opinion that if I have an integer sized and placed object, and I have snap to grid on, set to snap at 1px, I should be able to only place or size to whole numbered grid spots.

I can create an object without an outline, place and size to integer, turn off SLW, and still resize to non-integer pixel sizes. To me, this shouldn't happen. I've taken out the ability for the outline to scale and it will still allow me to have an object with non-integer location and size.

I have found that the only way to get something to stay integer in this case is to ALSO unlock the aspect ratio. Makes sense, but it's not exactly intuitive. IOW, as soon as I turn on SLW or make the aspect ratio of an object locked, all bets are off regarding the grid. I mean, it should either be forced to snap or not.

This is important stuff when you are creating buttons and such that you want to export as a single object which is reused through a site. If I resize or move something (or a group of somethings) with the grid turned on, I don't feel like I should then have to select each individual object to make sure that it did what I would have expected. And if you don't keep up with it, you wind up exporting all sorts of objects that are effectively (and were meant to be) the same.

I guess what I'm saying is that SNAP should rule. If you have it on, it means you want things snapped to the fixed grid.

Just my $.02

[handrawn]

I guess what I'm saying is that SNAP should rule. If you have it on, it means you want things snapped to the fixed grid.

Just my $.02

you are right in that one must take precedence over the other, but I reckon it is right the way it is

because forcing a skew in the fixed aspect ratio in order to force the snap would transform the object - ie: make a physical change to it, and I am sure I would not want that on the fly

[Odat]

Odate, to me, there are two non-related things happening in one button:

It scales the line width when switched on.
It snaps to line width only when switched off.

How does scaling and snapping relate to each other?

It's almost like someone has been to lazy to add another icon/button

For me it has less to do with snapping explicitly and more the logic behind the outline of the shape being treated as a part of the actual shape or not.

As I mentioned, I like the way it works but like Xhris, I think the button should be renamed, since it's impact is to more than just whether line widths scale along with the shape or not.