GregoryCCB

In FW I can add textures to any vector shape via a dropdown menu and a percent slider. I have seen several tutorials on importing my own texture images and applying them to a layer in AD, but that is a bit of a hassle, even if it offers more flexibility. I'm all about ease of use, and switching back and forth between AD and FW to take advantages of the strengths of each program is a pain. This is one of those features that I need to switch to FW for, so it would be great if I could do it *easily* in AD.

Thanks Walt! That's some workflow! I never would have figured it out on my own. Especially the dragging part for the eye dropper. So, at the point I have the color sub-panel showing, there are 4 eye-dropper icons on the screen at once. Amazing! Thanks again! Gregory

I know this thread deviated some from the original eye dropper question, but I again need help using the eye dropper tool in the toolbar - not the eye dropper fill tool in the color panel. I am trying to cover up something in a photo by covering it with a shape and matching the gradient in the shape to the gradient of the surrounding image. In Fireworks, anytime I use the color panel, it has its own eyedropper that allows me to sample pixels anywhere in the image without losing the actual function for which I need the color. In AD, I use the gradient tool, click on the start circle for the gradient, and I don't have access to an eye dropper. If I click on the eye dropper, I lose the gradient altogether, and it just fills the whole shape with the selected color. Clicking back on the gradient tool shows that I have no gradient applied, and I have to start over. That's what drew me to try the eye dropper icon in the color panel in the first place. But since that is actually a fill tool, it doesn't meet my need. Is there any way to sample pixels in an image while creating a gradient?

I don't really understand the actual function well enough to advise on an icon, but from I see in this thread, it's more of a fill function. Eye dropper has such a strong convention for sampling, and the bucket such a strong convention for filling, that it seems more suitable for a bucket icon than an eye dropper. To LondonSquirrel's point, their functions in the real world are almost moot at this point. The only place I have ever used an eye dropper is in SW; not the real world, so we have to look to SW conventions rather than real world function to determine what is most intuitive to users. BUT, if the fill function in the color panel is different from the fill function in the toolbar, then you can't use the same bucket icon in both places. But a variation on the bucket might work. That's where my lack of understanding of the finer details of the function prevents me from helping further - I'm not sure how the buckets would differ to provide maximum information to the user on their specific purposes. But a small visual difference may be enough (rainbow bucket?).

Sorry I wasn't clear. As Psenda mentioned, it's the icons that are identical. It's a UX no-no to put the same label on two different functions. Icons serve the same function as labels. So PRINT in one location shouldn't be a different implementation than PRINT in another location. Likewise, an Eye Dropper icon in one location shouldn't have a different implementation than the same Eye Dropper icon in another location. If they worked exactly the same, it would be fine. But as it stands, the user needs to memorize their different functions, with little on-screen support in that memorization effort. To be fair, Affinity isn't the least usable graphics program out there - one reason I bought it is that the Adobe stuff is among the least usable SW ever produced. But I do think we should hold ALL SW to much higher standards of usability than we currently do. As a human factors engineer, it is my job to design my company's user interfaces so that they are intuitive and memorable, and it angers me to have to use SW that is clearly lacking in that department.

Can I just point out how horrible the usability is in this software, where you have two identical tools with opposite functions in different locations? UX anyone?

+1 on the help files skipping the most important part - how to find the tool or panel. They all start explaining how to use the sliders and such FROM THE POINT that you already have found the function and have the panel open or tool selected. As a long-time graphic application user, I don't need help files to learn basic tool use; I need them to learn about the way Affinity organizes its tools. Very difficult to find stuff in this program, and the help files are useless in that regard. Thank goodness for forum helpers!

+1 for me. Since there seems to be confusion about what is being requested, I want the same feature that Fireworks calls Trim Canvas and Illustrator calls "Fit to Artwork Bounds". I just started using the AD trial as I need to dump Adobe, but can't switch without this 1-click feature.