Pencil stroke properties

[artokmt]

How stroke properties panel works with pencil tool? I expect it works same as brushes. When I set width in Document Defaults panel width in stroke panel changes different sizes. And Document Defaults panel doesn't remember size variance and opacity when you back to panel.

[Sean P]

Hi artokmt,

Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure what the issue you're encountering is. Would you be able to add a screen recording that demonstrates the issue please? This will make things much easier for us to understand what you're seeing!

[artokmt]

3 hours ago, Sean P said:

Hi artokmt,

Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure what the issue you're encountering is. Would you be able to add a screen recording that demonstrates the issue please? This will make things much easier for us to understand what you're seeing!

I put video in my YouTube channel:

 

[JET_Affinity]

It seems to me that artokmt seems to be expecting the various settings for path strokes to work, regardless of which path drawing tool (Pencil or Brush) is selected.

And frankly, I agree. If I'm correct in my reading of the post and the video, I consider this a case-in-point of my argument that an entirely better—more intuitive and elegant—than the current standard fare is possible and long overdue.

And I know that this is a discussion for feature requests, not for beta bugs. But here we have an example of someone interpreting bad interface design as a bug.

Graphics software so often tries to mimic pre-computer physical tools in its interface. But bad metaphors seem to become an assumed 'standard' so things that should get better, don't.

In my real world, brushes and pencils are tools used for making marks. They are not the marks themselves. Calling the plethora of settings for different  kinds of marks that reside in the typical 'brushes palette' interface is a skewed and needlessly cockeyed metaphor.

When describing how I would like to see an innovative program move beyond the typically scattered, cluttered, confused collections of disconnected ad-hoc features that seem unaware of each other because they were piled on and on in ad-hoc fashion througout their history (Illustrator being a worse-case example), I say it like this:

Forget the 'natural media' metaphor for a few minutes. The heart and soul of vector based software is paths. Paths have strokes. Paths have ends. Strokes can be plain, or vary in thickness, or have objects (stored as Symbols) spaced along them. Path ends can be arrows or balls or ellipses or whatever (i.e., objects stored as Symbols). Paths can be open or closed, filled or unfilled. Paths have a direction. They can be simple or compound. We're 35 years into this. We who use vector software know these things. Why do we need to continue to constrain their interface into a rather strained metaphor of physical pencils and brushes and 'natural media'?

Path tools are merely that: TOOLs. Implements for drawing paths that just behave a little differently. E.g., you have one that you just drag. You have another that plots nodes. But the tools just create the paths. All the embellishments and attributes of paths should be applicable to any path. And they should be as integrated with each other as possible. An arrowhead is just a graphic that can be attached to the end of a path. Why does it need an interface entirely different from Symbols? Why can't I just attach anything I store as a Symbol to the end of a path, just like I do an arrowhead. Why is it necessary, or even desirable, to have Arrowheads and Symbols implemented as completely different feature sets that don't seem to know each other exists? And so on, with other disjointed features and attributes.

Metaphors break down. They become outdated. They become unnecessary. For one little example, how many Photoshop users have ever used a real-world Dodge Tool? How many even know what it is and what it does?

Vector drawing is already its own medium. It has been for decades. Logical integration of features can make them vastly more versatile and powerful than the standard-fare.

JET

[Sean P]

19 hours ago, artokmt said:

I put video in my YouTube channel:

Thanks for video artokmt,

The properties button on the Stroke Panel will only adjust the stroke for the currently selected shape. To modify the actual Tool's settings you can use the Context Toolbar.

1 hour ago, JET_Affinity said:

It seems to me that artokmt seems to be expecting the various settings for path strokes to work, regardless of which path drawing tool (Pencil or Brush) is selected.

And frankly, I agree. If I'm correct in my reading of the post and the video, I consider this a case-in-point of my argument that an entirely better—more intuitive and elegant—than the current standard fare is possible and long overdue.

And I know that this is a discussion for feature requests, not for beta bugs. But here we have an example of someone interpreting bad interface design as a bug.

Graphics software so often tries to mimic pre-computer physical tools in its interface. But bad metaphors seem to become an assumed 'standard' so things that should get better, don't.

In my real world, brushes and pencils are tools used for making marks. They are not the marks themselves. Calling the plethora of settings for different  kinds of marks that reside in the typical 'brushes palette' interface is a skewed and needlessly cockeyed metaphor.

When describing how I would like to see an innovative program move beyond the typically scattered, cluttered, confused collections of disconnected ad-hoc features that seem unaware of each other because they were piled on and on in ad-hoc fashion througout their history (Illustrator being a worse-case example), I say it like this:

Forget the 'natural media' metaphor for a few minutes. The heart and soul of vector based software is paths. Paths have strokes. Paths have ends. Strokes can be plain, or vary in thickness, or have objects (stored as Symbols) spaced along them. Path ends can be arrows or balls or ellipses or whatever (i.e., objects stored as Symbols). Paths can be open or closed, filled or unfilled. Paths have a direction. They can be simple or compound. We're 35 years into this. We who use vector software know these things. Why do we need to continue to constrain their interface into a rather strained metaphor of physical pencils and brushes and 'natural media'?

Path tools are merely that: TOOLs. Implements for drawing paths that just behave a little differently. E.g., you have one that you just drag. You have another that plots nodes. But the tools just create the paths. All the embellishments and attributes of paths should be applicable to any path. And they should be as integrated with each other as possible. An arrowhead is just a graphic that can be attached to the end of a path. Why does it need an interface entirely different from Symbols? Why can't I just attach anything I store as a Symbol to the end of a path, just like I do an arrowhead. Why is it necessary, or even desirable, to have Arrowheads and Symbols implemented as completely different feature sets that don't seem to know each other exists? And so on, with other disjointed features and attributes.

Metaphors break down. They become outdated. They become unnecessary. For one little example, how many Photoshop users have ever used a real-world Dodge Tool? How many even know what it is and what it does?

Vector drawing is already its own medium. It has been for decades. Logical integration of features can make them vastly more versatile and powerful than the standard-fare.

JET

Thank you very much for your feedback! As you say this is more one for Feature Requests so definitely worth sharing your views there if you haven't already!