Designer: How are you supposed to resize multiple objects?

[Stokestack]

I have two similar objects and wanted to resize them both (they are already the same size).

But when you select two objects, the dimensions in the Transform panel don't reflect the size of the objects; they reflect the size of the bounding box that encloses them. I don't expect or want that behavior. What is the expected procedure to resize multiple objects?

Thanks.

 

[Gear maker]

8 minutes ago, Stokestack said:

I have two similar objects and wanted to resize them both (they are already the same size).

Select both (all) objects you want resized.  Then in the move tool's context toolbar there is an icon Transform Objects Separately, click this.  The bounding box will only show on one object but if you use it to change the one object they all will change.

[Stokestack]

On 8/20/2021 at 2:39 PM, Gear maker said:

Select both (all) objects you want resized.  Then in the move tool's context toolbar there is an icon Transform Objects Separately, click this.  The bounding box will only show on one object but if you use it to change the one object they all will change.

Thanks, but I don't see this anywhere. Oh wait... now that I've rolled over and waited for the ToolTip on every cryptic icon... here's the "transform objects separately" one. Why on earth would anyone guess that this option exists, and then start hovering over every widget on the screen looking for it?

And why would I want this to be an option rather than the default? How many times do you want to select objects on the canvas and get a useless set of dimensions in the Transform pane and alter them? I want to set the dimensions of the objects, not of an arbitrary bounding box.

[GarryP]

Why would you assume that everyone wanted to transform all the selected objects separately, by default?
You’ve apparently been using the software for quite a few years and, since this is the first time you have asked for such functionality, I would guess that you’ve been using the software without knowledge of such functionality and, therefore, have been transforming objects together – as opposed to separately – until now and have not had any complaints about it.
So why complain now about something that you have been using for years without complaint?

Aside: If you think the icon isn’t good/clear enough then you could put forward your own design and see what people think about it.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Stokestack said:

Oh wait... now that I've rolled over and waited for the ToolTip on every cryptic icon..

Perhaps you should adjust the Tooltip speed in your application Preferences, so you don't have to wait.

[Stokestack]

Thanks for the replies. I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on encountering behavior in an app and bringing it up. It actually is surprising that I didn't encounter this before.

Quote

Why would you assume that everyone wanted to transform all the selected objects separately, by default?

I wouldn't, especially since I was trying to do the opposite. The terminology used in the UI here doesn't even make sense.

What's more likely: that the user, when selecting independent objects, wants to adjust their characteristics... or that he wants to adjust the characteristics of the bounding box that just happens to be necessary to encompass them all on the canvas?

It would make perfect sense to show the overall dimensions of the group of objects if they were grouped. But they're not.

[Gear maker]

3 hours ago, Stokestack said:

It would make perfect sense to show the overall dimensions of the group of objects if they were grouped. But they're not.

But they are grouped by your selection.

10 hours ago, Stokestack said:

And why would I want this to be an option rather than the default? How many times do you want to select objects on the canvas and get a useless set of dimensions in the Transform pane and alter them? I want to set the dimensions of the objects, not of an arbitrary bounding box.

If you select 5 objects of different sized parts what dimension do you think it should show?  Would you have it show the dimension of the first, last, smallest or largest object selected?  No, the overall dimension is shown unless the Transform Objects Separately is selected.  Then it just defaults to showing the bounding box for the first item.  It can only show one item and that is what was selected.  If they are the same size then it makes sense.  But yes if you are trying to change the size of multiple different sized objects using the Transform Objects Separately you will really be out of luck to do each accurately in one change.

[Stokestack]

Quote

But they are grouped by your selection.

Nope. They're disparate objects that are all selected. The current default scaling method pretends that there's some significance to the size of the bounding box needed to enclose them all, which is a groundless assumption. An arbitrary region on the canvas across which objects are scattered is not a "thing" to be resized. Its dimensions are typically meaningless. If they were grouped, that group would have dimensions.

Quote

If you select 5 objects of different sized parts what dimension do you think it should show?

The same thing every other application shows when you select objects with differing values for a property: a blank field, into which you're free to type something in order to apply the value to all selected items. This tells you in an instant that the objects aren't the same size (or color, or font...), which is useful information.

But of course, Designer doesn't do that; if you have the "transform objects separately" button on, it shows the dimensions of the last thing you clicked. I considered whether this was useful, but it doesn't appear to be: You can't make the other objects the same size as the last one you clicked by re-entering the displayed dimensions.

[telemax]

You can support this request:

 

 

[Stokestack]

Thanks for that reference. Done.

[R C-R]

7 hours ago, Stokestack said:

The current default scaling method pretends that there's some significance to the size of the bounding box needed to enclose them all, which is a groundless assumption.

The significance is that everything enclosed within the bounding box will be transformed as a unit according to how the bounding box is transformed. That includes moving, scaling, rotating, & shearing.

It is something many of us use frequently.

[Stokestack]

48 minutes ago, R C-R said:

The significance is that everything enclosed within the bounding box will be transformed as a unit according to how the bounding box is transformed. That includes moving, scaling, rotating, & shearing.

It is something many of us use frequently.

Really? You do that by typing numbers into the Transform panel?

[R C-R]

11 hours ago, Stokestack said:

Really? You do that by typing numbers into the Transform panel?

Yes, I do that, & I also use the scrub function on the field names; the mouse wheel scroll function; & expressions to change those numbers.

[Stokestack]

On 8/23/2021 at 10:40 PM, BofG said:

If it did that I would have to look for different software to use. The transform panel information is essential for my workflow.

Nobody proposed getting rid of that information. Currently it doesn't show you information about the objects you selected; it shows you misleading information, about the last one you happened to click.

On 8/24/2021 at 9:34 AM, R C-R said:

Yes, I do that, & I also use the scrub function on the field names; the mouse wheel scroll function; & expressions to change those numbers.

You select several objects on different parts of the canvas and resize them by typing new dimensions for the bounding box around all of them? I'm legitimately interested in hearing why this is such a common use case for you.

[Stokestack]

What information are you worried about losing?

[R C-R]

6 minutes ago, Stokestack said:

You select several objects on different parts of the canvas and resize them by typing new dimensions for the bounding box around all of them? I'm legitimately interested in hearing why this is such a common use case for you.

It is just a part of a typical workflow for me. There are several different reasons why I might do this, most often because I want to resize some part of my project as a unit to preserve the relative space between them while changing their overall size or aspect ratio, & to take advantage of certain snapping options while doing so. Besides, like I said, this also applies to rotation & shearing, not just to resizing.

Also, keep in mind that depending on the objects selected & how they have been created or transformed, we can cycle among different selection box types to get control handles that allow resizing in different directions.

[Stokestack]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

It is just a part of a typical workflow for me. There are several different reasons why I might do this, most often because I want to resize some part of my project as a unit to preserve the relative space between them while changing their overall size or aspect ratio, & to take advantage of certain snapping options while doing so. Besides, like I said, this also applies to rotation & shearing, not just to resizing.

Also, keep in mind that depending on the objects selected & how they have been created or transformed, we can cycle among different selection box types to get control handles that allow resizing in different directions.

You seem to be talking about resizing with handles, not by typing a numeric value for an edge of the all-encompassing bounding box. No?

[R C-R]

9 minutes ago, Stokestack said:

You seem to be talking about resizing with handles, not by typing a numeric value for an edge of the all-encompassing bounding box. No?

Again, as I have said more than once now, sometimes I resize by typing a field value directly into the Transform panel, but also sometimes by scrubbing the pointer over the name of the field (like W, S, or R), or by using the mouse wheel method. I occasionally use paste to avoid retyping an expression I happen to have copied to the clipboard.

But sometimes instead I do resizing by dragging a control handle on the canvas.

All these methods work the same way to do the same thing so I am not sure why you are asking about it.

[Stokestack]

18 minutes ago, R C-R said:

All these methods work the same way to do the same thing so I am not sure why you are asking about it.

So if you have four objects scattered around the canvas that you want to be the same size, you often accomplish that by typing a new dimension value for the bounding box that surrounds them all? And you contend that this is more common than wanting to select a bunch of objects and make sure they're the same size by directly entering the size for each one all at once?

I'm interested in what kind of illustration makes that workflow so important.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, Stokestack said:

So if you have four objects scattered around the canvas that you want to be the same size, you often accomplish that by typing a new dimension value for the bounding box that surrounds them all?

That is not something I often want to do. But when I do want to do that I usually just select each of them with the Move Tool, enable Transform Objects Separately, & use any of the methods I mentioned to change (for instance) the W field in the Transform panel to the new dimension I want, & do the same in (for instance) the H field. 

This works because with Transform Objects Separately enabled, the Transform panel shows the dimensions of the last object I selected, not of the selection box around all of them, but the new dimensions are applied individually to all of them. Yes, it requires more steps than if there was a one button option to change them all to the same size, & I have to know both dimensions I want to set all of them to, but since I do usually know that & it isn't something I do frequently, it isn't much of an issue for me.

I don't have any problems with this being a feature request; it is just not very high on the list of features I personally want to see added.

[Stokestack]

Thanks for your reply.

I do often want to make sure objects match, or change numerous items' sizes exactly when I find that I need to reallocate real estate in my design. I suspect that it's a pretty common situation, which Designer makes a pain in several ways. And really, it doesn't even work reliably or consistently. This problem has long been solved in other applications. Here's an illustration of the issue.

[R C-R]

14 hours ago, Stokestack said:

And really, it doesn't even work reliably or consistently.

Actually, it does work reliably but not the way I thought it did (sorry!) or the way you want it to.

What happens with Transform Objects Separately enabled is changing the width or height in the transform panel of the object outlined by a selection box is the other selected objects are just transformed proportionally, not to the same absolute values.

So for example, if there are 2 rectangles selected, one 100 x 50 px & the other 50 x 25 px, & the latter one is changed to 100 x 50, a scale factor of 2, the other one is set to 200 x 100 px, likewise the same scale factor of 2.

[Stokestack]

OK, so the answer is you can't set the dimensions of multiple objects at once.

That is pathetic. And the behavior you've discovered is straight-up preposterous.

[R C-R]

4 hours ago, Stokestack said:

And the behavior you've discovered is straight-up preposterous.

Actually, it is something that if I remember correctly was something some users were asking for before the Transform Objects Separately option was implemented.

[Stokestack]

I'm sure users were clamoring for the most obscure possible resizing functionality on the planet.