Bring back Layer on/off checkboxes

[MoonaticDestiny]

Can we please bring back the checkmark boxes for the layers. I dont know why they were changed to circles. Who asked for this? No one told serif to change this. Nobody requested this. Dont fix whats not broken. Now we're having these debates about this new on/off circle icon that we shouldnt even be having. And theres bearly any contrast with this new circle on/off icon. When you turn off the layer its this dark gray circle on dark gray. Its just hard to see. Like, a checkmark is a good indicator to tell if a layer is on or off. Why change it? 

Theres also an issue on AD v2 on ipad where the new on/off circles in the layers vanish. Theres no button to turn your layer on or off. I have to close the app and reopen it. 

 

Ugh! Like, this seriously was the least of our problems. I go back to AD v1 on ipad and Im back to how it used to be. My problem is solved. I have my checkmark box in my layers but then I look up and realize that theres a bunch of affinity users debating about an on/off icon in v2. Why? Why are we debating over something that was never a problem? Now a problem has been creating for nothing and our energy is going towards it. 

[Pšenda]

Personally, I have no problem with dots to indicate Activity and Visibility, I would just suggest using solid and hollow dots to indicate ON and OFF status, not brightness of dots.

Solid/hollow dot is a visually understandable and unambiguous, and also saves space in the Layers panel (thanks for that).

[iuli]

+1 for checkmark boxes back to iPad as well.  Either that or please make them bigger. 

[Designer1234]

Personally i really like these dots. However perhaps that's right they could have some contour in unchecked state to locate them easier. 

[WhiteX]

Checkmark, empty circle, or colored circle. I always think everything is disabled on the export persona. The difference between active and inactive items is too subtle, it makes my brain work unnecessarily to process this information. This needs some improvement.

[kirk23]

Couldn't care less about dots vs checkboxes

[WhiteX]

1 hour ago, kirk23 said:

Couldn't care less about dots vs checkboxes

It's not the shape of the elements. It's the lack of contrast and distinguishability of active and disabled state.

[VectorVonDoom_NoMore]

It makes absolutely no difference when you’re working with it rather than gazing at screen shots. I personally would have stuck with ticks but it’s a non-issue.

[Designer1234]

But difference between active and inactive state is huge... The only problem IMHO can be low contrast between inactive state and the background - that's why adding a contour to inactive dots could be helpful.

[Pšenda]

On 11/14/2022 at 11:23 AM, Designer1234 said:

But difference between active and inactive state is huge...

The difference between the states is really big, but only if you have a direct comparison with the surroundings - for example, with layers in the ON state, or with layer names with a user-defined name.


However, if all the surrounding/visible layers are also in the OFF state, and the layer names are in the default naming (which again incorrectly reduce the intensity of the text *1), then the mentioned "difference" is problematic - it is not unambiguous, and that's about it you need to think - it's not easy to recognize at first glance.

 

*1) I understand that it is appropriate to differentiate the default/auto-defined layer name from the user-specified one, but reducing the intensity for this is definitely not appropriate. Decreasing the intensity is used to indicate a disabled state, when the control element cannot be controlled,
 

and to indicate an inactive state, e.g. tab for hidden/inactive panels.

To differentiate the default/automatically defined layer name, for example, italics would be more appropriate.

 

Also, the size of elements and their descriptions is inconsistent and unbalanced.
For example, here the Opacity in the Layers panel compared to the other descriptions.

 

[bsx]

On 11/13/2022 at 11:55 PM, MoonaticDestiny said:

Can we please bring back the checkmark boxes for the layers

 

On 11/14/2022 at 9:11 AM, WhiteX said:

The difference between active and inactive items is too subtle, it makes my brain work unnecessarily to process this information. This needs some improvement.

 

Please bring back the checkboxes in V2. I have now all V2 applications in the light UI style, because only there the difference is well recognizable. in the dark design I do not see whether a layer is active.

In the Layer Effects area the checkboxes are present in V2.

[deeds]

2 hours ago, bsx said:

Please bring back the checkboxes in V2. I have now all V2 applications in the light UI style, because only there the difference is well recognizable. in the dark design I do not see whether a layer is active.

In the Layer Effects area the checkboxes are present in V2.

Brilliant, and exactly!

 

These 'dots' are a pretty odd visual symbol and regression for one of the most used functionalities in the entire product line.

Instead of changing these to a dot, using the exact same boxes as used for Layer Effect state would have been far wiser use of time and consistently useful, perhaps even freeing up some developer time for truly useful Layer features:

Is it possible to hold down a modifier and drag across multiple layers to activate/deactivate?

Can Layer State Sets be saved?

Is there a shortcut for "isolate" and "un-isolate" any currently selected Layer? 

[krbo]

Bring us checkmarks back!

Bring us checkmarks back!

Bring us checkmarks back!

 

[Designer1234]

OK, perhaps all disabled layers with default names can be misleading, but when you open your first doc you immediately learn how active layer indicator looks like. However I think I understand what you tried to show and generally I agree that adding contours to the dots can be helpful (which you don't as I understand ). 

Still, I don't agree that dots (also with contours) are inaccurate because of some "radio button principle"  or just because checkboxes were more common 20 years ago  

As for the layers - I my opinion grayed out default names are 1000% correct because in such configuration named layers become easier to distinguish and you can add some hierarchy to them: named are more important thus highlighted and easier to find on the list.

On the other hand - It won't be a disaster if checkboxes are restored. I just think that dots works well too 

[Pšenda]

21 minutes ago, Designer1234 said:

However I think I understand what you tried to show and generally I agree that adding contours to the dots can be helpful (which you don't as I understand ). 

Unfortunately, it is not clear whose post you are responding to, but from the text you could assume that it was mine. But then I do not at all understand your impression that I do not understand the principle of solid and hollow dots, when I myself proposed it!

[François R]

Let's just remember in the heat of battle that these checkmarks were cursed to hell in much user feedback over the years, so there are divided opinions on how it should work.

I prefer the classic eye/eye with line through as it creates consistency across applications from all vendors. And by the way, I don't bother discussing that, it's my preference and the de facto standard over decades. A checkmark just signals... more.

I'm fine with the v2 solution by the way. Just prefer standards or de fact standards.

[Designer1234]

32 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

But then I do not at all understand your impression that I do not understand the principle of solid and hollow dots, when I myself proposed it!

Oh, sorry, It seems I've mixed two posts of different users  as well as dots and text labels cases . Indeed, you actually wrote about contoured dots as a first person here! 
So it seems we agree on this, and I also like the fact the dots compact. 

[Eusebiu Oprinoiu]

I want the checkbox back as well.
Color and opacity should never be the only way to differentiate between states. This is a fundamental rule when building accessible interfaces.
Many people have visual deficiencies or one form or another of color blindness.
A good state indicator uses different shapes to distinguish between different states. And the boring old checkbox is perfect for this.

[Pšenda]

On 11/14/2022 at 11:23 AM, Designer1234 said:

But difference between active and inactive state is huge...

I will just add a situation in which it is clear that the coding of the "status" (on/off, active/inactive) into the intensity of control element, into which is also coded the standard option of editing the status (enable/disable), is completely inappropriate.
Let's have a Master page with active and inactive layers. Layers are allowed to change state, and the difference in intensity is apparent.

But if we use this master page, then in the Layers panel these elements are not editable (they are disabled), and therefore their intensity is suppressed.
Then four different states/intensities need to be displayed.

If they are displayed like this right next to each other, it is possible to distinguish the state and editability of the element, but if the elements are far from each other, or if not all of them are displayed in the Layers panel, then the unambiguous determination of the state of the element is problematic.

P.S. coding two properties into a control's intensity is just a very bad concept.

 

[Twolane]

On 11/14/2022 at 5:08 AM, N.P.M. said:

Preferences>User Interface> set the UI contrast to high

Thanks for reminding me about that setting. I would never have remembered.

[fde101]

 

EDIT: "Printer" should probably have been "output" as it would obviously include export as well...

[Intuos5]

On 11/14/2022 at 12:11 AM, Pšenda said:

Personally, I have no problem with dots to indicate Activity and Visibility, I would just suggest using solid and hollow dots to indicate ON and OFF status, not brightness of dots.

Solid/hollow dot is a visually understandable and unambiguous, and also saves space in the Layers panel (thanks for that).

I think solid and hollow dots should instead be reserved for handles to drag layer content with, like in Illustrator. That would help not having to dig into nested layers and to show where selected objects are selected from when performing a Select > Same operation. Currently, this entire process of seeing selections is rather hidden from view in the Layers studio.