> suddenly I am in Kansas, on a very cool project for 2 weeks. I hope you had a good vacation :) >> How about having 100x100 as default when there is no pending >> rectangle and rectangle width x rectangle height when there is one? >> This would be the case for both the selection tools and the crop tool. > > we cannot base the default of fixed size on the current rect, > because it operates on the current rect. This would freeze up > the rect in a positive feedback cycle. > > we can base it on the image size, but that would make no > sense for fixed size. It seems as if quite a lot of people would like there to be a way of fixing the size of a pending rectangle. If we handled the default values of Fixed: Size the same way as for the default values of the Fixed: Aspect ratio entry (i.e. when rubber banding has ended, set the default width/height to the pending rectangle width/height) that would allow people to more intuitively fix the current rectangle. Use case: A user create a rectangle and adjusts size to whatever is the size the user desires in a given context. To avoid accidental resize of the rectangle, the user would like to fix the current size. Since the default values for Fixed: Size are updated to that of the pending rectangle when rubber-banding has ended, the values in the Fixed Size entry are that of the current pending rectangle (if the entry is not in user-overridden mode, of course). So, to fix the current size, the user only have to check the Fixed: Size checkbox. If the user wishes to adjust the size a bit, he/she can simply do that in the Fixed: Size entry. </use case> With defaults always as 100x100, it is annoying to adjust the Fixed: Size since 100x100 is likely to be far from what the current rectangle is. To adjust e.g. only the height, the user would have to manually enter *both* the current values in the Width: and Height: entries, which can be tedious with 4 digit width/height sized rectangles. If we did this like described, there would be no positive feedback cycle freeze, right? Or is it something I am disregarding? To me this sounds as a pretty good way of allowing the users to fix the size - Martin _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
