new point on a path

someone help me asap-

how do you add a new point on an existing path (without breaking the path) in the same way as one does in AppleWorks with the reshape tool

j


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

  1. Press the ‘C’ key or select the Scissors tool.

  2. Hold down the Option key. The ‘cross’ cursor changes from a plain cross to a cross with a plus.

  3. Click on the path.

After adding the point, Intaglio reverts back to the Selection tool.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

This is one of my big problems with Intaglio, there is so much functionality buried amongst modification keys. If I switch software (I need to use Canvas for some of my work) then when I get back, I find I have forgotten everything.

There should be some sort of way of accessing every function without having to remember a keyboard modifier. Canvas does it really well with proper contextual menus. Use the selection tool and whatsit-click on a path, and you really do get a list of everything you could do with a path at that location. Whatsit-click on a point, and you get a different menu.

Related to this, is there an easy way to convert a tangent point to a cusp or vice-versa, and how do I delete a control handle? [I can remember that tab-drag adds one, but this is awkward, and I sometimes find it changes some of the curve.]


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

LOL!

And SketchUp, and Photoshop, and ViaCAD, and…

Much of a muchness. I might have to use that statement as a signature!

I agree with you, absolutely. Perhaps it’s because I am 42, and
therefore getting old and decrepit?! Either way, menu driven, erm,
menus slow me down. There is a lot to be said for WYSIWYG type
interfaces- like that of the front of a control panel (cooker,
microwave oven, dashboard etc)- if, say, a standard is followed.

On 23 Sep 2009, at 09:40, Max Roberts wrote:

This is one of my big problems with Intaglio, there is so much
functionality buried amongst modification keys. If I switch software
(I need to use Canvas for some of my work) then when I get back, I
find I have forgotten everything.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

‘…is there an easy way to convert a tangent pointSelect the Point Selection tool.’

Click on a point and press the Option key. The white arrow cursor changes to a Pen.

Select a point and drag the cursor down. Bezier handles extend symmetrically from out of the point.

To move one of the Bezier handles only, choose the Point Selection tool, press the Option key and drag the end of the Bezier handle.

To constrain the movement of the Bezier handle to the horizontal, vertical or 45 degrees, hold down Shift while dragging. This usually creates better curves.

Canvas has some great features, but for me, it’s overly complicated and a pain to use. The contextual menus are great, but when you select a point and choose Cusp, nothing happens. Also, Cusp doesn’t always appear in the contextual menu, so even if you know what it does, you can’t use it…!?. Which of Canvas’ 5 Selection tools do you choose? No, don’t tell me!

As for more icons and symbols—absolutely not! I have no idea what most of the symbols on the dial of my washing machine mean and my car dashboard is a complete mystery; it could have been designed by an alien.

Intaglio is much easier; when drawing a shape, just remember to choose the White arrow (Point Selection tool) and press the Option and Shift keys.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

But when I convert a point to a cust, I just want to break the link between the handles. I don’t want the computer to change the shape of the curve on my behalf, because chances are it won’t get it right.

For some of the maps I design, there is no way Intaglio is an option. Delete a point on a bezier in Intaglio, and you get a mess. Canvas tries to maintain the basic shape of the curve, but with fewer points. With Intaglio, all that shift and option dragging runs the risk of changing the curve shape. I need to add/delete handles and tangent/cusp points with minimal disruption to the shape of the curve.

There are several different pointers in Canvas, but that doesn’t really matter because all you need to do is double click on a curve using the standard pointer, and then you get access to everything with the standard pointer (press escape to deselect the curve). No software does this better.

The result can be something like this:

In usability studies, this map is at least 30% faster for journey planning than the official Paris map.

Or for retro fans:

Which is the current Underground network in teh style of Fred Stingemore, the map designer immediately before Henry Beck changed everything, not intended to be usable, just a bit of fun.

I would guess that adding features to software is a pain, but linking them into the interface is somewhat less of a pain. It would be nice to be able to cater for individual differences in interface preferences. I don’t like keyboard modifiers, but for people who prefer to think that way, they are essential.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

For preserving the shape of a curve after deleting unwanted points, I’ve not found anything better than Fontographer (FOG). You select the unwanted points and select FOG’s ‘Merge Points’ menu item. The unwanted points disappear, but the curves are virtually unchanged. If absolute accuracy is important, just place a copy of the unmodified path on the Template layer and adjust the simplified path.

Being able to add your own features is a nice idea, but as I understand it, interfaces can only be tweaked by the developer of the program. This might explain the popularity of open source programs.

The closest I’ve come to this dort of thing is adding GX features to TrueType fonts. After adding extra characters to a font, you can then access them from your own custom menu in Intaglio, TextEdit and any other app that supports the OSX text engine. When you know how, doing it is reasonably straightforward—it’s just a text file—but finding out how to do it is painful.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

.there is so much functionality buried amongst modification keys.

At the very least we need a good, Sketchup-style downloadable Quick Reference card.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On Sep 24, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Max Roberts wrote:

But when I convert a point to a cust, I just want to break the link
between the handles. I don’t want the computer to change the shape
of the curve on my behalf, because chances are it won’t get it right.

For some of the maps I design, there is no way Intaglio is an
option. Delete a point on a bezier in Intaglio, and you get a mess.
Canvas tries to maintain the basic shape of the curve, but with
fewer points. With Intaglio, all that shift and option dragging
runs the risk of changing the curve shape. I need to add/delete
handles and tangent/cusp points with minimal disruption to the
shape of the curve.

There are several different pointers in Canvas, but that doesn’t
really matter because all you need to do is double click on a curve
using the standard pointer, and then you get access to everything
with the standard pointer (press escape to deselect the curve). No
software does this better.

The result can be something like this:

Unfortunately, this service is no longer available | University of Essex

In usability studies, this map is at least 30% faster for journey
planning than the official Paris map.

I hate it so I must be a retro-fan “sans le savoir” (Disclosure: Born
and raised a Parisian)

I hated every minute I spent with Canvas and thus am immensely
grateful to Intaglio for saving me from Canvas.

So, not an absolute retro-fan

Regards
–schremmer

P.S. Your maps are something else, though.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Yes, so are your posts, alain! Hehe. :wink:

regards,

Tom

On 24 Sep 2009, at 23:15, Alain Schremmer email@hidden
wrote:

P.S. Your maps are something else, though.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On Sep 24, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Tom wrote:

Yes, so are your posts, alain! Hehe. :wink:

regards,

Tom

On 24 Sep 2009, at 23:15, Alain Schremmer
email@hidden wrote:

P.S. Your maps are something else, though

Just to make sure: “something else” is the Philadelphia version
“something truly amazing”


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I hate it so I must be a retro-fan “sans le savoir” (Disclosure: Born
and raised a Parisian)

The really interesting thing is that we conduct objective usability studies, time to plan a specified journey, whether errors were made. But we also collect user ratings: ‘do you like the map?’, ‘do you think it looks easy to use?’, ’ are the lines easy to follow’.

When we look overall, the ratings have nothing to do with how easy a map is to use. In other words, a person might hate a map, but still find it easier to use than one that he prefers. Ditto, a person might love a map that is difficult.


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On Sep 25, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Max Roberts wrote:

I hate it so I must be a retro-fan “sans le savoir” (Disclosure: Born
and raised a Parisian)

The really interesting thing is that we conduct objective usability
studies, time to plan a specified journey, whether errors were
made. But we also collect user ratings: ‘do you like the map?’, ‘do
you think it looks easy to use?’, ’ are the lines easy to follow’.

When we look overall, the ratings have nothing to do with how easy
a map is to use. In other words, a person might hate a map, but
still find it easier to use than one that he prefers. Ditto, a
person might love a map that is difficult.

I am sorry you took me seriously: I was just registering the fact
that this old man is so frozen with his memories he wouldn’t even
want to try it! ;-((

Admiring regards
–schremmer


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

It’s a serious point, but an interesting one, but don’t worry, I have designed so many maps that everyone has their own favourite, and so it doesn’t matter if any individual ones are not popular.

Paris is a great place for map history, that Metro/RER system is too complicated for your own good, completely impossible to map well, going from this:

to this:

With everything in between. The style changes so often that it is not possible to be a traditionalist because there has been no tradition since 1972!

The story is told in this fascinating book:

[Sorry to everything else for going so far o/t]


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

“Hate” is rather a strong word to use. ‘Dislike’ is a better choice of
word.

I am constantly reminding my eldest daughter of this important
distinction.
I think it applies very much on the internet, as it is very easy to
get people’s
“backs up”, if one is to use too strong a word.“Stupid” is another
expression
that often gets overused. “unwise” would be a better term.

The list goes on, and it is very difficult if your tongue is not
native English speaking.
I often think how many people are alienated from the internet, because
their English
grammar is not as good as others. This is a great shame.

On 24 Sep 2009, at 23:15, Alain Schremmer wrote:

I hate it


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On Sep 26, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Tom wrote:

“Hate” is rather a strong word to use. ‘Dislike’ is a better choice
of word.

I am constantly reminding my eldest daughter of this important
distinction.
I think it applies very much on the internet, as it is very easy to
get people’s
“backs up”, if one is to use too strong a word.“Stupid” is another
expression
that often gets overused. “unwise” would be a better term.

I beg to disagree. Had I said “dislike” there would have been no
doubt that I really disliked it, in cold blood, after due process,
etc. Which would have been much more forceful.

I do agree that it is very difficult to be a bit subtle on the web.
But I had said it in a way that I had imagined would make it clear
that it was a gut reaction due to accidental circumstances and
therefore . . . worthless. Not to mention the P.S.

The list goes on, and it is very difficult if your tongue is not
native English speaking.
I often think how many people are alienated from the internet,
because their English
grammar is not as good as others.

I don’t know about my English grammar, but as you can see, I am not
“alienated from the internet”.

Regards
–schremmer


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I have to take Alain’s side in this… respecting his use of the word
“hate” which I understood to be a visceral reaction to the picture
which in me inspired a “wow” and a “hey come take a look at this!!!”
shouted to my beloved in the next room. I can well understand how such
a swirling dynamic mass could engender extreme reaction not least
because of the noise wrought by the huge gray letters of the copyright
notice/ watermark in the background. I think that the use of the word
“hated” in the second sentence was by contrast a well measured
expression of intense dislike.

Speaking of putting copyright notices on pictures one shows on the web
I decided a long time ago not to bother. Some people have used them on
their own websites. Since they were fans and linked back I was
flattered and it’s good for rankings. I’ve even had people rip them
off me to use in advertising their own figure drawing schools and on
top of it hotlinked to the pictures, i.e. stole my bandwidth as well!
Again however because these sites had a good google ranking it
increased my ranking as well so I thought not to make a fuss .
However, I know that the worldwidepanorama people
http://www.worldwidepanorama.org/worldwidepanorama/wwp/index.html
had a problem with a german museum which ripped off their images
wholesale for use in one of their exhibitions without so much as a by
your leave or attribution or anything. This caused the photographers a
lot of unnecessary effort and cash in defending themselves. Thus I can
well understand why one might wish to plaster copyright notices all
over one’s work so as to deter people from stealing it in the first
place. Problem of course is that the image never looks as good with it
as without it.

I love this mailing list.
Great way to wake up on a Sunday morning.
Very best wishes everyone.
Julius

On 27 Sep 2009, at 01:54, Alain Schremmer wrote:

On Sep 26, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Tom wrote:

“Hate” is rather a strong word to use. ‘Dislike’ is a better choice
of word.

I am constantly reminding my eldest daughter of this important
distinction.
I think it applies very much on the internet, as it is very easy to
get people’s
“backs up”, if one is to use too strong a word.“Stupid” is another
expression
that often gets overused. “unwise” would be a better term.

I beg to disagree. Had I said “dislike” there would have been no
doubt that I really disliked it, in cold blood, after due process,
etc. Which would have been much more forceful.

I do agree that it is very difficult to be a bit subtle on the web.
But I had said it in a way that I had imagined would make it clear
that it was a gut reaction due to accidental circumstances and
therefore . . . worthless. Not to mention the P.S.

The list goes on, and it is very difficult if your tongue is not
native English speaking.
I often think how many people are alienated from the internet,
because their English
grammar is not as good as others.

I don’t know about my English grammar, but as you can see, I am not
“alienated from the internet”.

Regards
–schremmer


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

http://juliuspaintings.co.uk


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On Sep 27, 2009, at 8:18 AM, julius wrote:

I have to take Alain’s side in this… respecting his use of the
word “hate” which I understood to be a visceral reaction to the
picture which in me inspired a “wow” and a “hey come take a look at
this!!!” shouted to my beloved in the next room. I can well
understand how such a swirling dynamic mass could engender extreme
reaction not least because of the noise wrought by the huge gray
letters of the copyright notice/ watermark in the background. I
think that the use of the word “hated” in the second sentence was
by contrast a well measured expression of intense dislike.

Well, I am glad that at least some one got it exactly as I meant it.

To tell the truth, for over fifty years, my mathematician wife has
been telling me that I should refrain from making jokes as they
usually turn out to be either very bad or, occasionally, lethal. But
what would be life if one couldn’t take a chance once in a while?

By the way, let me specify, as solemnly as I possibly can, that my
reaction was not to the “swirling dynamic mass” but due to the
aversion to art forms appearing one frequenty acquires after one has
passed one’s prime.

And, in a later post, when I wrote that I could never use it, it was
simply because it would conflict with the map that was imprinted in
my brain over sixty years ago.

Speaking of putting copyright notices on pictures one shows on the
web I decided a long time ago not to bother. Some people have used
them on their own websites. Since they were fans and linked back I
was flattered and it’s good for rankings. I’ve even had people rip
them off me to use in advertising their own figure drawing schools
and on top of it hotlinked to the pictures, i.e. stole my bandwidth
as well! Again however because these sites had a good google
ranking it increased my ranking as well so I thought not to make a
fuss . However, I know that the worldwidepanorama people
The World Wide Panorama
had a problem with a german museum which ripped off their images
wholesale for use in one of their exhibitions without so much as a
by your leave or attribution or anything. This caused the
photographers a lot of unnecessary effort and cash in defending
themselves. Thus I can well understand why one might wish to
plaster copyright notices all over one’s work so as to deter people
from stealing it in the first place. Problem of course is that the
image never looks as good with it as without it.

But there have to be intermediate ways.

Possibly, as with trial software, the image could include a watermark
that appears only after a set time. Or, perhaps, the appearance of
the watermark could be made to be remote-controllable. I also seem to
remember having occasionally encountered images that I was not able
to download, Or, there might be a way to let people use them on their
own website but not print on paper.

More simply, rather than a watermark, why not incorporate in the
image, in the margin or, say, in a corner, a few words to identify
the image or even a url? Moreover, it could probably be coded in such
a way as to require some work to remove—as opposed to just cropped
away, which would then prove intent were it indeed removed.

Regards
–schremmer


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:49, Alain Schremmer wrote:

Possibly, as with trial software, the image could include a
watermark that appears only after a set time. Or, perhaps, the
appearance of the watermark could be made to be remote-controllable.
I also seem to remember having occasionally encountered images that
I was not able to download, Or, there might be a way to let people
use them on their own website but not print on paper.
I have yet to hear of anything like that. Web images are not really
useful for printing as a picture to hang on the wall if encoded at 72
dpi and not bigger than 640 x 480 but I guess would be ok to print on
a t-shirt.

More simply, rather than a watermark, why not incorporate in the
image, in the margin or, say, in a corner, a few words to identify
the image or even a url?
Trim the image and these disappear.
Moreover, it could probably be coded in such a way as to require
some work to remove
electronic watermarks - quite a lot of stock photography sites use
these but they are stamped across the picture
—as opposed to just cropped away, which would then prove intent
were it indeed removed.
Yes, one can include such information in jpegs - in the comments part
of the file and indeed this proved useful to a photographer friend of
mine who’s software inserts his copyright notices and urls into the
jpeg automatically.
all the best
Julius

Regards
–schremmer


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

http://juliuspaintings.co.uk


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:15 AM, julius wrote:

On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:49, Alain Schremmer wrote:

Possibly, as with trial software, the image could include a
watermark that appears only after a set time. Or, perhaps, the
appearance of the watermark could be made to be remote-
controllable. I also seem to remember having occasionally
encountered images that I was not able to download, Or, there
might be a way to let people use them on their own website but not
print on paper.
I have yet to hear of anything like that. Web images are not really
useful for printing as a picture to hang on the wall if encoded at
72 dpi and not bigger than 640 x 480 but I guess would be ok to
print on a t-shirt.

More likely to be “income producing” and more likely to be the case.

More simply, rather than a watermark, why not incorporate in the
image, in the margin or, say, in a corner, a few words to identify
the image or even a url?
Trim the image and these disappear.
Moreover, it could probably be coded in such a way as to require
some work to remove
electronic watermarks - quite a lot of stock photography sites use
these but they are stamped across the picture
—as opposed to just cropped away, which would then prove intent
were it indeed removed.
Yes, one can include such information in jpegs - in the comments
part of the file and indeed this proved useful to a photographer
friend of mine who’s software inserts his copyright notices and
urls into the jpeg automatically.

I didn’t know. But then why isn’t it the solution to the problem?

Well, these were just thoughts I have had no occasion to give any
thought to as I am dealing in texts — and am fortunate in not
having to make a living from them: I just put them on the web under a
GNU Free Documentation License. (And, whatever people do with them,
there is now, to my great stupefaction, almost a thousand downloads a
month.)

Regards
–schremmer


Intaglio mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options