W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Gradient syntax proposal

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:29:50 -0700
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7D94999A-5FD4-4304-BF81-C610778D6114@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Aug 15, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> I dunno, maybe Photoshop's gradient tool really is different from the
> GIMPs.  It's really easy for me to think of it like that, based on my
> experiences with the gradient brush.

Not really. Think about dragging the gradient tool from the bottom- 
right corner to the upper-left. When you let the mouse up, its after  
you've dragged a DISTANCE, so distance is a natural way to think about  
it, not horizontal and vertical coordinates. And if you snap to a  
corner, then you are still thinking in terms of the corner, not the 2  
sides that meet at that corner. If you stop 10% away from that corner  
(90% from the first corner), then it is still one distance to that  
corner, not two.

Even if the angle you are drawing does not intersect a corner, you  
could pretty much always get the exact same gradient by moving to a  
different starting point. So there is no need for the extra complexity  
in the grammar. There is much value to me in keeping the grammar simple.

PhotoShop also can create vector boxes in which the gradient  
automatically fills the box completely, even when you resize the box  
(or you can clear a check-mark if you don't want that). It fills the  
whole box, corner to corner, but I believe you can still use the  
gradient tool on it to start and stop other distances from where it  
would normally (maybe the checkbox gets cleared when you do that: I  
don't recall). But no need for "inner", and I never heard of people  
missing that.
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 16:30:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT