On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Simon Fraser wrote: > I'd be OK dropping angles from linear gradients. You can always get > a fixed > angle by specifying two points in pixel coordinates; what you lose > is the ability > to have a fixed angle gradient that automatically fills the box. I'm > not sure if this > would be a common use case. Sorry, but I could not disagree more. I'd say by far, specifying the angle would be the easiest, easiest to read and understand, and most common way to want to specify a linear gradient. I personally loath the "4 offsets" way of specifying beginning and ending endpoints, because it adds so much unneeded verbosity, and decreases clarity and understanding. In practice, most blends (and I do mean almost all) will be either from edge-to-edge (or corner-to-corner), or will start or end some distance from one of those edges or corners in a way that can be specified more clearly and succinctly in the stops. I do not find anything even slightly confusing about using angles to specify a linear angle in the way they've been diagrammed in geometry classes since forever. I would find it completely counter-intuitive to have 0deg or 90deg represent any other directions than that for gradients. For rotations, I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but if one really has to change I would prefer it to be rotation to match gradients, and not the other way around.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:40 UTC