View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0014713 | Scribus | Graphics / Image Frames | public | 2017-03-29 02:28 | 2017-04-12 00:39 |
| Reporter | snowshed | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 1.5.2 | ||||
| Summary | 0014713: Export a graphic frame as a graphics file | ||||
| Description | I had a situation where I wanted to export a graphics frame as a graphics file, for use as a logo. A number of methods were suggested on how to accomplish what I wanted, but all of them involved more steps than should be necessary. This wastes the user's time. If the chosen frame could simply be exported as a graphics file, the extra time consuming steps would not be needed, and the user will find the program to be more efficient. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Patch | No | ||||
|
|
I have feeling this feature need not to be added as many other solution were suggested in mailing list and Greg script at https://wiki.scribus.net/canvas/Creating_an_Object-sized_Document can solve the problem within scribus too. |
|
|
It's not that it can't be done, but can it be done easier and more efficiently by the end user? Which, of all the methods mentioned, including my feature requests, allows the user to get their work done faster and move on to the next project? I think a general problem with scripts, regardless of program, is fewer and fewer people know how to create one, or even want to learn to write a script. I don't want to learn to do it. I want to be able to do X in Scribus as easily as I can in another program. For an analogy, I can live with a car that has no air conditioning. But do I want to? No, I like air conditioning. <G> So, if Scribus does not offer "air conditioning" but another program does, which program do you think I would prefer to use for the long run? I'm using Scribus now for a few personal projects, I want to learn how to use it. But... If I'm getting paid for a project, there's a competing program I will use, because I'll get the job done quicker, which means the bill to the customer will be less. |
|
|
for an analogy, if you can make cars fly, but just a little bit, why not do it? people have wished it forever and it is technically feasible ... try to guess why it has not been done... please consider that most of the time adding new features - makes the UI more complex - makes it harder for the user to find the relevant really, there are many ways to achieve it, and most are faster to use (because you can use them in any program !) than looking for this specific feature inside of scribus. |
|
|
But cars do fly, Ale, they just don't fly well. :-) And there's no doubt in my mind, that someday they will fly well. There's a museum about 75 miles from me that has a flying car made of plywood. There were a lot of attempts at this in the US after World War II, but the technology to really make it work did not exist. I'm hoping we are on the same thought here, I'm just talking a graphics frame, nothing else. If there is a real concern over the complexity of the UI, then don't add any new features. Look at the difference between 1.4.6 and 1.5.2 as an example. :-) What can be faster than: 1. Rt click the graphic frame 2. Export frame as {whatever graphic file format, a single default or a choice} 3. Choose a location 4. Click Save I agree, there are other ways of doing this, but... Are they the *best* way today? I think not. At one time, there were no air powered had tools in existences. Man powered tools were the *best* way. After air powered tools became affordable and reliable, the air powered tools became the *best* way. Why not Scribus? Why not develop better and easier ways to accomplish something? |
|
|
why this should not be in the context menu? - because it's a feature that will be used very rarely! (and yes, the number of items in the context menu matters! currently, there is too much stuff in there!) and why it might not be a good idea to add the feature to scribus? - because there are already many ways of doing this without adding the explicit feature to scribus. so: - this feature has nothing to do with DTP, - if somebody will ever use it it will be very rarely, and - the goal can be easily achieved with other tools (people have told you many very efficient ways). and i don't know why you would wish that scribus would be air powered. at some time electricity took over in most, but not all, fields and it's good so. |
|
|
Hi, Ale, There is no way to know a feature will be used "very rarely" if it doesn't exist. Observations in this case are guesses/opinions/thoughts and cannot be supported by usage data. As I've mentioned, just because something can be done in other ways, does not mean there are not better ways. For instance, I can did a 3' deep ditch, 50' long, 2' wide, with a shovel. Or, I can hire a crew of men to did the ditch. But, the best way is to use a backhoe. :-) As for nothing to do with DTP, that depends on the scope of your definition of DTP. Limited viewpoint or wide viewpoint. Let's say you create a logo in Scribus for a customer. Customer likes it, and wants a graphics file for the customer's use in other paperwork at the customer's business. Export the graphic and email it right now without spending non-revenue generating time. Even just export it to the customer's thumb drive while the customer is there in your office. I think the English language got in our way with an "air powered Scribus". <G> I was trying to convey the fact that new methods replace older methods. There is always the situation where the new technology is introduced by one person/group. Then, others follow. The new way is better. If it wasn't, they would stick with the old way. Kodak used to be the leader in the photographic industry. But, it failed to embrace the new technology of digital cameras. Where is Kodak today? Electricity... Another example of a better way of doing things that the world embraced. George Bernard Shaw, author of Pygmalion, said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." When I look around the world of computer programs and users, I see a lack of people desiring progress in many areas. When I bought my first computer, everyone looked for something better, something that would do more. Now, almost everything seems to be "just good enough". And we get the dumbed down smartphones and tablets. :-( |
|
|
don't create a logo in scribus. use inkscape instead. and deliver vectors to your client, not bitmaps. and if you started scribbling your logo in scribus and now you want a real logo out of it? just export the page as svg or pdf and finish your work in inkscape. you can then reimport the result into scribus, if you improved it. and, please stop with analogies. or do you really want to scribus to take pictures? and in my eyes your confusing progress with what germans call a egg-laying and milk-giving wool-pig (eierlegendes und milchgebendes Wollschwein: google it, there are nice pictures of it in the internet). ps.: and no, it's not as easy as you write it above: once a feature has entered scribus, it's very hard to get it out again. even for features that (almost) nobody can image anybody has ever used in production! and maintaining a feature inside of scribus does have a cost. both for bug fixing and upgrades, but also in the complexity of the user interface. you have a computer with many programs installed, use them! and help us making scribus work better with them, where it is necessary. |
|
|
i would like to see this issue closed (no change required), as the solutions lie outside of scribus. |
|
|
Hi, Ale, If I know at the beginning I'm going to end up with a logo, I do create it in a vector graphics program. If I give the file to the client as a vector graphic, especially SVG, most of them do not know what to do with them, or how to use them. They know a "jpg" is a "photo", which we know it doesn't mean that, and they don't know the difference between bitmapped and vector graphics. I'd like to use TIF instead of JPG, but they don't know what to do with that either. :-( FWIW, my personal card is done as a vector graphic. But not Inkscape, I find Inkscape difficult to use. I don't start out to make a logo in Scribus. The idea of making it a logo comes long after starting the project in Scribus. "egg-laying and milk-giving wool-pig" ROFL Those are great!!! Check out a jackalope, AIUI, that comes from Wyoming, a state in the US. Folks can limit a "progressive" move in a limited scope, or wide scope. If kept to a limited scope, the end result is likely to be used by a limited amount of users. A wider scoped program will likely be used by a wider amount of users. So, the Scribus code is not "modular", making it easy to add, remove, and modify a feature? As a program adds features, the UI has to become more complex. It's a matter of the design of the UI. And no matter how any UI is designed, some will find it easy to use, some will not. I'm still having some problems with the Scribus UI, more from the vocabulary than the design, as well as icons with no text or tool tip that says what the icon does. The vocabulary situation is illustrated by Craig Bradney talking about using the "pallete" for changing text. Everyone I know would call it a "window", as does Microsoft. Once I figured that out, it was better. And the last couple times I've started 1.5.2, the Properties Window/Pallete has not worked the same. But that's another topic. <G> I'm all for making Scribus work better with other programs. For instance, it seems Scribus defaults using GIMP as the photo editor. I do not need a program this sophisticated, so I've changed it on my Windows computer to Irfanview, which still does more than I need. |
|
|
i cannot do more than repeat myself: "and if you started scribbling your logo in scribus and now you want a real logo out of it? just export the page as svg or pdf and finish your work in inkscape." you can use any program that does vector graphics and understands svg or pdf. it's up to you. |
|
|
Hi, Ale, And I shall repeat myself (LOL)... I was not intending this to be a logo. :-) Secondly, you have no control over a client's wishes. Scenario... You do something for a client. Client likes what you did. Client says, "Can you make this part my logo?" So now you are making a logo *after* you do your scribbling. <G> |
|
|
- you were not intending this to be a logo - now it's a logo. in scribus. - from scribus, save your page as svg or pdf - open the svg or pdf in a vector drawing program - isolate the logo - save the logo alone as svg or pdf - deliver the logo to the client in vector format i'm pretty sure you did not even try it out. seriously, i understand what you are saying, other people do too. but you do not seem to be reading what people are writing to you. so this was my very last message to you. |
|
|
Even easier: Resize the document to the size of the logo and export it as whatever you want ;-) (or create a new document with the size and copy and paste the logo in there) Rgds Laser |
|
|
Hi, Ale, In all honesty, why would I repeat the steps I did 15 or so years ago using different software, steps you and others insist I repeat? I already know it works. :-) What I don't understand is the resistance to change. Computers are meant to make things easier for the user by being programmed to do repetitive steps to accomplish the task. Why not do this? Why not have the computer do the work for the user? Greg Pittman has already written a script that works some of the time. Is there a logical reason the script can't be improved upon, added to the default scripts, and thus you've added the feature to the program? |
|
|
Hi, Laser, Someone already suggested that, I think it may have been Greg Pittman in the mailing list. I think you would have to delete all other data in the doc for this method to work, though. For the time being, I'll just use Greg's script, although I may have to futz a bit with the frame. Better and faster than the clipping/cropping use another program to end up in the same place. :-) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-03-29 02:28 | snowshed | New Issue | |
| 2017-03-31 09:10 | jurajF | Note Added: 0043686 | |
| 2017-03-31 17:12 | snowshed | Note Added: 0043688 | |
| 2017-04-03 15:02 | ale | Note Added: 0043695 | |
| 2017-04-04 15:11 | snowshed | Note Added: 0043697 | |
| 2017-04-05 08:46 | ale | Note Added: 0043705 | |
| 2017-04-06 22:52 | snowshed | Note Added: 0043714 | |
| 2017-04-07 08:52 | ale | Note Added: 0043716 | |
| 2017-04-07 10:10 | utnik | Note Added: 0043720 | |
| 2017-04-07 16:19 | snowshed | Note Added: 0043722 | |
| 2017-04-10 15:35 | ale | Note Added: 0043725 | |
| 2017-04-10 16:04 | snowshed | Note Added: 0043727 | |
| 2017-04-11 07:44 | ale | Note Added: 0043728 | |
| 2017-04-11 10:06 |
|
Note Added: 0043734 | |
| 2017-04-12 00:28 | snowshed | Note Added: 0043740 | |
| 2017-04-12 00:39 | snowshed | Note Added: 0043741 |
