View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0008826ScribusUsabilitypublic2016-05-03 12:16
Reporterlouisdesjardins Assigned To 
Status newResolutionopen 
Platformn/aOSn/aOS Versionn/a
Summary0008826: Being able to scale object or group of objects to a desired percentage
DescriptionAs summary
Steps To ReproduceWhile it is possible to scale freely any object, it would be useful to be able to scale precisely according to a percentage.

For this we need new fields in the "Geometry" tab in the PP > XYZ: "X-Scale", "Y-Scale" and a "chain/unchain" option.

The resulting scaled object or group could have its content scaled as well. Or we could make that user-definable. In this case we would add a check box "Scale content".
Additional InformationI’ve looked in the bugtracker and was surprised to find out this feature was not put there before! Seems to me a very useful addition. Maybe I missed it?

Would be nice now that we’re approaching 1.4 !
Tagsfparser, GSOC potential


related to 0008828 new correctly parse % when doing calculations with measurements 
related to 0012448 closedfschmid Resizing of a Group + Item is not correct 
related to 0003423 confirmed remaining problems with resizing multiple text boxes 
related to 0001915 acknowledged Resizing of groups of object that contains text doesnt resize that well 
related to 0005356 new additional ways to set relative text size properties 
child of 0003812 acknowledged Metabug: Grouped objects 



2010-02-16 18:13

administrator   ~0023303

Adding scale as object property is a major changes which would affect the whole code base, so not quite feasible for 1.4. Apply a scale factor without retaining its value in objects (after apply scale the field value would return immediately to 100%) may be possible.


2010-02-16 19:16

developer   ~0023304

Ok. Understand the nuance here. I think that it’s more important to be able to scale to a desired percentage and see the result returning to 100% than not being able to scale. So, I would still go for it.


2010-02-16 22:24

administrator   ~0023310

You can do scaling by percentage with the Spinboxes in the Properties Palette. E.g for scaling the width you can enter in the width spinbox the following (assuming the current width is e.g 10): "10 pt * (width * 0.1)" and pressing "Return" (the 0.1 is for 10%).


2010-02-17 07:47

manager   ~0023313

well... franz: not really :-)

in the properties palette (assuming a width of 192.25pt) you just write:

192.25 pt *0.1

to have a 10% width and

192.25 pt /0.1

to go from 10% back to 100%.

you can also type "width*0.1" and "width/0.1", but it takes longer...

i think that this needs some basic arithmetic understanding which can be expected from a professional DTP user (but it should be documented somewhere).
for occasional users, resizing with the mouse and editing the measurements in the PP may be enough.

personally, i don't see how to do it better with a GUI element

p.s.: i will post a separate feature request for correct parsing of the % sign in calculations: 192.25 pt*10% should be the same as 192.25 pt*0.1...


2010-02-18 15:37

developer   ~0023330

I understand that just about anyone can do those simple maths. However, I think that it’s worth giving it further thoughts so we can figure out a nice way to put this into the GUI. A specific field with a percentage would be easier to use, I think! :)


2010-02-19 12:17

manager   ~0023341

not easy to implement but maybe a good way to do it:

if you type 10% in a measurement field, it will be scaled to 10% and will show the new width in the current measurement. though, somewhere, we store the previous measurement.

if you type 200% you get 200% for the original measurement.

if you type 100% you get back to the original value (and the cached value is cleared).

if you type in a new measurement which is not in % (like 10cm) the measurement is set to the new value and you lose the "reference" value (width: 10cm, 10%, 20cm, 10%, 20%, the result is a 4cm width, but 100% is currently 20cm)

i think that this may be a nice task for a GSOC... or is it too easy and too much tedious work?


2010-02-19 12:19

administrator   ~0023342

I don't think this would be useful in comparison to other options for GSoC.


2016-04-21 02:38

updater   ~0040358

related: 0008828

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2010-02-16 17:24 louisdesjardins New Issue
2010-02-16 18:13 jghali Note Added: 0023303
2010-02-16 19:16 louisdesjardins Note Added: 0023304
2010-02-16 22:24 fschmid Note Added: 0023310
2010-02-17 07:47 ale Note Added: 0023313
2010-02-18 15:37 louisdesjardins Note Added: 0023330
2010-02-19 12:17 ale Note Added: 0023341
2010-02-19 12:19 cbradney Note Added: 0023342
2014-09-18 21:47 Kunda Relationship added related to 0012448
2014-09-18 21:47 Kunda Relationship added related to 0003423
2014-09-18 21:47 Kunda Relationship added related to 0001915
2014-09-18 21:48 Kunda Relationship added child of 0003812
2016-04-21 02:38 Kunda Relationship added related to 0008828
2016-04-21 02:38 Kunda Note Added: 0040358
2016-04-21 02:39 Kunda Tag Attached: fparser
2016-04-21 02:40 Kunda Tag Attached: GSOC potential
2016-05-03 12:16 Kunda Relationship added related to 0005356