John Culleton wrote << Exporting as svg is the normal way one gets images out of Inkscape. How is this difficult? It is of course possible to save an image as a bitmap but that would be a step backward. Gimp can be used for bitmaps. The virtue of Inkscape is that it, like Illustrator, deals in vector graphics. Resizing/rotating a vector graphic in Inkscape is perhaps the second thing you learn to do in that product, right after drawing a rectangle. >> That is not difficult (for me) and totally expected when dealing with a separate and potentially non trivial graphic but just seemed an extra couple of steps for what to some will seem a potentially simple border pattern when you already have the frame border to work with. i.e. you do not go out of scribus to draw a simple line in inkscape and then import it, even though you could. As some others have mentioned some form of gradient fill/pattern is on it's way so hopefully it will help simplify the task. I have some customers who struggle using computers, and trying to use multiple (different) programs is one of their issues.
<< The product you are accustomed to will be the product you measure others against. Right now the graphical DTP program I am accustomed to is Scribus. Even the bleeding edge 1.5.0 product seems natural and intuitive to me. >> Actually I am not accustomed to any particular product in the DTP world. It is 10+ years since I used a product that alleged to be one. It certainly could do some funky things but you also had to save your work repeatedly because it would crash regularly and inexplicably, I did not have the needs to justify PageMaker. But I have customers who are accustomed to what they have got used to and most of their needs for newsletters, booklets, and pamphlets is in their eyes fulfilled by their existing single application. They import pictures and clipart but everything else from fancy border patterns and weird text manipulation is done within the comfort zone of what they see as a single application. I am very impressed with Scribus, I suspect some of the niggles I have are me not knowing how to use it properly (e.g. When I want to inline edit a text frame by double clicking I quite often end up with the whole text frame moving instead) or I think is acceptable in a non stable version (e.g. It does seem to occasionally freeze or lock up on larger (say 20+ page documents) which I just close and re-open and everything seems fine to carry on). I think it is already very usable even for novice users though it would be quite daunting for some. Because it does have so many advanced features and controls maybe there could be some concept of providing different levels of use. Whether it would have to be a complete Scribus Lite (for the lesser mortals) or preferably just make the access (menu's (across top and right click), toolbars, controls) more controlled. Maybe have profiles of "simple users not worthy of using scribus" up to one for "Publishing Deity"? Ideally every feature should still be available even to the lowest but in their case would need to come from an option on each of their menu's or toolbars marked advanced. John Beardmore wrote << You can of course suggest additional features, but these have to be suggested on merit, rather than because some other [flawed] software offers them. >> With greatest respect they were suggested only on the basis that I have various customers currently that use those features and want it. As we know there would be alternative ways to achieve the same result, but all involve additional steps that for some lesser mortals is a chore. Hence I believe anything that can simplify a task for the user has merit. They were NOT being suggested just and only because another piece software does it. a.l.e. wrote << if you have ideas (even inspired by Publisher) bring them to this forum! >> I was trying to a.l.e. wrote << but telling us that Publisher can do it ,so we also should implement it, won't be your best argument :-) ... and, most of the time, you will be better of if you don't mention the fact that you first saw it working in Publisher... >> I obviously wrote my posts incorrectly and insensitively, I apologise. I was NOT trying to say that JUST because other software does it that it should be implemented in scribus. However I am asking and wishing to discuss how one could achieve a certain effects using scribus and where necessary in combination with other software. Unfortunately these effects are demands of my customers, and yes the example(s) some of them will give or show will be in that that we should not name. Unfortunately I have a number of customers who seem to suffer from the same disease. I believe everything they need (as opposed to want) could already be achieved by a combination of Scribus and either Inkscape or Gimp. While I could cope with that, if it were me, but some of my customers possibly and probably not, for them it would already be two too many programs. If the effects my customers want is possible via a combination of Scribus, Inkscape, and Gimp, then surely there is some merit in suggestions that where possible (even with degrees of programming difficulty) make it possible to do it more simply even if it were just the illusion of. Yes for some of us opening up different programs with different interfaces and combining results is not difficult (in fact you probably get a kick out of it), but for some people it is difficult and confusing. Especially if you go back to my original feature request (which as Christoph pointed out some of it is in the pipeline) of more elaborate borders. hoping you have a fantastic day irritation free. K.
