On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 09:00 +1000, Edward Coffey wrote:
> I'd be happiest with
> [100% / n] for the zoom-out series, and [100% * 2^n] for the zoom in.
I don't think you can please everyone :) I often work at 300%.
Liam
--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictu
Just the other day I was wondering if there was some way of
configuring *fewer* zoom steps because I find the 66.7% and 150% steps
in my current install particularly objectionable, I'd be happiest with
[100% / n] for the zoom-out series, and [100% * 2^n] for the zoom in.
Ed.
__
Note: I am currently working toward programming for GEGL methods which
apply arbitrary transformations (affine, say) in such a way that a
small change in the transformation (which are arbitrary) leads to a
small change in the result. I don't know if those necessarily would be
those used by the disp
It wouldn't be that hard to implement a tool that would scale in a way that
feels fluid. But
I question whether it is worth the effort. It's hard to see what user
interaction would be
easier with smooth scaling than with scaling in 10% steps.
-- Bill
___
Right, size of bricks, if you want.
On 07/17/2010 11:31 PM, g...@catking.net wrote:
> On 07/17/10 21:47, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
>> Hello again,
>>
>> I'd like to know whether there exist efforts to implement gradual zooming.
>> As far as concerns me 10% steps (or whatever it is) is an absolute no go
On 07/17/10 21:47, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> I'd like to know whether there exist efforts to implement gradual zooming. As
> far as concerns me 10% steps (or whatever it is) is an absolute no go for
> artits and makes workflow as fluent as swimming through bricks. I thought
> this w
Hello again,
I'd like to know whether there exist efforts to implement gradual zooming. As
far as concerns me 10% steps (or whatever it is) is an absolute no go for
artits and makes workflow as fluent as swimming through bricks. I thought this
wouldnt require much effort since GIMP apparenty ha
