<div dir="ltr">2008/8/6 Gregory Pittman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gpittman@iglou.com" target="_blank">gpittman@iglou.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>Louis Desjardins wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
It is clear there is a need for much more flexibility and the ability to make round trips while establishing the layout. Going back and forth, trying and testing, all this is a big part of the creation process.<br>
</blockquote></div>
My sense of this is that it is unwise to do Scribus modifications to cover every possible need. Better to intentionally fall a bit short in the interests of not getting so far down a path that you are reluctant to retrace steps and go in a different direction. This is the difference between the user and the programmer perspective.</blockquote>
<div><br>Sure. I completely agree with what you say. We cannot fulfill every possible need. When I say "much more flexibility" it is meant "within reasonable limits". Those limits are not only set by programming difficutly or restrictions of any kind but also has to be looked into from the user perspective, keeping in mind "usability". "Usability" will fatally oppose to "flexibility" at some point. Too much possibilities will go against ease of use, intuitiveness and in the end, overall usability.<br>
<br>Louis<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
Greg<br></blockquote></div></div><br>
</div>