[scribus] Aligning frames
snowshed1 at q.com
Wed Jan 4 03:06:28 UTC 2017
On 1/3/17 12:36 AM, "Christoph Schäfer" wrote:
>> Gesendet: Montag, 02. Januar 2017 um 23:56 Uhr
>> Von: "Ken Springer" <snowshed1 at q.com>
>> An: scribus at lists.scribus.info
>> Betreff: Re: [scribus] Aligning frames
>> On 1/2/17 2:31 PM, Gregory Pittman wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2017 04:02 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
>>>> Is there an automatic way of aligning frames, I.E. aligning the top
>>>> edges of frames that are in a horizontal row for instance?
>>>> Or is the only option to manually put in the y position for each frame?
>>> Check the Align and Distribute dialog, from Windows in the menu. You
>>> have a large number of choices, including aligning to a guide.
>> Thanks, Greg. Under Windows is about the last place I would look for
>> it. I was looking in Edit and Properties for something.
>> Do the developers review where they have placed things in the menus?
> Hi Ken,
> Yes, they do. If you compare 1.5.x to 1.4.x, you'll see that a lot of re-ordering of menu (and context menu) entries has happened. As regards the "Windows" menu, this one is a legacy from programmes like QuarkXPress or Photoshop. Actually, it's the place where everything that doesn't fit into any other category is being dumped.
> It's worth noting, though, that neither Edit nor Properties seem to be the right places to look for alignment. In my book, the Item menu seems more appropriate, especially regarding the unholy growth of the Windows menu in recent 1.5.x iterations.
> Maybe we should move Distribute & Align to the Item menu?
> What do others think?
I've only done one other Scribus doc, and that was about a year ago. As
I've posted questions and gotten answers, I've been reminded I'm just
going through the same frustrations now as I did then, and asked the
IMO, continuing to emulate the menu layout and naming conventions of
"legacy" software is the wrong way to go. How many new users to Scribus
have any familiarity with the legacy software? My thought is most of
the new users have never used them but have heard of them. And maybe
those menu naming choices weren't the best choice back then.
I think the name of a menu title should be some type of indicator of the
things you can accomplish. "Windows" doesn't do that, and I don't think
"Item" does either.
I haven't given any thought as to what the names should be, but maybe
some of the choices could go elsewhere. For instance, Item includes
"Adjust". I don't have any problem thinking of "Adjust" as being an
I do like "Extras" because that word choice says there's something here
I need to check out. "Item" and "Windows" doesn't do that for me.
Looking at a lot entries, I think I could come up with a lot of
suggestions. Hyphenation and spelling I'd put under edit. That's what
you're doing with those features isn't it, editing your document?
Don't get me started on the Scribus manual, either. LOL
I think the Scribus team needs to think more about what a new user's
expectations will be. They will naturally look for things in places
they are used to. Look at your competition, word processors, document
processors (I'm thinking of LyX here), and other page layout programs.
How do they aggregate options and features? Then pick what seems to be
the most common. That's more likely to be something people will be used
to than legacy software menu layouts.
Most people I come in contact with have never heard of page layout
software. Usually, they know of MS Word and little else.
When the conversation is right, I tell them their project isn't meant to
be done in a word processor, and that's usually Word. I will tell them
it's better done in page layout software if that's appropriate. I will
mention Scribus, but I will not recommend it. They will find it too
difficult to even get started with. For Windows users I actually
recommend a commercial product, one that I own, as it's far easier to
get started with and use than Scribus.
Mac OS X 10.11.6
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
More information about the scribus