Issue 67 in gpick: Option to omit endpoints in 'Mix Colors'

[gp...@googlecode.com]

Status: Accepted
Owner: 00a...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 67 by 00a...@gmail.com: Option to omit endpoints in 'Mix Colors'
http://code.google.com/p/gpick/issues/detail?id=67

Often, I want to expand an existing range of colors by inserting a
blend. 'Mix Colors' facilitates this -- but, it also gets in the way: in
this case, including the endpoints in the output just means I have to avoid
them when dragging the color range into place, and later delete them.
It would be much better if they weren't included in the first place.

Therefore I intend to implement an option which omits endpoint colors from
the output.

[gp...@googlecode.com]

Comment #1 on issue 67 by 00a...@gmail.com: Option to omit endpoints

in 'Mix Colors'
http://code.google.com/p/gpick/issues/detail?id=67

Implementation attached -- I'm not going to commit this yet, as I have some
concerns about whether the alteration of Steps value as you press
the 'Include Endpoints' toggle is confusing.

I had a choice between leaving the Steps value unchanged (which means the
number of shown colors is (steps - 2) when 'Include Endpoints' is off), or
updating it (so that the number of steps always matches the number of
colors in the preview)
This is what the current behaviour looks like:

http://i.imgur.com/Nr16Y.gif

I've asked a few people about what behaviour they find understandable and
got mixed responses. I'll ask some other people and see what they say.
Any feedback here is also appreciated.

Attachments:
omit_endpoints-beta.diff 4.1 KB

[gp...@googlecode.com]

Comment #2 on issue 67 by thez...@gmail.com: Option to omit endpoints

in 'Mix Colors'
http://code.google.com/p/gpick/issues/detail?id=67

I think the current behavior is perfectly intuitive, but it would be even
better if the number of steps would remain unchanged. Modified patch
attached.

Attachments:
omit_endpoints-altern.diff 4.6 KB

[gp...@googlecode.com]

Comment #3 on issue 67 by 00a...@gmail.com: Option to omit endpoints

in 'Mix Colors'
http://code.google.com/p/gpick/issues/detail?id=67

Haha, that's interesting, since that's like my original implementation.
I've discussed it some more and agree that the difference (steps <-> number
of shown colors) is readily understandable by fiddling with the 'Include
Endpoints' toggle
I'm going to apply your patch, with some fixes. Then I'll have a go at
marking this fixed.

FWIW I'll also mention here -- and in the documentation I'm working on,
which is getting towards completeness -- that this option also makes it
easy to generate 'color triangles' (given N colors input, generate 50%
mixes in all possible permutations. Steps=3 being the suitable value for
achieving this.)

[gp...@googlecode.com]

Comment #4 on issue 67 by 00a...@gmail.com: Option to omit endpoints

in 'Mix Colors'
http://code.google.com/p/gpick/issues/detail?id=67

Actually, on reviewing your patch I see it doesn't do what I thought it
does from your description. For now, I'll commit the most
conservative 'keep number of steps constant' version of these changes, and
leave this open in case tweaks are necessary.

[gp...@googlecode.com]

Comment #5 on issue 67 by thez...@gmail.com: Option to omit endpoints

in 'Mix Colors'
http://code.google.com/p/gpick/issues/detail?id=67

All three behaviors make sense in one way or another. If someone complains,
we will simply add a second check box 'Include omitted endpoints in step
count'. :)

Thank you very much for working on the documentation.

[gp...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Status: Fixed

Comment #6 on issue 67 by 00a...@gmail.com: Option to omit endpoints

in 'Mix Colors'
http://code.google.com/p/gpick/issues/detail?id=67

(No comment was entered for this change.)