Anyone got any clues on this?

Scott Rossi scott at tactilemedia.com
Sat Mar 9 04:06:27 EST 2013


True on all accounts.  When RunRev first introduced the feature, that was
one of the first questions asked: why are points relative to the card and
not the object?  I don't recall ever hearing an official answer.  It's
kind of a PITA because copying a gradient from one object to another
requires some hoop jumping to figure out the relative point locations.

On the other hand, one benefit of having gradient points card based is it
allows you to easily spread a gradient across multiple objects by setting
the gradient of all objects to the same gradient points. This creates the
illusion of a gradient applied to one complex object when it is really
composed of several objects.

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, UX Design




On 3/9/13 12:52 AM, "Monte Goulding" <monte at sweattechnologies.com> wrote:

>
>On 09/03/2013, at 7:34 PM, Scott Rossi <scott at tactilemedia.com> wrote:
>
>> Point locations are relative to card.
>
>I kind of worked that out. What I don't understand is why given there's a
>portable option of points being relative to the loc of the object just
>like markerPoints are relative to the loc of the point. I guess though
>I'd only get that kind of detail from RunRev. Either way it seems to me
>that the fact that it's relative to the card should be noted in the docs.
>
>I do realise I would have had a faster response here but there is a
>method to my madness ;-)
>
>Thanks 
>
>--
>Monte Goulding
>
>M E R Goulding - software development services
>mergExt - There's an external for that!
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>use-livecode mailing list
>use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>subscription preferences:
>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>






More information about the use-livecode mailing list