[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice
Subject:    Re: [Bug 187681] shape shadows are not handled correctly
From:       "Steven D'Aprano" <steve () pearwood ! info>
Date:       2009-03-25 12:38:21
Message-ID: 200903252338.22362.steve () pearwood ! info
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:43:24 am Thomas Zander wrote:

> I don't really care that OOo doesn't handle the properly either,
> there are plenty of other places where shadows are done and the
> research that Trolltech [1] did shows clearly that a per item shadow
> as we have now is only optimal from an implementation perspective.
>
> To be honest, I don't see how you can argue that its correct to have
> this; really. Do the fresh-user test and load a random svg from the
> net and give everything a shadow. Ask the user if he expects that
> there are shadows on top of some elements and below another.
> I bet the user expects the shadows to be completely behind *all*
> elements.
>
> The z-indeces are a red-herring. They just don't exist in the minds
> of anyone outside of the developers.

Speaking as a user, I'd expect the result to depend on whether I was 
drawing three-dimensional art with real shadows, or two-dimensional art 
with illusionary shadows. 

In 3D art, I'd expect objects to cast shadows that cover objects lower 
than them. But in 2D art, I'd expect two planes: an object plane, where 
the objects sit, and a shadow plane beneath than. Objects are always 
above every shadow.

*Within* the object plane, objects have ordering, but it's the order of 
(infinitely thin) flat shapes stacked on top of each other. It 
shouldn't affect the shadows beneath them.

That's my two cents worth.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano
____________________________________
koffice mailing list
koffice@kde.org
To unsubscribe please visit:
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]