![]() Copaso ![]() ![]() manekinek… manekineko wrote: 14 Dec, 2007
I'm not a huge fan of the new Copaso thing but maybe I'll get converted seeing what comes up here :)
Looking forward to it ![]() ![]() ![]() mravka mravka wrote: 14 Dec, 2007
I thought you'd be one of the biggest users of the function. The first thing I think of when I see your palettes is that they would have still more impact with varying weights.
:)) ![]() ![]() ![]() electrikm… electrikmonk wrote: 19 Dec, 2007
hmm, colours seem to shift or change entirely even when i haven't touched a thing. i love the widths probably more than any new feature, but it's been getting frustrating when i go to submit a palette with no new colours and COPASO has changed them by a number/letter and is insisting the colour isn't in the system. it would also be nice if the widths had some kind of rule or snap feature so i could gauge sizing exactly how i want it rather than just by eyeing it - then, i would know how much visual adjusting i actually do beyond any technical proportions i assign. just saying. ![]() ![]() ![]() isotope.1… isotope.151 wrote: 20 Dec, 2007
Yes, you have to really watch it... it can get fussy. I reposted a whole slew of palettes to this group only to discover that COPASO had changed the first color to white on all of them. >:( I TOTALLY agree on the snap feature... I hope to build some multidimensional palette groups, but cannot do it unless I know the exact proportions going in. ![]() ![]() ![]() serostar serostar wrote: 20 Dec, 2007
Instead of actually snapping, what if there were percent numbers above the sliders that could tell you exactly how much of the total width this color is taking up? That way you could still be very accurate with proportions, but it wouldn't force a snap (if I'm interpreting that right).
Quick mockup here. It might get too squished with really small widths. Would work without the % sign. ![]()
![]() ![]() ![]() serostar serostar wrote: 21 Dec, 2007
A simpler approach for the programmer would be to have measurement markers on the top, similar to a ruler.
edit: Monk already said that. ![]() ![]() ![]() mravka mravka wrote: 2 Jan, 2008
Keith, I think the problems you described have been fixed now. Although I agree with your suggestions.
Ryan, I love what you did with the percentages. Really excellent. ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |




















0




