‘Scale Attributes’ property

Scale attributes tip

Share on Facebook

11 Responses to ‘Scale Attributes’ property

  1. kosmar says:

    ah, didnt know that. great. thx.

  2. Very useful tip, thanks Sarthak!

  3. Lembit says:

    I rarely use the Info panel, because all data is more conveniently available on Props Inspector, except for the “live” coordinates. (Sample use case: dragging guides to place when I need preciseness — the cursor can shift +/- few px on guide dragging.)However, my point is that you could consider duplicating this property/option in Properties Inspector.Thanks for the tip.

  4. David says:

    This is indeed a FANTASTIC function to finally find – the hours I’ve spent trying to manipulate objects without changing their attributes… I even had to resort to Illustrator to achieve the same effect by default, when constantly resetting the attributes manually was not a realistic option.However, I can’t help noticing that the worst is still not taken care of: this seems to work in CS4 when one scales using the scaling tool. But if you want to change an object size using it’s width and height values, numerically, for accuracy as I do ALL the time… it’s back to square one. Even with this option disabled, changing a box with 5px red border from 400px by 400px to 10px by 10px results in a tiny 1px aliased line – no good.Is this an oversight? As I said above, it’s wonderful to finally have this option, but it is hopelessly buried, and it only works if you’re resizing by hand/eye and not by their numerical attributes.With regards to rounded rectangles, this isn’t much of an improvement over that clunky “Resize” handle. It seems still that the only way to resize a box with rounded corners and a border is by eye rather than by attribute.Sorry to rant, and cheers very much for the info.

  5. Sarthak says:

    @DavidI am not seeing the problem you have mentioned. When I have the attribute unchecked in Info panel and then I change the height and width of the rectangle from Properties Inspector, I see the whole dimension changed to 10X10 and the stroke attribute still set to 5 px.I also tried with a rounded rectangle having a 5px stroke applied to it. I changed the width height dimensions from Properties Inspector and the roundness was maintained along with the 5 px attribute value remaining constant.I have a blog entry dedicated to rounded rectangle and scaling it. You can find it as an earlier post here.

  6. David says:

    I apologise – I think I posted the following response in the wrong article, so I may have repeated myself here:———————-Right, I’ve played with it a bit now, having read both this article and the previous one…It seems that for no apparent reason, a “rounded rectangle” isn’t treated the same as a rectangle with rounded corners as applied via the Property Inspector.I’ve followed all your instructions, with and without the ‘Scale Attributes’ option turned on, and it appears it actually works as desired ONLY if you start with a standard rectangle.In fact, when starting with a standard rectangle and specifying the roundness using properties, the ONLY way I could get the attributes to skew was by using the Free Transform tool. Under these conditions the ‘Scale Attributes’ option actually works as it says on the tin.With a ‘Rounded Rectangle’, using the ‘Resize’ handle (bottom right corner) it doesn’t scale the attributes regardless of the option state. But if you disable that option you can resize using any method with success, BUT it still skews the roundness upon doing so.So, to clarify, the only way to resize a ‘Rounded Rectangle’ without skewing the roundness is to use the ‘Resize’ handle – so it can’t be done with accuracy.——————

  7. David says:

    There is another problem associated with the lack of control over verticies, especially when you are forced to use manual, analog methods to manipulate them. When manipulating individual verticies on objects, it’s clear that you can position a vertex very accurately BETWEEN canvas pixels. This is sometimes handy if you need to tune their positions to achieve a certain effect, but that said I have observed that the only time I find myself doing this by hand/eye is when I’ve drawn or moved an object and FW has decided it shall now have an edge that lies between pixels, and that edge becomes aliased – very annoying. Especially when you’ve asked for a 1 pixel line, soft or otherwise, and you can’t achieve that without touching up all the verticies. And of course the process of touching up each vertex is rather tedious because you can’t easilly line them up in the exact centre of pixels, so it can take AGES to actually get the line to sit neatly along one line of pixels and thus appear crisp. Perhaps there is a way to avoid this – any clues?

  8. Sarthak says:

    @DavidI completely missed you. I was always talking about the rectangle which now has the ability to specify roundness from Properties Inspector.If you see, rounded rectangle is an autoshape. Hence it is different from the rectangle.

  9. Sarthak says:

    @DavidThis is a rendering behavior of Fireworks application. I have posted an entry with a link which explains how exactly Fireworks rendering behaves.You will have to search a bit on the blog.

  10. David says:

    I understand the nature of the rendering – I only wonder if isn’t beyond the development team to provide a vertex alignment option so one can avoid wasting time to trying to tidy them up manually.I found your other article, in which you posted an image of two wavy lines – is this the correct one? My concern is that it IS possible to realign the verticies such that the peak and trough of the wave actually converge to a single, crispt line, rather than the aliased double line you have shown.

  11. David says:

    It seems the distinction between ‘Rectangle’ (shape) and ‘Rounded Rectangle’ (autoshape?) is neither made, nor justified within the FW UI.More importantly, it seems one of them – ‘Rounded Rectangle’ – is totally unmanagable. It’s benefits are limited to that of the special corner handles that allow the dragging of the curved corners, and the conversion between curve and angular, convex or concave.If the rounded rectangle could be resized in the same way the standard rectangle could, there wouldn’t be a need for the option to add ’roundness’ to the standard rectangle, and thus the limited distinction provided by the FW UI would actually suffice.I have a final question regarding curvature, but it doesn’t really belong in this thread so feel free to redirect me:If I create a standard rectangle, but want to curve one edge, I am unaware of a method by which I can insert a new vertex that has curve handles. Also I have observed that by certain means it is possble to end up wth a vertex that has only one curve handle, as oposed to two. Is there a way to control this explicitly? I have been forced to use the reshape tools to make effectively random alterations to the paths I am working with, only to have to rummage through all the resulting verticies in order to find one that has two workable curvature handles to manipulate. This issue gives rise to scenarios where I want to create a custom, organic shape using the fewest number of vertices possible – sometimes in order to keep the poor FW performance in check – but the layout of the verticies is not under my explicit control because I am forced to work with the vertices I can randomly generate using freeform tools. Achieving the shapes I want is fairly easy, but who knows where the vertices will be or how many I’ll end up with!