It’s definitely a skill, and once we switch to vector/shader based icons then we can render them crisply at any zoom level.
Too big of a breaking change at this point.
Because the length of a component would then become highly variable, much more so than the height is under current conditions. This in turns means a lot of wasted pixels per component above and below the name. Not to mention that the spacing between adjacent component will have to be adjusted all the time because the width of components changes all the time.
So the solution to names being too hard to read is to not display them? Pretty Gordian… If it makes sense to pick a smaller font size then we should do that regardless.
That’s sort of the direction in which I’m going. Except I’d prefer components to look simple yet recognisable at default zoom, and start displaying more details as you zoom in.
I wonder if something like this might be of any value. NOTE: I have zero idea of what this might break…but I’ll throw these out there…
1 - I think a future version of YAK will probably make this less than useful, but maybe a flyout/collabpsible menu on the left side of the canvas with links to any plug-ins used, (predicated on some standard/code addition plug-in authors would need to add)
2 - A new type of panel that could include image/icons? Authors of definitions could use something like this “GetComponents2” compnent, and it could write all the used components to some type of legend?
(NOTE: I wrote the “GetComponents2” component for internal use)
All of this seems a bit heavyhanded…and outside of solving a problem of being able to deciper which components were used, based on a screen shot of a definition that displays icons…there might be diminishing returns on this idea…
This in general is a bit weird. Either someone wants to share the file in which case they can share the actual file, or at least provide an image with the required information, or someone doesn’t want to share the file in which case what business is it of yours to try and reverse engineer it?
There is clearly a conflict of interest here; why make an image of your file public at all if you don’t wish to share it? But in terms of actually sharing data, that is already perfectly possible.
ps. I don’t mean ‘you’ specifically @chanley, I meant ‘you’ in the generic.
