Draw Guide 3.4

Hi
Chapter 8 of the guide uploaded to ODF
John

Hi :slight_smile:
Draw and Impress are neck-and-neck as they pass the three-quarter mark.  Good work chaps!! :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Now that I'm back from my most recent travels, I'll be looking at the
recent drafts (of both DG and IG) today and probably passing them on
for publication with little change. JohnS and PeterS are both doing
great work.

--Jean

Chapters 6, 7, and 8 of Draw Guide have been published. I made only
trivial changes to Chapters 7 and 8, but in Chapter 6 I restored some
of the images that were in the v3.3 chapter... partly because one of
John's replacement pix was missing labelling, but also because we're
preferentially using screen captures from Linux and I'm reluctant to
have any replaced by pix from Windows unless they need replacement for
some other reason. (Replacing variously-colored Linux pix with
silver-toned Windows pix is ok.) Lastly, I amended the pix of the
Color Replacer in action because they had been taken from the EN-UK
variation of LO, not the EN-US version that we should be using for
consistency.

--Jean

Hi :slight_smile:
Nicely done :)  The "Published" wiki-page feels great when it suddenly has a load more added to it.  I tidied up the formatting of the dates for all the listed guides except GS.

With the GS table i did painstaking detailed use of " " to create the right amount of spaces but i found a faster way is simply to use

align="right" |

so that the dates are right aligned and all the years line up neatly so the final column of the tables looks less raggedy.  Some months such as
Jan
tend to fit a much smaller space than other months such as
Mar
so the number at the front doesn't always line-up properly but somehow the table as a whole looks less raggedy this way around imo.  I added an nbsp; space between Jan and the day in most cases to try to get the day right.

So, the upshot is do the tables look ok in your web-browser?  I've only tried in Seamonkey on Ubuntu at 1024by768 so far.  If anyone thinks it looks a right mess in some other browser please let me know so i can try to think about how to tidy it.

Thanks and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi Jean

The graphic which has been reverted to the 3.3 image was replaced by me because I felt the labelling lines on the image were confusing and perhaps even giving wrong interpretation to the dimensions shown.

Lines go from the dimension boxes of the Crop section, to the dimensions of the Original image size. Lines also go from the Original image dimensions to the dimension boxes of the Image size section.

In the graphic, the lines from the Crop boxes have no relevance to the Original image size. The crop settings apply to the inserted image size (with Keep scale selected, as in the graphic)

None of these lines has an explanation in the text that ties them together. It leaves the reader to interpret them.

If I'm wrong in this and the image is kept, then some other changes are needed. For the graphic I used, I altered the crop dimensions, so that in the text I could point out that equal cropping has the same effect as zooming. This text would need to be modified as the dimensions in the graphic are referenced in the text. The scale percentage in the text was altered to match the graphic and will need changing too.

All the Figure numbers are missing from the captions and references.

Oops on the colour replacer. I've now altered my set-up to avoid that happening again. Apologies.

Regards
John

OK, I'll change the graphics back to what you had and make a note to perhaps rewrite the text next time so that labels help rather than confuse. I'll also tame those missing figure numbers. LO does that sometimes, but I should have noticed before publishing. Guess I was more tired yesterday than I thought.

Jean

I've now fixed (I hope!) the errors I introduced into Chapter 6 and
uploaded the corrected ODT and PDF to the wiki, ODFAuthors, and
Alfresco.

Today I'll look at Chapter 9 and try to pay better attention.

--Jean

Hi :slight_smile:
Not really surprising but we are quite used to you normally working through all that and giving good results.  Your reasoning seemed pretty solid yday but i guess it's better now.
Congrats oon fixing it
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile: