>
>
>>  criticism is in fact very harsh ; this is not forbidden : but then,
>> in order to be meaningful, you should be able to point to precise
>> points ; just saying "doesn't come close to any drawing program"
>> without giving details of what you really mean is useless : I cannot
>> use such a very vague information to improve the software.
>>
>> So as far as Xfig is concerned, I would say that, to use your own
>> words, we come quite close to it : the current version of the
>> graphics mode of TeXmacs contains most of the features that can be
>> found in Xfig, and it is implemented in a much more user-friendly way.
>
>
> As I said I only mentioned Xfig as an example of a drawing program. I
> chose it (perhaps mistakenly) because it is widely used, I have never
> used it, and I probably never will.

You can say "A is better that B" and in the same time "I don't know A" :
but this is not very coherent...

> As I have never used Xfig, I cannot compare the two, but when you
> compare TeXmacs to any other drawing program (eg. OpenOffice Draw) you
> notice several things:
>
> (1) You have to use more than one mouse button to create a line. It
> may seem inefficient to only use one mouse button, but that is the way
> most programs work and it is therefore the most familiar. (actually
> this goes for the entire interface)

It depends on how the use of the buttons is defined : as soon as you get
used to it, the current way is in fact very convenient. But in effect,
it could be a good idea to have another interface for beginners, that
works with only one mouse button (but then, beginners will go into the
same problem as with Xfig, you need more modes to implement the whole
thing : as a consequence, the interface is easier to understand, but the
user needs to click on the icons more often to go from one mode to the
other. As soon as he gets experienced, it becomes boring).

> (2) No colour gradients or transparency.

That will come later, we are just releasing the first version ! (But it
is somehow planned).

> (3) I cannot import and place graphics from other sources (pdf files
> etc.)

Yes you can ! As I said previously, the text boxes allow you to mix any
kind of TeXmacs markup with graphics. As a consequence, to do this, you
just need to create a text box in the graphics, and then go to
Insert/Image/Link image, and then your image will be imported into the
text box. Then, you can move the text box as usual.

It is fair to say that the support for text boxes is not perfect yet,
for example, if you import using Insert/Image/Insert image, and then try
to move the text box, the content of the import is lost (but it
currently works perfectly for linked images). The way the arrows behave
in a text box needs also to be improved. Keep in mind that we are
releasing an alpha version : all these problems are minor problems that
we plan to correct soon ; but as far as importing graphics from other
sources, the main functionnality is here.

> (4) There is no way of knowing what function the mouse is performing
> (will I move/create/assigning properties to this object) or what tool
> I have chosen.

That's right. One thing that should go to my tasklist.

> (5) There is no align/distribute function.

Right, again. I didn't thought about this one. But this should be easy
to do. Another one to add to the tasklist.

> (6) There are no custom fills.

This is planned, but we decided not to do it for the first version.

> I consider software as tools, and if a tool cannot get the job done it
> offers zero value for money, even if the tool is free (like beer or
> speech, doesn't matter).

Using the current graphics tool, with a minimum of investment, you can
already get a complex job done. Not everything is perfect yet, but the
point is that software needs time to be done : so unavoidably, the first
version lacks some features, contains some bugs, etc.

> a user survey would be useful for determining where the developers
> should concentrate their efforts.

I wholly agree with you.

Best, Henri