J
Joseph M. Newcomer
In PPT 2003, if I needed an invisible shape (for example, to get a "connection point"
somewhere other than the poor selection we are given) I would create a shape like a
rectangle, give it "no fill" and "no line", and it was invisible. But in PPT2007, if I do
this, I get a faint outline that shows up both in the slide show and in the printed slide.
Exactly what part of "no line, no fill" did someone forget to pay attention to? And how
do I really get it to not show? (If I wanted it to show, I would have given it a line and
a fill! Duh!)
Note that I'm fine seeing it in "editing" mode, but for either slide show or printed
output I expect to see what I created, which is an invisible object (that is, I expect to
NOT see any trace of it!)
In addition, the "add custom path" has a serious bug. If I have a shape and draw a path
A----------->
and then I want to have a second path so that I can split the animation:
A------------>>-------------->
and I draw the second path starting at the end of the first path, for some reason
PowerPoint thinks "Oh. you could not POSSIBLY have meant to do that! You OBVIOUSLY meant
to start that path AT THE OBJECT!" and it "nicely" adjusts the path so that it starts back
at A. So I have to Edit Points (and the Edit Points for a path is NOT the Edit Points I
see anywhere else! But it has the same icon!) to REDRAW what I ALREADY DREW CORRECTLY!
Note: in "edit points" mode, it would be REALLY NICE to see an invisible outline showing
where the object is relative to that point. Otherwise, I can't tell where the object is
going to end up! A real pain to have to keep adjusting it when I can't see what the
result would be! As I select each point, a bounding outline should be drawn to show where
the object will be so I can avoid collisions with other objects, get it to end up
precisely where I want, etc.
I also notice that the color mapping to gray seems to give me gray-on-gray-on-gray
results; in PPT2003, different colors came out as different shades of gray. So why is it
that I don't have a way to say exactly what shade of gray should be used in grayscale
display/printing? Instead, I get a silly set of options that are preselected and designed
to be as useless as possible while giving the illusion of giving me control.
But the bottom line question here is: why is it so hard to do what the user asks? Why
does it keep "inventing" an "improved" idea on what I intend? If I want a visible box,
I'll DRAW a visible box. If I want the path to start at the object, I'll START it at the
object!
(Of course, I wouldn't need invisible objects as connection points if I could add
connection points where I need them. Why, for example, are all the connection points on
the edges, when I need one in the center of the object? But allowing the end user to
define the connection points is FAR too obvious a solution! Otherwise, it would have been
in already!)
joe
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: (e-mail address removed)
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
somewhere other than the poor selection we are given) I would create a shape like a
rectangle, give it "no fill" and "no line", and it was invisible. But in PPT2007, if I do
this, I get a faint outline that shows up both in the slide show and in the printed slide.
Exactly what part of "no line, no fill" did someone forget to pay attention to? And how
do I really get it to not show? (If I wanted it to show, I would have given it a line and
a fill! Duh!)
Note that I'm fine seeing it in "editing" mode, but for either slide show or printed
output I expect to see what I created, which is an invisible object (that is, I expect to
NOT see any trace of it!)
In addition, the "add custom path" has a serious bug. If I have a shape and draw a path
A----------->
and then I want to have a second path so that I can split the animation:
A------------>>-------------->
and I draw the second path starting at the end of the first path, for some reason
PowerPoint thinks "Oh. you could not POSSIBLY have meant to do that! You OBVIOUSLY meant
to start that path AT THE OBJECT!" and it "nicely" adjusts the path so that it starts back
at A. So I have to Edit Points (and the Edit Points for a path is NOT the Edit Points I
see anywhere else! But it has the same icon!) to REDRAW what I ALREADY DREW CORRECTLY!
Note: in "edit points" mode, it would be REALLY NICE to see an invisible outline showing
where the object is relative to that point. Otherwise, I can't tell where the object is
going to end up! A real pain to have to keep adjusting it when I can't see what the
result would be! As I select each point, a bounding outline should be drawn to show where
the object will be so I can avoid collisions with other objects, get it to end up
precisely where I want, etc.
I also notice that the color mapping to gray seems to give me gray-on-gray-on-gray
results; in PPT2003, different colors came out as different shades of gray. So why is it
that I don't have a way to say exactly what shade of gray should be used in grayscale
display/printing? Instead, I get a silly set of options that are preselected and designed
to be as useless as possible while giving the illusion of giving me control.
But the bottom line question here is: why is it so hard to do what the user asks? Why
does it keep "inventing" an "improved" idea on what I intend? If I want a visible box,
I'll DRAW a visible box. If I want the path to start at the object, I'll START it at the
object!
(Of course, I wouldn't need invisible objects as connection points if I could add
connection points where I need them. Why, for example, are all the connection points on
the edges, when I need one in the center of the object? But allowing the end user to
define the connection points is FAR too obvious a solution! Otherwise, it would have been
in already!)
joe
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: (e-mail address removed)
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm