From recherche at jjac.de Wed Jan 7 07:40:06 2004 From: recherche at jjac.de (Jens Jacobsen) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker Message-ID: Hi all, I use OG since a while and still experience a problem when connecting multiple lines to a shape. I did post this issue a few weeks ago but unfortunately nobody could help me back then... When I draw lines from one shape to some others, the line appears thicker where the lines overlap. (I have a picture & the .graffle-file on http://www.jjac.de/insider/OGlines.html) All the lines connect to the single one magnet to the left of the top shape, and all have the same properties, so this should not be the problem?! The lines are exactly connected to the same point, which I can see when I zoom in to 800%. And, surprisingly, there is just one single line with an even stroke at that zoom level. But as soon as I zoom out to 200 % or less the lines appear thicker again - and in exported tiffs this is visible also. Drawed with OG Pro 3.0.2 (v57.2). This is most apparent when I use shadows on the lines, but is visible without shadow, too. I found that OmniGraffle 2 shows the same behavior. Any hint for avoiding this is greatly appreciated! -Jens From recherche at jjac.de Thu Jan 8 01:32:10 2004 From: recherche at jjac.de (Jens Jacobsen) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker Message-ID: Hi all OG wizards & novices, thanks to Ted I got closer to the core of the problem with my overlapping lines growing thicker, I think: There seems to bee a bug with the "snap to grid" function when the measure units in the prefs (of OG) are set to Centimeters. If I use the arrow keys all works fine, but if I use the mouse to move, copy or resize a shape, the distance shift gets crooked somehow. My grid is set to 5 cm with 10 steps, so moving a shape one unit right (with "snap to grid" enabled) should move it to an x position of 5.5. Instead it moves it only to 5.4 (please see pics at http://www.jjac.de/insider/OGlines.html) Because I often use Option+Mouse to copy a shape most of my drawings have shapes with odd positions. But, unfortunately even when I use Inches and an template with an Inch-based grid the problem with the lines persists. Ted wrote that he had this problem too, but could not reproduce it now. I could not not reproduce it even once, which is quite frustrating. I must do something fundamentally wrong, but have no clue what this could be. I would be so happy if anybody could take the time to look at my OG file (on my website) and try to fix the line problem there - and tell me how he/she did this miracle, of course... Thanks in advance for any hint! -Jens From dominique at hitoro.net Thu Jan 8 12:30:05 2004 From: dominique at hitoro.net (dominique) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle-Users digest, Vol 1 #488 - 1 msg In-Reply-To: <200401072002.i07K2gol003079@slowbro.omnigroup.com> References: <200401072002.i07K2gol003079@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: Hi Jens, Instead of connecting all lines from your lower shapes to the top one, you could connect them to one main line connecting the far right shape and the top shape. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: linesGrowingThicker.graffle Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25138 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omnigraffle-users/attachments/20040108/8782ee3c/linesGrowingThicker.obj -------------- next part -------------- Dominique On 7 Jan 2004, at 21:02, omnigraffle-users-request@omnigroup.com wrote: > Send OmniGraffle-Users mailing list submissions to > omnigraffle-users@omnigroup.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > omnigraffle-users-request@omnigroup.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > omnigraffle-users-admin@omnigroup.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of OmniGraffle-Users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Overlapping lines appearing thicker (Jens Jacobsen) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:12:02 +0100 > Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker > From: Jens Jacobsen > To: > > Hi all, > > I use OG since a while and still experience a problem when connecting > multiple lines to a shape. I did post this issue a few weeks ago but > unfortunately nobody could help me back then... > > When I draw lines from one shape to some others, the line appears > thicker > where the lines overlap. (I have a picture & the .graffle-file on > http://www.jjac.de/insider/OGlines.html) > > All the lines connect to the single one magnet to the left of the top > shape, > and all have the same properties, so this should not be the problem?! > The > lines are exactly connected to the same point, which I can see when I > zoom > in to 800%. And, surprisingly, there is just one single line with an > even > stroke at that zoom level. But as soon as I zoom out to 200 % or less > the > lines appear thicker again - and in exported tiffs this is visible > also. > > Drawed with OG Pro 3.0.2 (v57.2). This is most apparent when I use > shadows > on the lines, but is visible without shadow, too. > > I found that OmniGraffle 2 shows the same behavior. > > Any hint for avoiding this is greatly appreciated! > > -Jens > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > > > End of OmniGraffle-Users Digest From ironfist at mac.com Thu Jan 8 20:54:00 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle-Users digest, Vol 1 #488 - 1 msg In-Reply-To: References: <200401072002.i07K2gol003079@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: While looking all right, unfortunately connecting a line or lines to another line won't properly build the diagram (each object is supposed to be connected to another object in this case, and will work better with future layout considerations). As Jens mentioned, it's due to snap-to-grid being turned on, and this is a bug that has been fixed for OmniGraffle 3.1, which is due to be in public beta REALLY REALLY SOON. =) Joel On Jan 8, 2004, at 12:33 PM, dominique wrote: > Hi Jens, > > Instead of connecting all lines from your lower shapes to the top one, > you could connect them to one main line connecting the far right shape > and the top shape. > > > > Dominique > > On 7 Jan 2004, at 21:02, omnigraffle-users-request@omnigroup.com wrote: > >> Send OmniGraffle-Users mailing list submissions to >> omnigraffle-users@omnigroup.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> omnigraffle-users-request@omnigroup.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> omnigraffle-users-admin@omnigroup.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of OmniGraffle-Users digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Overlapping lines appearing thicker (Jens Jacobsen) >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:12:02 +0100 >> Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker >> From: Jens Jacobsen >> To: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I use OG since a while and still experience a problem when connecting >> multiple lines to a shape. I did post this issue a few weeks ago but >> unfortunately nobody could help me back then... >> >> When I draw lines from one shape to some others, the line appears >> thicker >> where the lines overlap. (I have a picture & the .graffle-file on >> http://www.jjac.de/insider/OGlines.html) >> >> All the lines connect to the single one magnet to the left of the top >> shape, >> and all have the same properties, so this should not be the problem?! >> The >> lines are exactly connected to the same point, which I can see when I >> zoom >> in to 800%. And, surprisingly, there is just one single line with an >> even >> stroke at that zoom level. But as soon as I zoom out to 200 % or less >> the >> lines appear thicker again - and in exported tiffs this is visible >> also. >> >> Drawed with OG Pro 3.0.2 (v57.2). This is most apparent when I use >> shadows >> on the lines, but is visible without shadow, too. >> >> I found that OmniGraffle 2 shows the same behavior. >> >> Any hint for avoiding this is greatly appreciated! >> >> -Jens >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users >> >> >> End of OmniGraffle-Users Digest From paul.lists at burney.ws Fri Jan 9 08:35:02 2004 From: paul.lists at burney.ws (Paul Burney) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Feature Request - Repellant Shapes Message-ID: Hi everyone, I was thinking about this recently because of the posts on connecting multiple lines to a shape. A feature I would love to see would be shapes that could repel lines so that the lines wouldn't cross the shapes. I find it happening often on diagrams that look like org charts: [X] | -------------------- | | | | | [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] Using the square type lines, after a few of the bottom boxes work out fine, the latter ones will start crossing the earlier boxes so I need to manually add a lot of points. Then if one of those boxes needs to be moved, it's a lot of work. If you could tell OG something like "Don't put a line on top of this box!", it would be wonderful. Sincerely, Paul Burney 0) { mysql_query('SELECT reindeer FROM stable WHERE nose_color="red"'); } ?> From tim at volute.co.uk Wed Jan 7 23:39:15 2004 From: tim at volute.co.uk (Tim Ryan) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker In-Reply-To: <200401072002.i07K2eol003052@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: I agree with Jens on this - in fact, the behaviour of lines in general is the biggest area I have issues with Omnigraffle. We run a web design company, so appearance is critical, even if we are presenting a site structure diagram to clients. I don't like: 1) Overlapping lines, even when they are connected to the same magnet 2) The automatic routing of lines - I would like some way of fixing the route of a line within a diagram (eg to avoid clashing with other elements) rather than simply specifying a start and end point) Tim Ryan From recherche at jjac.de Sat Jan 10 23:58:26 2004 From: recherche at jjac.de (Jens Jacobsen) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker Message-ID: Hi all, thank you for your answers to my request for problem solving regarding lines appearing thicker when overlapping! Steven sent an very interesting mail to my personal mail address, so I want to cite the most important part: > Two things seem to be happening. One is that as the lines overlap, the shadows > layer on top of each other. This makes the line look bolder. Because the > shadows export as bit maps, this additive effect is carried over to any > exported format. I have worked around this problem by drawing a main line > connection between the two objects that would carry the most overlap and then > creating connections between other objects and that line. This isn?t as > convenient if you them want to drag objects around but it does overcome the > shadow problem. > > Even without the shadow, overlapping lines do look bolder on screen > (especially an LCD screen). However, if you zoom in is clear that this is just > an onscreen artefact. One way to test this is to export the file (I usually > export the selected graphics rather than the page as a whole) as a TIFF and > look at it in GraphicConverter or a similar package. I find that the lines > export correctly. This screen artefact problem can be seen in other graphics > applications. I vaguely remember reading somewhere online that it is related > to some compromise between the screen drawing algorithms and the vector > description algorithms at low levels of zoom but I wouldn?t rely on my memory > too much. Thanks to it I now understand the underlying issue. In fact I have a LCD screen, and I can identify the artefact just the way he described it. I now use lines without shadows, because I like to keep my diagrams in a way that I can change the layout easily later and I don't like the idea of connecting lines with lines... A feature like the one Paul described would be great - but I could imagine an even more elaborated one for my purposes: The possibility to group lines in a way that they a) snap onto each other and b) stick together when the connected shapes are moved around. Thanks again to all, Jens From larkost at softhome.net Sun Jan 11 13:11:15 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am new to this list, so my apologies if any of this has been covered before... I too am having the problem with overlapping lines, but I think I might know what is going on. I remember a conversation over on macosx-dev about this same sort of thing when drawing lines that didn't line up exactly with the pixel grid in an anti-aliased view. Since the line did not belong to either one pixel or another, both would get a percentage of the color-weight. This looks fine when you only have one line, but starts to add up when you have more than one line on top of another, making it eventually look like there are a couple of lines next to each other. This looks exactly like the problem I have been battling with. The reason that this also affects tiffs (it does not affect vector formats like PDF) is that CoreGraffics method to convert to tiffs just rasterizes the image as it is. If you could bump up the DPI some, the problem starts to go away. I am putting up some example images on the web to show: A Screenshot showing that we are off the guide line (and off pixel): http://valleybyowner.dyndns.info/~larkost/OGProblem/screenshot.pdf The problem at 72dpi in tiff: http://valleybyowner.dyndns.info/~larkost/OGProblem/problem72dpi.tiff And the partial fix at 200dpi tiff: http://valleybyowner.dyndns.info/~larkost/OGProblem/problem200dpi.tiff Finally the correct image in PDF: http://valleybyowner.dyndns.info/~larkost/OGProblem/correct.pdf (Ps.. sorry about the size of the tiffs, but I don't have PhotoShop on this computer, and so don't have zip compression in tiffs) There is a way of partially fighting this (workaround), and that is to put extra points along the line and make sure that these points snap to grid (and thus to pixels). This is also the answer to Tim's second question about how to route lines. You just Option-Double-Click (or if you have played with the preferences just Double-Click) on the line in question, and you have a point to move around. This does have the down-side that things get a bit messy when you are moving object around and the point you put down stay where they are put. And there is the problem that you have to do this for every line that crosses over the same area. Plus when you want to move this group of lines you have to move each point at a time as there is no way of grabbing a bunch of points on different object at a time (instead it grabs the objects themselves). But this work-around does not solve everything, because it does not work with magnets on objects. They can still be off-pixel, and any lines connecting to them will have to be off-pixel. Now, here are my ideas for solutions in future version of OG: Allow for a setting that would force all lines and magnets to snap to the pixel. This could either be done at the positioning level (so that things would really always be in 1/72 of an inch increments), or could be done at the rendering level (so things just looked that way on screen). I would vote for the rendering level. Add a "Cable Ties" object that would act like a magnet for lines, grouping them together. This way you could string a whole bunch of lines together and then set the "Cable Tie" to snap to grid and you would have fixed the problem at hand without having to add points to every line individually. The other nice thing about this is that if you then moved the "Cable Ties" than the lines would all move at the same time. For bonus points the "Cable Ties" could optionally separate different styles of lines into different groups (so that they would be parallel lines... maybe separated by pixels... *hint* *hint*). The biggest difficulty I would foresee would be the UI to separate lines from the "Cable Ties". My thought on this (I seem to have a few, no?) would be to have a magnified view pop up when you click on the "Cable Tie". Then you could drag a line out of the group. This would require some way of grabbing lines by arbitrary points (which might be nice anyways....). Allow magnets to snap to grid in the magnet editor. Right now it is really difficult to get them to line up properly. If when setting magnet positions you could set a point on the object that could be the snap-to point for alignment purposes. Obviously the snap-to would also have to gravitate to the edges. As a side note, I would like the option to confine the magnets to the drawn edges of groups rather than the bounding box of the group (or even better, allow for object to be inside another... but that is another more complex request). Ok... I think that is enough of War-and-Peace.... Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 8, 2004, at 2:39 AM, Tim Ryan wrote: > I agree with Jens on this - in fact, the behaviour of lines in general > is > the biggest area I have issues with Omnigraffle. We run a web design > company, so appearance is critical, even if we are presenting a site > structure diagram to clients. > > I don't like: > 1) Overlapping lines, even when they are connected to the same magnet > 2) The automatic routing of lines - I would like some way of fixing the > route of a line within a diagram (eg to avoid clashing with other > elements) > rather than simply specifying a start and end point) From john at oram.com Sun Jan 11 19:23:32 2004 From: john at oram.com (John Oram) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karl- Hear hear! Tolstoy would be proud. I have battled even line spacing for several years now. I had proposed a "conduit" a while back, but your "cable tie" tag has a better ring to it. The UI issues are tricky though. I had envisioned a special shape (essentially a rectangle, but with two ends cut out -- think a cross section of a pipe) that you could drop lines into and drag them out of, though you'd probably need a group/ungroup analogue in there somehow. You could drag it about and the lines would route accordingly, but still be bounded and spaced according to the size of the conduit/cable tie. You could make the conduit/cable tie itself visible or invisible, maybe with an tag similar to the action icon. It wouldn't behave all that differently from a normal shape except that it has some intelligence and can influence lines. I've sketched up a couple of ideas at http://oram.com/omni/cable_tie.graffle and http://oram.com/omni/cable_tie.png As for your other comments, magnet snap to grid would also be hugely helpful. (So would line magnets, but that's a different discussion.) Arrow nudging magnets would also be great. For reference, below is a list of feature requests from two years ago... We're slowly getting there. :) -John >Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:28:39 -0800 >To: omnigraffle-users@omnigroup.com >From: John Oram >Subject: enhanced line and magnet behaviour > >Howard and I were talking about some enhanced magnet and line >behaviour we'd like to see. I'd thought I'd summarize it and some >of the related traffic (From Warren, Jesse and others) we've been >seeing this week. I'll integrate these into the list I posted >previously at http://oram.com/omni > >These really come down to the need to have much tighter control over >line placement. > >- finer magnet control > - zoom in magnet pane > - nudge magnets within drawing area > - snap magnets to grid > - enhanced audio/visual feedback > - halos > - click (on discovery) > - snap (on attach) > - allow shapes to snap together > >- enhanced line tools > - line snaps at sub-multiples of 90 degrees > - conduits > - shapes that control the flow of lines > - drop lines into the conduit > - when conduit moved lines move but maintain > relationship to each other within conduit) > - e.g. I have two shapes connected, but I > need the connecting lines to bypass objects > along the way, yet still remain > - multi-line > - line type with 'n' parallel lines that maintain > relationship to one another when attached to shapes > - inter line alignment > - ability to align lines like we can with shapes? > - set line angles relative to one another > - optional line jumps (a la visio) From wade.little at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 11 22:53:16 2004 From: wade.little at sbcglobal.net (Wade Little) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Silly Question Message-ID: I am very new to OmniGraffle but love it so far! I bought the upgrade to v3 which is great. I have a very silly question.....I am trying to create a flow chart that I would like to have be multiple pages. I just filled the first page with boxs and am at the bottom. How do I get a new page so that I can continue with the flow chart?? I add new boxes to the box and they just appear in the gray area outside the page limits. How do I get a new page? Thanks for your help... Wade From judith_dohmann at mac.com Sun Jan 11 23:24:09 2004 From: judith_dohmann at mac.com (Judith Maria Nefertari Dohmann) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Silly Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504326CB-44D0-11D8-A0DD-000393B85610@mac.com> Am 12.01.2004 um 07:53 schrieb Wade Little: > I am very new to OmniGraffle but love it so far! I bought the upgrade > to v3 which is great. > > I have a very silly question.....I am trying to create a flow chart > that I would like to have be multiple pages. I just filled the first > page with boxs and am at the bottom. How do I get a new page so that > I can continue with the flow chart?? I add new boxes to the box and > they just appear in the gray area outside the page limits. How do I > get a new page? > > > Thanks for your help... > > Wade There is an inspector called "Canvas Size" there you can change this. Judith From suthercd at mac.com Mon Jan 12 09:08:56 2004 From: suthercd at mac.com (Craig Sutherland) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0164BF6A-4522-11D8-9CCA-000A958F77A0@mac.com> In the tool bar there is a drop down menu on the second line of icons named Canvas 1. Click there and you will see the Add Canvas menu item. Craig Sutherland On Jan 11, 2004, at 9:23 PM, John Oram wrote: > Karl- > Hear hear! Tolstoy would be proud. > I have battled even line spacing for several years now. I had proposed > a "conduit" a while back, but your "cable tie" tag has a better ring > to it. The UI issues are tricky though. I had envisioned a special > shape (essentially a rectangle, but with two ends cut out -- think a > cross section of a pipe) that you could drop lines into and drag them > out of, though you'd probably need a group/ungroup analogue in there > somehow. >snip< From g.souesme at free.fr Tue Jan 13 02:43:15 2004 From: g.souesme at free.fr (g.souesme@free.fr) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: presentation mode and action Message-ID: <1073990595.4003cbc33b2eb@imp2-a.free.fr> Hello! It's my first message, so hello everybody! I'm trying Omnigraffle Pro (3.02), the presentation mode especially with actions. - zoom to rectangle If I choose the "zoom to rectangle action", it's ok if use it in the "work" mode, but this has no effect in "presentation mode" - applescript I have this this simple (but useful) script: tell application "OmniGraffle Professional" display dialog "more information about this object" end tell It's ok if test it in the "work" mode, but not in "presentation mode" Is it a "bug" or a feature? Thanks for you comments (and I beg your pardon for my English) Guillaume From tom_mcintosh at telus.net Tue Jan 13 20:30:31 2004 From: tom_mcintosh at telus.net (Tom McIntosh) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Scaling Rectangles Containing Text Message-ID: <63338FE6-464A-11D8-B4DE-000A278CEDC6@telus.net> When I attempted to scale a diagram from 8 1/2x11 up to 24 by 36 by shift dragging a corner, the graphic objects scaled as expected but the text stayed at its original size. Is this normal or is there a way to get graphics and text to scale up (or down). Thanks in advance. Tom McIntosh The devil is in the details....and the deliverables. www3.telus.net/tommcin From nbastin at opnet.com Wed Jan 14 11:16:54 2004 From: nbastin at opnet.com (Nick Bastin) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Graphviz import Message-ID: <369B5078-46C6-11D8-A5F0-000393CBDF94@opnet.com> Is there any way to get edge labels to be imported from graphviz .dot files? I've been experimenting with the syntax, but nothing seems to be working - I get vertex labels, but no edge labels. -- Nick From michael at lunargrid.com Wed Jan 14 11:44:34 2004 From: michael at lunargrid.com (Michael Spina) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker In-Reply-To: <0164BF6A-4522-11D8-9CCA-000A958F77A0@mac.com> References: <0164BF6A-4522-11D8-9CCA-000A958F77A0@mac.com> Message-ID: <14011F4A-46CA-11D8-9A74-0030654BF806@lunargrid.com> This is only available in OmniGraffle Pro. ~ Michael On Jan 12, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Craig Sutherland wrote: > In the tool bar there is a drop down menu on the second line of icons > named Canvas 1. Click there and you will see the Add Canvas menu item. > > Craig Sutherland > On Jan 11, 2004, at 9:23 PM, John Oram wrote: >> Karl- >> Hear hear! Tolstoy would be proud. >> I have battled even line spacing for several years now. I had >> proposed a "conduit" a while back, but your "cable tie" tag has a >> better ring to it. The UI issues are tricky though. I had >> envisioned a special shape (essentially a rectangle, but with two >> ends cut out -- think a cross section of a pipe) that you could drop >> lines into and drag them out of, though you'd probably need a >> group/ungroup analogue in there somehow. > >snip< > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From michael at lunargrid.com Wed Jan 14 11:48:06 2004 From: michael at lunargrid.com (Michael Spina) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Overlapping lines appearing thicker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <92DE0C35-46CA-11D8-9A74-0030654BF806@lunargrid.com> This isn't apparent, but you can option-double-click on a line and it will add a control handle at any point in the middle of a line, and you can add several. It basically drags its segment around at a perpendicular direction so you can force a "run-around" of another object. On Jan 8, 2004, at 2:39 AM, Tim Ryan wrote: > 2) The automatic routing of lines - I would like some way of fixing the > route of a line within a diagram (eg to avoid clashing with other > elements) > rather than simply specifying a start and end point) From ironfist at mac.com Wed Jan 14 19:05:38 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Graphviz import In-Reply-To: <369B5078-46C6-11D8-A5F0-000393CBDF94@opnet.com> References: <369B5078-46C6-11D8-A5F0-000393CBDF94@opnet.com> Message-ID: This is something that got fixed in OmniGraffle 3.1, we should be rolling out a public beta sometime really really soon. Joel On Jan 14, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Nick Bastin wrote: > Is there any way to get edge labels to be imported from graphviz .dot > files? I've been experimenting with the syntax, but nothing seems to > be working - I get vertex labels, but no edge labels. > > -- > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From chris.ridd at isode.com Wed Jan 14 23:08:53 2004 From: chris.ridd at isode.com (Chris Ridd) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Minor buglet in 3.0.2 (v57.2) Message-ID: When exporting a document, the format popup in the save sheet includes "NSPostScriptPBoardType" instead of (presumably) "Encapsulated PostScript". Is something that?s fouled up on my installation, or does everyone see this? I'm using OG Pro on Panther (10.3.2). Cheers, Chris From ironfist at mac.com Wed Jan 14 23:15:22 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Minor buglet in 3.0.2 (v57.2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95359780-472A-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> It's most likely another application that's "hijacked" the EPS format via Launch Services. We've fixed this in 3.1, in the meantime you can delete your Launch Services prefs and the label should come back. Even if you don't, it's a cosmetic issue: the EPS exports fine and has the proper file extension. Joel On Jan 14, 2004, at 11:08 PM, Chris Ridd wrote: > When exporting a document, the format popup in the save sheet includes > "NSPostScriptPBoardType" instead of (presumably) "Encapsulated > PostScript". > > Is something that?s fouled up on my installation, or does everyone see > this? > > I'm using OG Pro on Panther (10.3.2). > > Cheers, > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From nbastin at opnet.com Thu Jan 15 00:14:13 2004 From: nbastin at opnet.com (Nick Bastin) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Automatic layout of edges Message-ID: Is there any way to force the layout engine to separate sets of simplex edges and force them not to be drawn on top of each other? I.e., to draw two curved edges between two vertices instead of two straight edges right on top of each other. It makes it difficult to tell the difference between duplex and simplex edges in the graph. -- Nick From chris.ridd at isode.com Thu Jan 15 00:23:43 2004 From: chris.ridd at isode.com (Chris Ridd) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: Minor buglet in 3.0.2 (v57.2) In-Reply-To: <95359780-472A-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> Message-ID: On 15/1/04 7:15 am, Joel Page wrote: > It's most likely another application that's "hijacked" the EPS format > via Launch Services. We've fixed this in 3.1, in the meantime you can > delete your Launch Services prefs and the label should come back. I removed ~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.LaunchServices.plist, logged out and back in again, but the label is still incorrect. In fact, logging back in again hasn't recreated the plist. What other files should I remove? > Even if you don't, it's a cosmetic issue: the EPS exports fine and has > the proper file extension. I thought that was probably the case. I don't use EPS export that much. Cheers, Chris From nateg at pobox.com Thu Jan 15 07:27:22 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? Message-ID: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> I know this has been discussed, by looking into the archives. But has anybody discovered the secret sauce for getting OmniGraffle objects into Word X so that the following occurs: 1. There is a (possibly low resolution) preview. 2. No fuzzies when you print. 3. Resizable objects, with no loss of resolution. Clearly EPS is the best way, but OG does not provide a preview. So the best, but kludgy, workaround I have discovered is the following: 1. Copy the selection in OG 2. In Photoshop Elements, do New from Clipboard. 3. In Photoshop Elements, export as Photoshop EPS, Macintosh 8 bit medium preview. 4. Import into Word X This works, and the stuff prints fine on both Mac and PC. But does anybody have a better way? I have tried playing around with Preview under Panther with no luck. I really don't want high resolution bitmaps like PNG or JPEG. Best Regards, Nate --- Nate Goldshlag nateg at pobox.com Arlington, MA http://www.pobox.com/~nateg From nick_green at onetel.net.uk Thu Jan 15 10:13:48 2004 From: nick_green at onetel.net.uk (Nick Green) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: <9090C0B2-4786-11D8-BBA0-000393763A5A@onetel.net.uk> I've exported the OG file to PDF, and then imported the PDF into Word, using Insert ?> Picture ?> From File? . You can either embed the file in the document, or link to it as you can in QuarkXpress or InDesign. Prints OK, looks, OK. Hope that helps Nick Green London ________________________________________________________ May 2001 Dual USB iBook / 600MHz G3 / 640MB RAM / Mac OS X 10.3.2 From nateg at pobox.com Thu Jan 15 10:21:21 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <9090C0B2-4786-11D8-BBA0-000393763A5A@onetel.net.uk> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <9090C0B2-4786-11D8-BBA0-000393763A5A@onetel.net.uk> Message-ID: <9E9A5EE4-4787-11D8-912E-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> I honestly don't know how that works for you. Text comes out all fuzzy when printed, not crisp like when you print from OG. Does not matter if anti-aliasing is on or off. Many others say the same. Nate On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Nick Green wrote: > I've exported the OG file to PDF, and then imported the PDF into Word, > using Insert ?> Picture ?> From File? . You can either embed the file > in the document, or link to it as you can in QuarkXpress or InDesign. > > Prints OK, looks, OK. > > Hope that helps > > Nick Green > London > > > ________________________________________________________ > May 2001 Dual USB iBook / 600MHz G3 / 640MB RAM / Mac OS X 10.3.2 > > > From cassiope at wanadoo.nl Thu Jan 15 10:27:35 2004 From: cassiope at wanadoo.nl (Robert Tito) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <9E9A5EE4-4787-11D8-912E-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 15-01-2004 19:21, "Nate Goldshlag" wrote: > I honestly don't know how that works for you. Text comes out all fuzzy > when printed, not crisp like when you print from OG. Does not matter > if anti-aliasing is on or off. Many others say the same. > > Nate > > On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Nick Green wrote: > >> I've exported the OG file to PDF, and then imported the PDF into Word, >> using Insert ?> Picture ?> From File? . You can either embed the file >> in the document, or link to it as you can in QuarkXpress or InDesign. >> >> Prints OK, looks, OK. >> >> Hope that helps >> >> Nick Green >> London >> >> >> ________________________________________________________ >> May 2001 Dual USB iBook / 600MHz G3 / 640MB RAM / Mac OS X 10.3.2 >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > Export to JPG then import You dont like large files: you dont like quality then, either you do that or your low res images will indeed look bad. Rob Tito From programmingosx at mac.com Thu Jan 15 10:57:37 2004 From: programmingosx at mac.com (David Holt) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I import to Word using high quality jpg (try 300 dpi). Check your settings in OG maybe you're exporting low res jpgs. My graphics look beautiful printed or onscreen. I have also printed out posters using JPG images from OG, so it seems to depend on the dpi you're setting when you export the file. On Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Robert Tito wrote: > On 15-01-2004 19:21, "Nate Goldshlag" wrote: > >> I honestly don't know how that works for you. Text comes out all >> fuzzy >> when printed, not crisp like when you print from OG. Does not matter >> if anti-aliasing is on or off. Many others say the same. >> >> Nate >> >> On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Nick Green wrote: >> >>> I've exported the OG file to PDF, and then imported the PDF into >>> Word, >>> using Insert ?> Picture ?> From File? . You can either embed the file >>> in the document, or link to it as you can in QuarkXpress or >>> InDesign. >>> >>> Prints OK, looks, OK. >>> >>> Hope that helps >>> >>> Nick Green >>> London >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________ >>> May 2001 Dual USB iBook / 600MHz G3 / 640MB RAM / Mac OS X 10.3.2 >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users >> > Export to JPG then import > You dont like large files: you dont like quality then, either you do > that or > your low res images will indeed look bad. > > > > > > Rob Tito > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > > -- The afternoon knows what the morning never suspected. Swedish Proverb from Sunbeams: http://www.thesunmagazine.org From nateg at pobox.com Thu Jan 15 12:03:09 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, I have a big technical document. I really want objects not bitmaps. This is why graphics professionals like EPS. With JPEG or PNG, printing is ridiculously slow, even on a fast laser printer at work. And the file size is larger. I really need an EPS solution with preview for OG. Nate On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:57 PM, David Holt wrote: > I import to Word using high quality jpg (try 300 dpi). Check your > settings in OG maybe you're exporting low res jpgs. My graphics look > beautiful printed or onscreen. I have also printed out posters using > JPG images from OG, so it seems to depend on the dpi you're setting > when you export the file. > > > On Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Robert Tito wrote: > >> On 15-01-2004 19:21, "Nate Goldshlag" wrote: >> >>> I honestly don't know how that works for you. Text comes out all >>> fuzzy >>> when printed, not crisp like when you print from OG. Does not matter >>> if anti-aliasing is on or off. Many others say the same. >>> >>> Nate >>> >>> On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Nick Green wrote: >>> >>>> I've exported the OG file to PDF, and then imported the PDF into >>>> Word, >>>> using Insert ?> Picture ?> From File? . You can either embed the >>>> file >>>> in the document, or link to it as you can in QuarkXpress or >>>> InDesign. >>>> >>>> Prints OK, looks, OK. >>>> >>>> Hope that helps >>>> >>>> Nick Green >>>> London >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________________________________ >>>> May 2001 Dual USB iBook / 600MHz G3 / 640MB RAM / Mac OS X 10.3.2 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >>> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users >>> >> Export to JPG then import >> You dont like large files: you dont like quality then, either you do >> that or >> your low res images will indeed look bad. >> >> >> >> >> >> Rob Tito >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users >> >> > -- > The afternoon knows what the morning never suspected. > > Swedish Proverb > > from Sunbeams: http://www.thesunmagazine.org > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > > From gis.ger at cymes.de Thu Jan 15 12:32:59 2004 From: gis.ger at cymes.de (Ortwin Zillgen) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> Nate > I have a big technical document. I really want objects not bitmaps. > This is why graphics professionals like EPS. With JPEG or PNG, > printing is ridiculously slow, even on a fast laser printer at work. > And the file size is larger. > > I really need an EPS solution with preview for OG. I don't see the problem. EPS ist PostScript and you need a PostScript-Interpreter to use the full resolution of the outputmedia. Preview of OSX.3 does do that pretty well. To see more than a rectangle-representation of the space occupied by the EPS, a preview gets generated, usually. This is a bitmap at 72 dpi, mostly. > Clearly EPS is the best way, but OG does not provide a preview. So the > best, but kludgy, workaround I have discovered is the following: So what I did was printing from OG into a file, output options: "save as file" and "postscript". Your statement "but OG does not provide a preview" is not true, it does and it looks pretty well. Drag that EPS into TextEdit and you'll see. If it doesn't show in Word X, you know whom to ask. Regards Ortwin Zillgen 같같같같같같같같같같같같같 Stadt Land Flu� * Geographic Informationsystems From nateg at pobox.com Thu Jan 15 12:47:33 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:33 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> Message-ID: <0B5546C4-479C-11D8-912E-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> >> I have a big technical document. I really want objects not bitmaps. >> This is why graphics professionals like EPS. With JPEG or PNG, >> printing is ridiculously slow, even on a fast laser printer at work. >> And the file size is larger. >> >> I really need an EPS solution with preview for OG. > > I don't see the problem. EPS ist PostScript and you need a > PostScript-Interpreter to use the full resolution of the outputmedia. > Preview of OSX.3 does do that pretty well. > To see more than a rectangle-representation of the space occupied by > the EPS, a preview gets generated, usually. This is a bitmap at 72 > dpi, mostly. OG does not create such a preview. > >> Clearly EPS is the best way, but OG does not provide a preview. So >> the >> best, but kludgy, workaround I have discovered is the following: > > So what I did was printing from OG into a file, output options: "save > as file" and "postscript". Your statement "but OG does not provide a > preview" is not true, it does and it looks pretty well. > Drag that EPS into TextEdit and you'll see. If it doesn't show in Word > X, you know whom to ask. A postscript file is not the same as EPS. If I print the OG thing to .ps it will get the whole page and not just the object I want. And you cannot drag that into Word X. You can drag it into Preview under Panther and it gets converted to .pdf. But there is no way to get that into Word without getting fuzzy printing. At least none that I have figured out. Nate > > > Regards > Ortwin Zillgen From larkost at softhome.net Thu Jan 15 13:03:34 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> Message-ID: <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> I am not sure what you were arguing Ortwin, Nate was simply asking for a preview to be embedded into OmniGraffle's EPD output. This is usually done by inserting a tiff into the image, and OmniGraffle does not do this currently (I checked... no embedded preview). This would be a nice feature for two reasons: Some applications (Word being the case in point) do not have postscript interpreters built in, and look to the embedded preview to have something to display (Quark was the main example of this... but this has changed.. somewhat... in the latest version). The second reason is that you get a nice preview of the image in the Finder. This can be very nice when you have a whole catalog of files and are looking for the 'one with the red dress'. I too would like to see this feature added, but it is not a high priority for me. I can understand how it would be for those people who are trapped into using word. Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 15, 2004, at 3:32 PM, Ortwin Zillgen wrote: >> I really need an EPS solution with preview for OG. > > I don't see the problem. EPS ist PostScript and you need a > PostScript-Interpreter to use the full resolution of the outputmedia. > Preview of OSX.3 does do that pretty well. > To see more than a rectangle-representation of the space occupied by > the EPS, a preview gets generated, usually. This is a bitmap at 72 > dpi, mostly. > >> Clearly EPS is the best way, but OG does not provide a preview. So >> the >> best, but kludgy, workaround I have discovered is the following: > > So what I did was printing from OG into a file, output options: "save > as file" and "postscript". Your statement "but OG does not provide a > preview" is not true, it does and it looks pretty well. > Drag that EPS into TextEdit and you'll see. If it doesn't show in Word > X, you know whom to ask. From amaxwell at wsu.edu Thu Jan 15 13:58:51 2004 From: amaxwell at wsu.edu (Adam Maxwell) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: <00E90566-47A6-11D8-A9BB-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> On 15 Jan, 2004, at 09:27, Nate Goldshlag wrote: [...] > This works, and the stuff prints fine on both Mac and PC. But does > anybody have a better way? I have tried playing around with Preview > under Panther with no luck. I really don't want high resolution > bitmaps like PNG or JPEG. An alternate way might be to use from an AppleScript via Folder Actions (you do have Panther, right?), but it would definitely be easier if the preview was included directly by OG. I use pdf and LaTeX, personally, so I just export as PNG from OG on the rare occasions when I have to use Word. rgds, Adam From ironfist at mac.com Thu Jan 15 19:39:43 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> Message-ID: <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> Just to clear it up for everyone interested: OmniGraffle does not put a preview image in its EPS exports, we have relied on the operating system to do the "heavy lifting" when it comes to the exports (which is why at times EPS gets renamed), so if the OS isn't putting in an export, then by proxy neither is Graffle. To add more problems to the whole import/export issue, as a Cocoa app we've largely ignored anything outside of what Quartz offers, unfortunately in this case after three years, Microsoft has ignored Quartz, instead favoring the older QuickDraw API, which they get for free being a Carbon app. Quartz can 'see' certain aspects of the QuickDraw stuff, sadly the vector-based Pict file format isn't one of them, so there's no luck there either. Likewise, even though Word can insert a PDF, it renders it as a 72 dpi bitmap image, which I find to be wrong in the wrongest way. And even though one can put a preview into our EPS exports via free utilities, Word continues to ignore those as well. We've tried putting a TIFF preview in, and it crashed Word. Panther offers a new PDF rendering service for EPS files, which Cocoa apps get for free, but Microsoft hasn't leveraged it yet. I sometimes get disillusioned and believe that the Mac BU will never ever use Quartz as Apple and others wish that they would. And if they don't, then I shall condemn them forever. So the whole shebang is caught at an impasse, where we're saying "Come on, use PDF" and Word is saying, "Come on, use vector-based Pict" (which would be the best best best option to get high-quality vector content into Word and PowerPoint and Excel). We're not necessarily stuck, however. Even though there are precious few Cocoa apps that can make the kind of content we do, there is an option in the fact that Carbon code can be put inside of Cocoa (sorry, I'm not really a programmer, so I don't know the proper way to say it); and in fact there is a Cocoa application that does this, and retains vector-based Pict information and it is Keynote, from Apple. They have to do this due to their PowerPoint format support. As soon as we realized this, some tests were made and it looks very promising that we can do the same. I cannot wait for some sort of solution to this to come about, whether it be on our part or Microsoft's. I have literally written thousands upon thousands upon thousands of words having to explain it over and over again. It makes me sad. On the brighter side, if there aren't any huge hiccups or major disasters tomorrow, there will be some happy news on this list of a different nature. Joel On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:03 PM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > I am not sure what you were arguing Ortwin, Nate was simply asking > for a preview to be embedded into OmniGraffle's EPD output. This is > usually done by inserting a tiff into the image, and OmniGraffle does > not do this currently (I checked... no embedded preview). This would > be a nice feature for two reasons: Some applications (Word being the > case in point) do not have postscript interpreters built in, and look > to the embedded preview to have something to display (Quark was the > main example of this... but this has changed.. somewhat... in the > latest version). > The second reason is that you get a nice preview of the image in the > Finder. This can be very nice when you have a whole catalog of files > and are looking for the 'one with the red dress'. I too would like to > see this feature added, but it is not a high priority for me. I can > understand how it would be for those people who are trapped into using > word. > > Karl Kuehn > larkost@softhome.net > > On Jan 15, 2004, at 3:32 PM, Ortwin Zillgen wrote: > >>> I really need an EPS solution with preview for OG. >> >> I don't see the problem. EPS ist PostScript and you need a >> PostScript-Interpreter to use the full resolution of the outputmedia. >> Preview of OSX.3 does do that pretty well. >> To see more than a rectangle-representation of the space occupied by >> the EPS, a preview gets generated, usually. This is a bitmap at 72 >> dpi, mostly. >> >>> Clearly EPS is the best way, but OG does not provide a preview. So >>> the >>> best, but kludgy, workaround I have discovered is the following: >> >> So what I did was printing from OG into a file, output options: "save >> as file" and "postscript". Your statement "but OG does not provide a >> preview" is not true, it does and it looks pretty well. >> Drag that EPS into TextEdit and you'll see. If it doesn't show in >> Word X, you know whom to ask. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From nateg at pobox.com Fri Jan 16 03:02:50 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> Message-ID: <863A5FFC-4813-11D8-912E-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Joel, Thanks for the detailed and cogent explanation. I have known from the beginning it was Microsoft's fault and I appreciate you guys trying to accommodate those of us with real work to do - to get detailed drawings into Word X. I look forward to a solution to this in the future. And thanks. Nate On Jan 15, 2004, at 10:39 PM, Joel Page wrote: > Just to clear it up for everyone interested: > > OmniGraffle does not put a preview image in its EPS exports, we have > relied on the operating system to do the "heavy lifting" when it comes > to the exports (which is why at times EPS gets renamed), so if the OS > isn't putting in an export, then by proxy neither is Graffle. > > To add more problems to the whole import/export issue, as a Cocoa app > we've largely ignored anything outside of what Quartz offers, > unfortunately in this case after three years, Microsoft has ignored > Quartz, instead favoring the older QuickDraw API, which they get for > free being a Carbon app. Quartz can 'see' certain aspects of the > QuickDraw stuff, sadly the vector-based Pict file format isn't one of > them, so there's no luck there either. > > Likewise, even though Word can insert a PDF, it renders it as a 72 dpi > bitmap image, which I find to be wrong in the wrongest way. And even > though one can put a preview into our EPS exports via free utilities, > Word continues to ignore those as well. > > We've tried putting a TIFF preview in, and it crashed Word. Panther > offers a new PDF rendering service for EPS files, which Cocoa apps get > for free, but Microsoft hasn't leveraged it yet. I sometimes get > disillusioned and believe that the Mac BU will never ever use Quartz > as Apple and others wish that they would. And if they don't, then I > shall condemn them forever. > > So the whole shebang is caught at an impasse, where we're saying "Come > on, use PDF" and Word is saying, "Come on, use vector-based Pict" > (which would be the best best best option to get high-quality vector > content into Word and PowerPoint and Excel). > > We're not necessarily stuck, however. Even though there are precious > few Cocoa apps that can make the kind of content we do, there is an > option in the fact that Carbon code can be put inside of Cocoa (sorry, > I'm not really a programmer, so I don't know the proper way to say > it); and in fact there is a Cocoa application that does this, and > retains vector-based Pict information and it is Keynote, from Apple. > They have to do this due to their PowerPoint format support. As soon > as we realized this, some tests were made and it looks very promising > that we can do the same. > > I cannot wait for some sort of solution to this to come about, whether > it be on our part or Microsoft's. I have literally written thousands > upon thousands upon thousands of words having to explain it over and > over again. > > It makes me sad. > > On the brighter side, if there aren't any huge hiccups or major > disasters tomorrow, there will be some happy news on this list of a > different nature. > > Joel > --- Nate Goldshlag nateg at pobox.com Arlington, MA http://www.pobox.com/~nateg From amaxwell at wsu.edu Fri Jan 16 05:42:09 2004 From: amaxwell at wsu.edu (Adam Maxwell) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> Message-ID: On 15 Jan, 2004, at 21:39, Joel Page wrote: > Likewise, even though Word can insert a PDF, it renders it as a 72 dpi > bitmap image, which I find to be wrong in the wrongest way. Hear, hear! I think this would be bigger/better news for Word 2004 than any of the 'features' that they demoed at Macworld. Not like I'd start using it again anyway :). > And even though one can put a preview into our EPS exports via free > utilities, Word continues to ignore those as well. FWIW, I've been able to do this successfully with epstool, although Word only recognizes an LZW TIFF preview. If anyone is interested, the command line is `epstool -tg --device tifflzw inputfile.eps outputfile.eps`; this requires ghostscript, as well, so it's non-trivial. I'm sure the Carbon solution you folks are working on is much cleaner! Looking forward to hearing the news on the list today... rgds, Adam Maxwell From pdavis at rand.org Fri Jan 16 07:34:29 2004 From: pdavis at rand.org (Paul Davis) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> Message-ID: <79B5A601-4839-11D8-8ECA-000A95C472F4@rand.org> Joel Just to review, to make sure I have things straight, if we want to insert an OG figure into Word and have it sharp on screen and when printed, I am confident that I can do this by (1) exporting to pdf, (2) importing into something like PhotoShop or Illustrator, (3) exporting in something like a 300 dpi Tif, and (4) inserting the result in Word. That works consistently. It consistently does NOT work if one tries to insert a pdf file into Word, for reasons that you've discussed. It is easy to miss the fuzziness with some figures, especially on screen, but if you want a high-quality printed version it will be obvious. Now, where I remain confused is with other options. I believe that some folks have said that you can go OG-->Preview-->file--->Word and get good results. I have not been able to reprdouce that. To the contrary, if I import into Preview an exported OG pdf file, and then export it as a TIFF, the result is fuzzy. The only options were a bit mysterious to me, but I chose "best depth" and "PackBits." So, question 1, is there indeed a correct way to go through Preview and get good results both on screen and printed? The other option is to export directly from OG into something like TIF or JPEG, and then import into Word. However, because of a bug in OG, as I understand it, the export is in 72 dpi. Thus, the figure imported into Word is large. When last I played with this two months ago, I would have sworn that the resulting figure in Word was still fuzzy, even if I shrunk the figure down to recover the full resolution. Today, however, I have consistently gotten good results exporting to TIF or JPEG (at 300 dpi), importing into Word, and then shrinking the figures. Has anything changed in OmniGraffle, or did I just screw up previously? In any case, is this approach of exporting directly to TIF or JPEG, importing into Word, and shrinking, solid? From ironfist at mac.com Fri Jan 16 08:35:45 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <79B5A601-4839-11D8-8ECA-000A95C472F4@rand.org> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> <79B5A601-4839-11D8-8ECA-000A95C472F4@rand.org> Message-ID: <08AF2E0B-4842-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> In short, ummm, yes. =) You can export directly to a high resolution raster (pixel) format, and for the most part you'll get the proper number of pixels, just the wrong (oversized) dimensions. Re-scaling in Word or whatever will fix this, but it really should be handled on our end, and there's a bug filed. However, that said -- even at 600 dpi lines and text will not look as good as vector data. Objects with shadows will be okay, because of the shadows creating a screen (halftone dots when printed) but understand that commercial printers print text and hard-edged lines at resolutions between 1,200 and 3,386 dots per inch. It's especially noticeable when you have a mix of vector data and raster data. 300 dpi is perfectly adequate for anything that will get haltoned up to 200 lines per inch (newspapers print at 85 lpi, magazines at 133 lpi, coffee table books at 150, 175, and 200 lpi). Additionally, if there are rounded things like lines or ovals, they will suffer greatly at a resolution of 300 dpi as opposed to rectangles and squares, etc. Joel On Jan 16, 2004, at 7:34 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > Joel > > Just to review, to make sure I have things straight, if we want to > insert an OG figure into Word and have it sharp on screen and when > printed, I am confident that I can do this by (1) exporting to pdf, > (2) importing into something like PhotoShop or Illustrator, (3) > exporting in something like a 300 dpi Tif, and (4) inserting the > result in Word. That works consistently. > > It consistently does NOT work if one tries to insert a pdf file into > Word, for reasons that you've discussed. It is easy to miss the > fuzziness with some figures, especially on screen, but if you want a > high-quality printed version it will be obvious. > > Now, where I remain confused is with other options. I believe that > some folks have said that you can go OG-->Preview-->file--->Word and > get good results. I have not been able to reprdouce that. To the > contrary, if I import into Preview an exported OG pdf file, and then > export it as a TIFF, the result is fuzzy. The only options were a bit > mysterious to me, but I chose "best depth" and "PackBits." So, > question 1, is there indeed a correct way to go through Preview and > get good results both on screen and printed? > > The other option is to export directly from OG into something like TIF > or JPEG, and then import into Word. However, because of a bug in OG, > as I understand it, the export is in 72 dpi. Thus, the figure > imported into Word is large. When last I played with this two months > ago, I would have sworn that the resulting figure in Word was still > fuzzy, even if I shrunk the figure down to recover the full > resolution. Today, however, I have consistently gotten good results > exporting to TIF or JPEG (at 300 dpi), importing into Word, and then > shrinking the figures. Has anything changed in OmniGraffle, or did I > just screw up previously? In any case, is this approach of exporting > directly to TIF or JPEG, importing into Word, and shrinking, solid? > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From ironfist at mac.com Fri Jan 16 08:37:37 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> Message-ID: <4B7EFD86-4842-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> I shall have to try this -- never got any of the GhostScript-based utilities to work before. If I can get a decent recipe (or a script that does it) it would help out immensely. Joel On Jan 16, 2004, at 5:42 AM, Adam Maxwell wrote: > > On 15 Jan, 2004, at 21:39, Joel Page wrote: > >> Likewise, even though Word can insert a PDF, it renders it as a 72 >> dpi bitmap image, which I find to be wrong in the wrongest way. > > Hear, hear! I think this would be bigger/better news for Word 2004 > than any of the 'features' that they demoed at Macworld. Not like I'd > start using it again anyway :). > >> And even though one can put a preview into our EPS exports via free >> utilities, Word continues to ignore those as well. > > FWIW, I've been able to do this successfully with epstool, although > Word only recognizes an LZW TIFF preview. If anyone is interested, > the command line is `epstool -tg --device tifflzw inputfile.eps > outputfile.eps`; this requires ghostscript, as well, so it's > non-trivial. I'm sure the Carbon solution you folks are working on is > much cleaner! > > Looking forward to hearing the news on the list today... > > rgds, > Adam Maxwell > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From omnigraffle at aaronflynt.com Fri Jan 16 08:47:08 2004 From: omnigraffle at aaronflynt.com (Aaron Flynt) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <4B7EFD86-4842-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> <4B7EFD86-4842-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> Message-ID: <9FD8AF14-4843-11D8-9957-00039387C5DC@aaronflynt.com> I don't know if this has been covered, but I was able to successfully get OG objects into Word X on my 10.3.2 machine using the following method: 1. Copy the objects in Omnigraffle to the clipboard. 2. Open Preview and select File->New From Clipboard (or just hit command-n) 3. Export the file in preview as a pict file setting the options at PHOTO-JPEG, best depth, best quality. 4. In word select Insert->Picture->From File... and select the exported .pict file. The .doc file looks and prints great on Word v.X Mac and Office XP Windows. -= Aaron Flynt =- On Jan 16, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Joel Page wrote: > I shall have to try this -- never got any of the GhostScript-based > utilities to work before. > > If I can get a decent recipe (or a script that does it) it would help > out immensely. > > Joel > > On Jan 16, 2004, at 5:42 AM, Adam Maxwell wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jan, 2004, at 21:39, Joel Page wrote: >> >>> Likewise, even though Word can insert a PDF, it renders it as a 72 >>> dpi bitmap image, which I find to be wrong in the wrongest way. >> >> Hear, hear! I think this would be bigger/better news for Word 2004 >> than any of the 'features' that they demoed at Macworld. Not like >> I'd start using it again anyway :). >> >>> And even though one can put a preview into our EPS exports via free >>> utilities, Word continues to ignore those as well. >> >> FWIW, I've been able to do this successfully with epstool, although >> Word only recognizes an LZW TIFF preview. If anyone is interested, >> the command line is `epstool -tg --device tifflzw inputfile.eps >> outputfile.eps`; this requires ghostscript, as well, so it's >> non-trivial. I'm sure the Carbon solution you folks are working on >> is much cleaner! >> >> Looking forward to hearing the news on the list today... >> >> rgds, >> Adam Maxwell >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > From prager at ieee.org Fri Jan 16 10:17:34 2004 From: prager at ieee.org (Kenneth Prager) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <08AF2E0B-4842-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> <79B5A601-4839-11D8-8ECA-000A95C472F4@rand.org> <08AF2E0B-4842-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> Message-ID: In addition, producing bitmapped images of resolution greater than 144 dpi can result in extremely large files. Here is my situation: I work remotely with people who are all on PCs. I have been using OG to specify an ASIC we are designing and have come up with numerous very detailed drawings. Because of the level of detail it is important that they be readable (i.e., high resolution). Also, since I work remotely files size is somewhat of an issue (although not as much as it was 5 or 6 years ago). We use Word and PowerPoint for both presentations (design reviews) and hard copy. Thus it is important for the files to look good in both forms (ruling out EPS). Also, the bitmapped drawings take longer to render and result in several seconds of blank page--not good for presentations. After much experimentation I found that png format, with a resolution of 288 dpi, results in decent screen and print quality. However, EPS looks better when printed and the resultant file sizes are still quite large Needles to say, I am anxiously awaiting a vector solution. I used to use MacDraw Pro. It integrated nicely with Microsoft products because of its native PICT format. However, OG is so much easier to use. Best, Ken P. At 8:35 AM -0800 1/16/04, Joel Page wrote: >In short, ummm, yes. =) > >You can export directly to a high resolution raster (pixel) format, >and for the most part you'll get the proper number of pixels, just >the wrong (oversized) dimensions. Re-scaling in Word or whatever >will fix this, but it really should be handled on our end, and >there's a bug filed. > >However, that said -- even at 600 dpi lines and text will not look >as good as vector data. Objects with shadows will be okay, because >of the shadows creating a screen (halftone dots when printed) but >understand that commercial printers print text and hard-edged lines >at resolutions between 1,200 and 3,386 dots per inch. It's >especially noticeable when you have a mix of vector data and raster >data. 300 dpi is perfectly adequate for anything that will get >haltoned up to 200 lines per inch (newspapers print at 85 lpi, >magazines at 133 lpi, coffee table books at 150, 175, and 200 lpi). >Additionally, if there are rounded things like lines or ovals, they >will suffer greatly at a resolution of 300 dpi as opposed to >rectangles and squares, etc. > >Joel > > >On Jan 16, 2004, at 7:34 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > >>Joel >> >>Just to review, to make sure I have things straight, if we want to >>insert an OG figure into Word and have it sharp on screen and when >>printed, I am confident that I can do this by (1) exporting to pdf, >>(2) importing into something like PhotoShop or Illustrator, (3) >>exporting in something like a 300 dpi Tif, and (4) inserting the >>result in Word. That works consistently. >> >>It consistently does NOT work if one tries to insert a pdf file >>into Word, for reasons that you've discussed. It is easy to miss >>the fuzziness with some figures, especially on screen, but if you >>want a high-quality printed version it will be obvious. >> >>Now, where I remain confused is with other options. I believe that >>some folks have said that you can go OG-->Preview-->file--->Word >>and get good results. I have not been able to reprdouce that. To >>the contrary, if I import into Preview an exported OG pdf file, and >>then export it as a TIFF, the result is fuzzy. The only options >>were a bit mysterious to me, but I chose "best depth" and >>"PackBits." So, question 1, is there indeed a correct way to go >>through Preview and get good results both on screen and printed? >> >>The other option is to export directly from OG into something like >>TIF or JPEG, and then import into Word. However, because of a bug >>in OG, as I understand it, the export is in 72 dpi. Thus, the >>figure imported into Word is large. When last I played with this >>two months ago, I would have sworn that the resulting figure in >>Word was still fuzzy, even if I shrunk the figure down to recover >>the full resolution. Today, however, I have consistently gotten >>good results exporting to TIF or JPEG (at 300 dpi), importing into >>Word, and then shrinking the figures. Has anything changed in >>OmniGraffle, or did I just screw up previously? In any case, is >>this approach of exporting directly to TIF or JPEG, importing into >>Word, and shrinking, solid? >> >>_______________________________________________ >>OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >>OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >>http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > >_______________________________________________ >OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From support at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 16 18:05:26 2004 From: support at omnigroup.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle 3.1 public beta -- a slight hiccup Message-ID: <9DBA98EE-4891-11D8-B03C-000393199306@omnigroup.com> Remember that hiccup I warned against yesterday? I am fairly certain its name was Murphy. Monday's a holiday, so I myself am looking at Tuesday. Everyone have a good weekend. Joel Page Support Engineer The Omni Group From nateg at pobox.com Sat Jan 17 06:01:43 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <9FD8AF14-4843-11D8-9957-00039387C5DC@aaronflynt.com> References: <01FA30F3-479A-11D8-BFEF-00050271B4DB@cymes.de> <47BD8423-479E-11D8-B429-003065D8C728@softhome.net> <9F801D0A-47D5-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> <4B7EFD86-4842-11D8-8CB3-003065587B8A@mac.com> <9FD8AF14-4843-11D8-9957-00039387C5DC@aaronflynt.com> Message-ID: Sorry, but this does not work. Text in Word X still has the fuzzy printing problem. Prints fine from Preview. Nate On Jan 16, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Aaron Flynt wrote: > I don't know if this has been covered, but I was able to successfully > get OG objects into Word X on my 10.3.2 machine using the following > method: > > 1. Copy the objects in Omnigraffle to the clipboard. > 2. Open Preview and select File->New From Clipboard (or just hit > command-n) > 3. Export the file in preview as a pict file setting the options at > PHOTO-JPEG, best depth, best quality. > 4. In word select Insert->Picture->From File... and select the > exported .pict file. > > The .doc file looks and prints great on Word v.X Mac and Office XP > Windows. > > -= Aaron Flynt =- > > On Jan 16, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Joel Page wrote: > >> I shall have to try this -- never got any of the GhostScript-based >> utilities to work before. >> >> If I can get a decent recipe (or a script that does it) it would help >> out immensely. >> >> Joel >> >> On Jan 16, 2004, at 5:42 AM, Adam Maxwell wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15 Jan, 2004, at 21:39, Joel Page wrote: >>> >>>> Likewise, even though Word can insert a PDF, it renders it as a 72 >>>> dpi bitmap image, which I find to be wrong in the wrongest way. >>> >>> Hear, hear! I think this would be bigger/better news for Word 2004 >>> than any of the 'features' that they demoed at Macworld. Not like >>> I'd start using it again anyway :). >>> >>>> And even though one can put a preview into our EPS exports via free >>>> utilities, Word continues to ignore those as well. >>> >>> FWIW, I've been able to do this successfully with epstool, although >>> Word only recognizes an LZW TIFF preview. If anyone is interested, >>> the command line is `epstool -tg --device tifflzw inputfile.eps >>> outputfile.eps`; this requires ghostscript, as well, so it's >>> non-trivial. I'm sure the Carbon solution you folks are working on >>> is much cleaner! >>> >>> Looking forward to hearing the news on the list today... >>> >>> rgds, >>> Adam Maxwell >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >>> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users >> > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > > --- Nate Goldshlag nateg at pobox.com Arlington, MA http://www.pobox.com/~nateg From bentley at crenelle.com Sat Jan 17 19:07:11 2004 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OG 3.0 Pro comments Message-ID: Just sprang for Graffle 3.0 Pro. Very promising. First comment of many to come: that fuzzy blue "chi" aura around a selected item interferes with my being able to see the grid lines when I'm micropositioning said item. I'd like to be able to turn off or turn down the selection highlight aura so that i can see what's behind the object I'm positioning. It is rather like staring into headlights while trying to figure out where the car is going to go in a parking lot. From bentley at crenelle.com Sat Jan 17 20:39:15 2004 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: Creating a second canvas Message-ID: There's a way to create a document using a template, but no way to add a canvas using a template? Duplicate Canvas and/or Duplicate Layer don't cover what I'm trying to do. I love the way the little measuring lines appear and disappear like elves, it gives a Mac the atmosphere of a small shop with a few industrious employees being busy. From nateg at pobox.com Sun Jan 18 13:47:28 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: I have another solution. Export to EPS from OG and then use Graphic Converter (using their convert and modify menu option) to add a preview to the EPS. Make sure you select JPEG and PICT. This EPS will be able to be put into Word X with preview and it prints fine. Of course all this may be moot when 3.1 comes out... At least we can hope so. Nate On Jan 15, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Nate Goldshlag wrote: > I know this has been discussed, by looking into the archives. But has > anybody discovered the secret sauce for getting OmniGraffle objects > into Word X so that the following occurs: > > 1. There is a (possibly low resolution) preview. > 2. No fuzzies when you print. > 3. Resizable objects, with no loss of resolution. > > Clearly EPS is the best way, but OG does not provide a preview. So > the best, but kludgy, workaround I have discovered is the following: > > 1. Copy the selection in OG > 2. In Photoshop Elements, do New from Clipboard. > 3. In Photoshop Elements, export as Photoshop EPS, Macintosh 8 bit > medium preview. > 4. Import into Word X > > This works, and the stuff prints fine on both Mac and PC. But does > anybody have a better way? I have tried playing around with Preview > under Panther with no luck. I really don't want high resolution > bitmaps like PNG or JPEG. > > Best Regards, > Nate From john at oram.com Sun Jan 18 16:06:37 2004 From: john at oram.com (John Oram) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: I've been playing around with exporting to PDF from OG, and then exporting to WMF with GraphicConverter to get into Word. OG -> .pdf -> GC -> .wmf -> Word -> .doc If you Save as... WMF in Graphic Converter you get a 7 MB file (vs. the 112 KB OG and 64 KB PDF. Make sure you are using the latest version, currently 4.93 -- with 4.8, the WMF was 35 MB and crashed GC upon completion...) Surprisingly, when inserted into Word, the file is only 300 KB, and opens cleanly on both the Mac and Windows versions of Word. I haven't had a chance to print yet, but I am able to zoom in quite well, so I am optimistic. (It also imports into PowerPoint. As a side note, I went down this route since I wasn't able to get a non-jaggy preview with OG -> .eps -> GC -> .epsf + preview -> Word. Additionally, they won't open on Word for Windows -- it complains that it needs QuickTime to decompress the JPEG, but it is not installed (when in fact it is...) I can't risk Windows co-workers dealing with that. Dumb question -- what does the "F" stand for in EPSF? Is it equivalent to EPS? If not, why does GC only allow export to EPSF? -John At 4:47 PM -0500 1/18/04, Nate Goldshlag wrote: >I have another solution. Export to EPS from OG and then use Graphic >Converter (using their convert and modify menu option) to add a >preview to the EPS. Make sure you select JPEG and PICT. This EPS >will be able to be put into Word X with preview and it prints fine. > >Of course all this may be moot when 3.1 comes out... At least we can hope so. > >Nate > >On Jan 15, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Nate Goldshlag wrote: > >>I know this has been discussed, by looking into the archives. But >>has anybody discovered the secret sauce for getting OmniGraffle >>objects into Word X so that the following occurs: >> >>1. There is a (possibly low resolution) preview. >>2. No fuzzies when you print. >>3. Resizable objects, with no loss of resolution. >> >>Clearly EPS is the best way, but OG does not provide a preview. So >>the best, but kludgy, workaround I have discovered is the following: >> >>1. Copy the selection in OG >>2. In Photoshop Elements, do New from Clipboard. >>3. In Photoshop Elements, export as Photoshop EPS, Macintosh 8 bit >>medium preview. >>4. Import into Word X >> >>This works, and the stuff prints fine on both Mac and PC. But does >>anybody have a better way? I have tried playing around with >>Preview under Panther with no luck. I really don't want high >>resolution bitmaps like PNG or JPEG. >> >>Best Regards, >>Nate > >_______________________________________________ >OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From listera at rcn.com Sun Jan 18 16:24:45 2004 From: listera at rcn.com (Listera) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "John Oram" wrote: > Dumb question -- what does the "F" stand for in EPSF? Is it > equivalent to EPS? If not, why does GC only allow export to EPSF? Encapsulated PostScript files are special PostScript programs with a special header describing the width and height of the image and how to place the image on the page. This header allows other applications to blindly include the image, and rotate, scale, place the image in the correct position of the application's document for printing or displaying on postscript device. Ziya From amaxwell at wsu.edu Sun Jan 18 17:12:46 2004 From: amaxwell at wsu.edu (Adam Maxwell) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: <9761E57E-4A1C-11D8-A9BB-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> On 18 Jan, 2004, at 18:06, John Oram wrote: > As a side note, I went down this route since I wasn't able to get a > non-jaggy preview with OG -> .eps -> GC -> .epsf + preview -> Word. I don't think you can get a non-jaggy preview unless you can add a vector PICT preview somehow (maybe Illustrator or Photoshop?). I don't think this is the original intent of the EPS preview, though. > Dumb question -- what does the "F" stand for in EPSF? Is it > equivalent to EPS? If not, why does GC only allow export to EPSF? Not a dumb question at all. From , it appears that EPSF is typically a file with EPS in the data fork and a PICT preview in the resource fork (hence the preview is only useful on the Mac). On a non-HFS file system it would appear as plain EPS with no preview. rgds, Adam From john at oram.com Sun Jan 18 18:12:48 2004 From: john at oram.com (John Oram) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <9761E57E-4A1C-11D8-A9BB-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <9761E57E-4A1C-11D8-A9BB-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarification on EPS(F), Adam. That definitely means it's out for me. I chose PICT in CG, but it clearly isn't vectorized when it gets to Word (though it does show up in both platforms... I've posted the Word doc I made using the OG->.pdf->GC->.wmf->Word->.doc process to http://oram.com/omni/wmf.doc I'd be curious to see if a) it's clear on screen for others, and b) it can be cleanly printed out (I won't have access to a printer until Tuesday). Pretty happy with the WMF import, but I don't quite understand why the file gets so much smaller in Word. I'm guessing Thorston's code isn't quite as optimized as Bill's. (Then again, VDX from OG is about 1/10th the size of VDX from Visio, so it seems Bill's code has room for improvement here and there...) This presumes that GC isn't actually turning it into a bitmap. Taking a close look at 500% magnification in Word, the image seems a tiny bit blurry, but still acceptable. If I zoom the PDF in Preview, no blurriness. If I zoom the PDF in GC, you can clearly see the pixellation at 2000%, and you get an identical result when you zoom the WMF in GC. It seems that GC's WMF export is a little lossy (or zoom is flaky?) While it may be a bit blurry, and Word doesn't draw it very fast, I'd trade that for the cross platform guarantee. -John p.s. Some info on the WMF spec: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~caolan/docs/libwmf.html http://www.wotsit.org/search.asp - search for WMF At 7:12 PM -0600 1/18/04, Adam Maxwell wrote: >On 18 Jan, 2004, at 18:06, John Oram wrote: > >>As a side note, I went down this route since I wasn't able to get a >>non-jaggy preview with OG -> .eps -> GC -> .epsf + preview -> Word. > >I don't think you can get a non-jaggy preview unless you can add a >vector PICT preview somehow (maybe Illustrator or Photoshop?). I >don't think this is the original intent of the EPS preview, though. > >>Dumb question -- what does the "F" stand for in EPSF? Is it >>equivalent to EPS? If not, why does GC only allow export to EPSF? > >Not a dumb question at all. From >, it appears >that EPSF is typically a file with EPS in the data fork and a PICT >preview in the resource fork (hence the preview is only useful on >the Mac). On a non-HFS file system it would appear as plain EPS >with no preview. > >rgds, >Adam > >_______________________________________________ >OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From prager at ieee.org Sun Jan 18 19:51:09 2004 From: prager at ieee.org (Kenneth Prager) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <9761E57E-4A1C-11D8-A9BB-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> Message-ID: I printed the document to both an Epson SP 785EPX and a Brother HL-1270N. Worked great. Now I'm going to try this with one of my drawings. Ken P. At 6:12 PM -0800 1/18/04, John Oram wrote: >Thanks for the clarification on EPS(F), Adam. That definitely means >it's out for me. I chose PICT in CG, but it clearly isn't >vectorized when it gets to Word (though it does show up in both >platforms... > >I've posted the Word doc I made using the >OG->.pdf->GC->.wmf->Word->.doc process to > > http://oram.com/omni/wmf.doc > >I'd be curious to see if a) it's clear on screen for others, and b) >it can be cleanly printed out (I won't have access to a printer >until Tuesday). > >Pretty happy with the WMF import, but I don't quite understand why >the file gets so much smaller in Word. I'm guessing Thorston's code >isn't quite as optimized as Bill's. (Then again, VDX from OG is >about 1/10th the size of VDX from Visio, so it seems Bill's code has >room for improvement here and there...) > >This presumes that GC isn't actually turning it into a bitmap. >Taking a close look at 500% magnification in Word, the image seems a >tiny bit blurry, but still acceptable. If I zoom the PDF in >Preview, no blurriness. If I zoom the PDF in GC, you can clearly >see the pixellation at 2000%, and you get an identical result when >you zoom the WMF in GC. It seems that GC's WMF export is a little >lossy (or zoom is flaky?) > >While it may be a bit blurry, and Word doesn't draw it very fast, >I'd trade that for the cross platform guarantee. > >-John > >p.s. Some info on the WMF spec: > >http://www.csn.ul.ie/~caolan/docs/libwmf.html > >http://www.wotsit.org/search.asp - search for WMF > >At 7:12 PM -0600 1/18/04, Adam Maxwell wrote: >>On 18 Jan, 2004, at 18:06, John Oram wrote: >> >>>As a side note, I went down this route since I wasn't able to get >>>a non-jaggy preview with OG -> .eps -> GC -> .epsf + preview -> >>>Word. >> >>I don't think you can get a non-jaggy preview unless you can add a >>vector PICT preview somehow (maybe Illustrator or Photoshop?). I >>don't think this is the original intent of the EPS preview, though. >> >>>Dumb question -- what does the "F" stand for in EPSF? Is it >>>equivalent to EPS? If not, why does GC only allow export to EPSF? >> >>Not a dumb question at all. From >>, it appears >>that EPSF is typically a file with EPS in the data fork and a PICT >>preview in the resource fork (hence the preview is only useful on >>the Mac). On a non-HFS file system it would appear as plain EPS >>with no preview. >> >>rgds, >>Adam >> >>_______________________________________________ >>OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >>OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >>http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > >_______________________________________________ >OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From amaxwell at wsu.edu Sun Jan 18 20:22:30 2004 From: amaxwell at wsu.edu (Adam Maxwell) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <9761E57E-4A1C-11D8-A9BB-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> Message-ID: <18EF1E74-4A37-11D8-B64E-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> On 18 Jan, 2004, at 20:12, John Oram wrote: > I'd be curious to see if a) it's clear on screen for others, and b) it > can be cleanly printed out (I won't have access to a printer until > Tuesday). Looks clear on screen, but I don't have a printer to test with. [snip] > This presumes that GC isn't actually turning it into a bitmap. Taking > a close look at 500% magnification in Word, the image seems a tiny bit > blurry, but still acceptable. If I zoom the PDF in Preview, no > blurriness. If I zoom the PDF in GC, you can clearly see the > pixellation at 2000%, and you get an identical result when you zoom > the WMF in GC. It seems that GC's WMF export is a little lossy (or > zoom is flaky?) GC turns the PDF into a bitmap; I believe it's at 300 dpi. Your comparison of the zoom in GC/Word and Preview shows this, too; what you're getting with the WMF is a 300 dpi version of your original vector image. The major advantage to using WMF with Word would be if it gives a smaller file size than a TIFF or PNG. rgds, Adam From nateg at pobox.com Mon Jan 19 05:58:23 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> I discovered that John is right in that the .epsf files that GC creates with PICT preview are not viewable in Word on a PC. With the .wmf method I found that the files when put into Word were *much* smaller than the original .eps that OmniGraffle created (without preview). In fact I had to scale the .wmf files by 960% to get the same size image. I found when I printed and looked closely that there are subtle jaggies with the .wmf files that do not exist with the .eps files. I am not sure if .wmf is a vector or bitmap format, or if the problem arises because of the Graphic Converter bug that makes them so small that you have to drastically expand them. I have an email in to Thorsten Lemke about this. I know that it *is* possible to get an eps preview that both Mac and PC can see - Photoshop Elements can do it with Mac 8 bit JPEG medium quality. So I am left with my workaround until OmniGraffle can do it alone. Nate On Jan 18, 2004, at 7:06 PM, John Oram wrote: > I've been playing around with exporting to PDF from OG, and then > exporting to WMF with GraphicConverter to get into Word. > > OG -> .pdf -> GC -> .wmf -> Word -> .doc > > If you Save as... WMF in Graphic Converter you get a 7 MB file (vs. > the 112 KB OG and 64 KB PDF. Make sure you are using the latest > version, currently 4.93 -- with 4.8, the WMF was 35 MB and crashed GC > upon completion...) > > Surprisingly, when inserted into Word, the file is only 300 KB, and > opens cleanly on both the Mac and Windows versions of Word. I haven't > had a chance to print yet, but I am able to zoom in quite well, so I > am optimistic. (It also imports into PowerPoint. > > As a side note, I went down this route since I wasn't able to get a > non-jaggy preview with OG -> .eps -> GC -> .epsf + preview -> Word. > > Additionally, they won't open on Word for Windows -- it complains that > it needs QuickTime to decompress the JPEG, but it is not installed > (when in fact it is...) I can't risk Windows co-workers dealing with > that. > > Dumb question -- what does the "F" stand for in EPSF? Is it > equivalent to EPS? If not, why does GC only allow export to EPSF? > > -John > > > At 4:47 PM -0500 1/18/04, Nate Goldshlag wrote: >> I have another solution. Export to EPS from OG and then use Graphic >> Converter (using their convert and modify menu option) to add a >> preview to the EPS. Make sure you select JPEG and PICT. This EPS >> will be able to be put into Word X with preview and it prints fine. >> >> Of course all this may be moot when 3.1 comes out... At least we can >> hope so. >> >> Nate >> >> On Jan 15, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Nate Goldshlag wrote: >> >>> I know this has been discussed, by looking into the archives. But >>> has anybody discovered the secret sauce for getting OmniGraffle >>> objects into Word X so that the following occurs: >>> >>> 1. There is a (possibly low resolution) preview. >>> 2. No fuzzies when you print. >>> 3. Resizable objects, with no loss of resolution. >>> >>> Clearly EPS is the best way, but OG does not provide a preview. So >>> the best, but kludgy, workaround I have discovered is the following: >>> >>> 1. Copy the selection in OG >>> 2. In Photoshop Elements, do New from Clipboard. >>> 3. In Photoshop Elements, export as Photoshop EPS, Macintosh 8 bit >>> medium preview. >>> 4. Import into Word X >>> >>> This works, and the stuff prints fine on both Mac and PC. But does >>> anybody have a better way? I have tried playing around with Preview >>> under Panther with no luck. I really don't want high resolution >>> bitmaps like PNG or JPEG. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Nate >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > > > --- Nate Goldshlag nateg at pobox.com Arlington, MA http://www.pobox.com/~nateg From chris.ridd at isode.com Mon Jan 19 06:19:27 2004 From: chris.ridd at isode.com (Chris Ridd) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 19/1/04 1:58 pm, Nate Goldshlag wrote: > I discovered that John is right in that the .epsf files that GC creates > with PICT preview are not viewable in Word on a PC. > > With the .wmf method I found that the files when put into Word were > *much* smaller than the original .eps that OmniGraffle created (without > preview). In fact I had to scale the .wmf files by 960% to get the > same size image. I found when I printed and looked closely that there > are subtle jaggies with the .wmf files that do not exist with the .eps > files. I am not sure if .wmf is a vector or bitmap format, or if the > problem arises because of the Graphic Converter bug that makes them so > small that you have to drastically expand them. I have an email in to > Thorsten Lemke about this. I don't think WMF supports arbitrary curves (eg beziers) so conversion of such curves into series of short straight lines must occur. This is what Adobe Illustrator does, for example. WMF also doesn't include anything about the drawing's scale, which might explain why GC did something odd. The EMF supports both of these things, according to the URLs that John posted. >-John > >p.s. Some info on the WMF spec: > >http://www.csn.ul.ie/~caolan/docs/libwmf.html > >http://www.wotsit.org/search.asp - search for WMF Cheers, Chris From nateg at pobox.com Mon Jan 19 06:43:46 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: From Thorsten Lemke, about converting EPS to WMF using Graphic Converter: this creates only a bitmap wmf. Which is not a solution for you (I think). Nate --- Nate Goldshlag nateg at pobox.com Arlington, MA http://www.pobox.com/~nateg From amaxwell at wsu.edu Mon Jan 19 07:00:39 2004 From: amaxwell at wsu.edu (Adam Maxwell) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: <3E76A426-4A90-11D8-B64E-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> On 19 Jan, 2004, at 07:58, Nate Goldshlag wrote: > I know that it *is* possible to get an eps preview that both Mac and > PC can see - Photoshop Elements can do it with Mac 8 bit JPEG medium > quality. A TIFF preview is the only thing I can think of that meets the cross--platform criteria; inserting an EPS into Word X even tells you that it needs either a PICT or TIFF preview for on--screen viewing. Unfortunately, GraphicConverter only does EPSI and PICT previews; epstool is the only free solution I've found that will add a TIFF preview. BTW, did my AppleScript for adding the preview as a Folder Action make it to the list? I cc'd to the list, but the message might have been too large, since I didn't see it. If anyone wants this, e-mail me (it uses ghostscript and epstool to add a TIFF or PICT preview to an EPS file when saved to a watched folder). rgds, Adam From ashugg at mac.com Tue Jan 20 02:33:09 2004 From: ashugg at mac.com (Andrew Shugg) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <3E76A426-4A90-11D8-B64E-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <3E76A426-4A90-11D8-B64E-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> Message-ID: <0A948EA5-4B34-11D8-B358-000502918242@mac.com> On 19/01/2004, at 11:00 PM, Adam Maxwell wrote: > BTW, did my AppleScript for adding the preview as a Folder Action make > it to the list? I cc'd to the list, but the message might have been > too large, since I didn't see it. If anyone wants this, e-mail me (it > uses ghostscript and epstool to add a TIFF or PICT preview to an EPS > file when saved to a watched folder). Nope, must've been eaten by the listserv. *listens for lip-smacking noises* There was a message from you a few days ago with the command-line instructions for running epstool to do the job, and another saying that it might be possible to wrap this in an AppleScript, but nothing after that ... It might be a nice addition to the user-contributed section on the OmniGraffle support page. Andrew S. -- Andrew Shugg ObDotMacHome "Time is an illusion. Lunch-time, doubly so." -- Ford Prefect. From chad at brightlycoloredfood.com Tue Jan 20 21:39:20 2004 From: chad at brightlycoloredfood.com (Chad Thornton) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: Line-Text Proximity: Possible to Adjust the Vertical Padding? Message-ID: <2909110E-4BD4-11D8-A204-000A959A0E94@brightlycoloredfood.com> Hi all- When I attach lines between text using the magnetic functionality, the lines nearly touch the text. The padding setting in the Text Position inspector appears to be for only horizontal padding - is there a way to adjust the vertical padding other than adding a carriage return above/below each text box? It seems odd that the padding is only horizontal given that lines can be coming from any direction... Thanks, Chad From john at oram.com Wed Jan 21 21:12:13 2004 From: john at oram.com (John Oram) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: text shadow controls in Keynote Message-ID: Hi- When you bring up the font panel in Keynote (Command-T) there are additional controls that you don't see in other apps, specifically text shadow controls (opacity, blur, offset and angle). Are these controls exclusive to Keynote, or are they a standard part of the font toolkit available to any app? As I've said before, I think shadows for text should be treated differently that shadows for objects, if only for readability... -John From listera at rcn.com Wed Jan 21 21:22:43 2004 From: listera at rcn.com (Listera) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: text shadow controls in Keynote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "John Oram" wrote: > When you bring up the font panel in Keynote (Command-T) there are > additional controls that you don't see in other apps, Only if you're squinting. :-) New font controls came with Panther, standard issue with most Cocoa apps, but not all. Ziya From john at oram.com Wed Jan 21 22:38:20 2004 From: john at oram.com (John Oram) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: text shadow controls in Keynote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My latest discovery -- if you make the Font Pane wider, you get to see the new font shadow controls... Now that we have that out of the way, can anyone figure out how to change the colour of the drop shadow? -john >Hi- > >When you bring up the font panel in Keynote (Command-T) there are >additional controls that you don't see in other apps, specifically >text shadow controls (opacity, blur, offset and angle). > >Are these controls exclusive to Keynote, or are they a standard part >of the font toolkit available to any app? > >As I've said before, I think shadows for text should be treated >differently that shadows for objects, if only for readability... > >-John From ironfist at mac.com Wed Jan 21 22:45:01 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: text shadow controls in Keynote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80EF6B70-4CA6-11D8-9795-003065587B8A@mac.com> Well you can't change the color in TextEdit, so I think it's not do-able. Joel On Jan 21, 2004, at 10:38 PM, John Oram wrote: > My latest discovery -- if you make the Font Pane wider, you get to see > the new font shadow controls... Now that we have that out of the way, > can anyone figure out how to change the colour of the drop shadow? > > -john > >> Hi- >> >> When you bring up the font panel in Keynote (Command-T) there are >> additional controls that you don't see in other apps, specifically >> text shadow controls (opacity, blur, offset and angle). >> >> Are these controls exclusive to Keynote, or are they a standard part >> of the font toolkit available to any app? >> >> As I've said before, I think shadows for text should be treated >> differently that shadows for objects, if only for readability... >> >> -John > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From gregjsmith at mac.com Thu Jan 22 05:19:59 2004 From: gregjsmith at mac.com (Gregory J. Smith) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: Fishbones? Message-ID: Anyone have an example of making a fishbone diagram with OmniGraffle? -- http://homepage.mac.com/gregjsmith From paul.lists at burney.ws Thu Jan 22 09:37:22 2004 From: paul.lists at burney.ws (Paul Burney) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: Fishbone Diagrams Message-ID: If people on the list, like myself, don't know what a fishbone diagram is, there is a good reference here: http://moresteam.com/toolbox/t406.cfm I don't think it would be easy to do in OG. The problem, as I see it, is getting everything to have the same angles. If you hold down shift as you move the endpoint of a line it will snap to multiples of 45 degrees (Good), but if you attach that line segment to other lines and shapes, I don't know of a way to keep that constraint on the lines (Bad). You could always fake it, of course, by not connecting the lines to the shapes. If you want to do it, I recommend building a stencil first with the various lines with varying angles, thickness, and label positions. Then generate your diagram by dragging those items from your stencil. Hope that helps. (P.S. I accidentally deleted the original message so sorry for breaking threading everyone) Sincerely, Paul Burney From ironfist at mac.com Thu Jan 22 20:01:32 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: <0A948EA5-4B34-11D8-B358-000502918242@mac.com> References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <3E76A426-4A90-11D8-B64E-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> <0A948EA5-4B34-11D8-B358-000502918242@mac.com> Message-ID: If it did, I have it here, and the good news that the recipe (involved as it may be) does indeed work. A summary of Adam's steps: 1. Install GhostScript (http://www.ghostscript.com/). As mentioned before, Fink has a package, I myself used the i-Installer available at rna.nl (http://www.rna.nl/ii.html) with zero difficulty. 2. Install Epstool (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/epstool.htm) as well, download the Unix tarball (ftp://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/ghostgum/epstool -3.04.tar.gz), toss out the binary and via the Terminal navigate to the folder that gets downloaded and type "make epstool" to create the new binary. 3. The AppleScript attached will want epstool in /usr/local/bin/ so you must be an admin to place it there (it might work elsewhere, I haven't tested in other locations). 4. Take the attached script and put it in /Library/Scripts/Folder Action Scripts/ (again, admin access is needed). 5. Make a folder to be the target for your EPS exports (local disks only, it failed on a mounted NFS network home folder), and via the contextual menu attach the script to the folder. 6. Export EPS files there, stand and be amazed. Massive kudos out to Adam, on a side note we've asked the fine folks who make i-Installer to add Epstool to their list of packages and I've asked the add-ons team to see if they can't make the process easier as well. Joel -------------- next part -------------- On Jan 20, 2004, at 2:33 AM, Andrew Shugg wrote: > On 19/01/2004, at 11:00 PM, Adam Maxwell wrote: >> BTW, did my AppleScript for adding the preview as a Folder Action >> make it to the list? I cc'd to the list, but the message might have >> been too large, since I didn't see it. If anyone wants this, e-mail >> me (it uses ghostscript and epstool to add a TIFF or PICT preview to >> an EPS file when saved to a watched folder). > > Nope, must've been eaten by the listserv. *listens for lip-smacking > noises* > > There was a message from you a few days ago with the command-line > instructions for running epstool to do the job, and another saying > that it might be possible to wrap this in an AppleScript, but nothing > after that ... > > It might be a nice addition to the user-contributed section on the > OmniGraffle support page. > > Andrew S. > > -- > Andrew Shugg > ObDotMacHome > > "Time is an illusion. Lunch-time, doubly so." -- Ford Prefect. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From ironfist at mac.com Thu Jan 22 20:15:46 2004 From: ironfist at mac.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <3E76A426-4A90-11D8-B64E-00306569EBA8@wsu.edu> <0A948EA5-4B34-11D8-B358-000502918242@mac.com> Message-ID: Oops, no attachments to the list. Here's the script: ----- property done_foldername : "Previewable EPS Files" property originals_foldername : "Plain EPS Files" property newimage_extension : "eps" -- the list of file types which will be processed -- eg: {"PICT", "JPEG", "TIFF", "GIFf"} property type_list : {"EPSF"} -- since file types are optional in Mac OS X, -- check the name extension if there is no file type -- NOTE: do not use periods (.) with the items in the name extensions list -- eg: {"txt", "text", "jpg", "jpeg"}, NOT: {".txt", ".text", ".jpg", ".jpeg"} property extension_list : {"eps", "ps"} on adding folder items to this_folder after receiving these_items tell application "Finder" if not (exists folder done_foldername of this_folder) then make new folder at this_folder with properties {name:done_foldername} end if set the results_folder to (folder done_foldername of this_folder) as alias if not (exists folder originals_foldername of this_folder) then make new folder at this_folder with properties {name:originals_foldername} set current view of container window of this_folder to list view end if set the originals_folder to folder originals_foldername of this_folder end tell try repeat with i from 1 to number of items in these_items set this_item to item i of these_items set the item_info to the info for this_item if (alias of the item_info is false and the file type of the item_info is in the type_list) or (the name extension of the item_info is in the extension_list) then tell application "Finder" my resolve_conflicts(this_item, originals_folder, "") set the new_name to my resolve_conflicts(this_item, results_folder, newimage_extension) set the source_file to (move this_item to the originals_folder with replacing) as alias end tell process_item(source_file, new_name, results_folder) end if end repeat on error error_message number error_number if the error_number is not -128 then tell application "Finder" activate display dialog error_message buttons {"Cancel"} default button 1 giving up after 120 end tell end if end try end adding folder items to on resolve_conflicts(this_item, target_folder, new_extension) tell application "Finder" set the file_name to the name of this_item set file_extension to the name extension of this_item if the file_extension is "" then set the trimmed_name to the file_name else set the trimmed_name to text 1 thru -((length of file_extension) + 2) of the file_name end if if the new_extension is "" then set target_name to file_name set target_extension to file_extension else set target_extension to new_extension set target_name to (the trimmed_name & "." & target_extension) as string end if if (exists document file target_name of target_folder) then set the name_increment to 1 repeat set the new_name to (the trimmed_name & "." & (name_increment as string) & "." & target_extension) as string if not (exists document file new_name of the target_folder) then -- rename to conflicting file set the name of document file target_name of the target_folder to the new_name exit repeat else set the name_increment to the name_increment + 1 end if end repeat end if end tell return the target_name end resolve_conflicts -- this sub-routine processes files on process_item(source_file, new_name, results_folder) -- NOTE that the variable this_item is a file reference in alias format -- FILE PROCESSING STATEMENTS GO HERE try set the source_item to the quoted form of the POSIX path of the source_file -- the target path is the destination folder and the new file name set the target_path to the quoted form of the POSIX path of (((results_folder as string) & new_name) as string) with timeout of 900 seconds do shell script ("/usr/local/bin/epstool --copy " & source_item & " " & target_path) do shell script ("/usr/local/bin/epstool --gs /usr/local/bin/gs --add-pict-preview --mac-rsrc " & source_item & " " & target_path & "/..namedfork/rsrc") end timeout on error error_message tell application "Finder" activate display dialog error_message buttons {"Cancel"} default button 1 giving up after 120 end tell end try end process_item ----- Or download it here: http://homepage.mac.com/ironfist/other/EPSPreview.scpt.zip Joel On Jan 22, 2004, at 8:01 PM, Joel Page wrote: > If it did, I have it here, and the good news that the recipe (involved > as it may be) does indeed work. > > A summary of Adam's steps: > > 1. Install GhostScript (http://www.ghostscript.com/). As mentioned > before, Fink has a package, I myself used the i-Installer available at > rna.nl (http://www.rna.nl/ii.html) with zero difficulty. > > 2. Install Epstool (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/epstool.htm) > as well, download the Unix tarball > (ftp://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/ghostgum/epstool > -3.04.tar.gz), toss out the binary and via the Terminal navigate to > the folder that gets downloaded and type "make epstool" to create the > new binary. > > 3. The AppleScript attached will want epstool in /usr/local/bin/ so > you must be an admin to place it there (it might work elsewhere, I > haven't tested in other locations). > > 4. Take the attached script and put it in /Library/Scripts/Folder > Action Scripts/ (again, admin access is needed). > > 5. Make a folder to be the target for your EPS exports (local disks > only, it failed on a mounted NFS network home folder), and via the > contextual menu attach the script to the folder. > > 6. Export EPS files there, stand and be amazed. > > Massive kudos out to Adam, on a side note we've asked the fine folks > who make i-Installer to add Epstool to their list of packages and I've > asked the add-ons team to see if they can't make the process easier as > well. > > Joel > > > > > On Jan 20, 2004, at 2:33 AM, Andrew Shugg wrote: > >> On 19/01/2004, at 11:00 PM, Adam Maxwell wrote: >>> BTW, did my AppleScript for adding the preview as a Folder Action >>> make it to the list? I cc'd to the list, but the message might have >>> been too large, since I didn't see it. If anyone wants this, e-mail >>> me (it uses ghostscript and epstool to add a TIFF or PICT preview to >>> an EPS file when saved to a watched folder). >> >> Nope, must've been eaten by the listserv. *listens for lip-smacking >> noises* >> >> There was a message from you a few days ago with the command-line >> instructions for running epstool to do the job, and another saying >> that it might be possible to wrap this in an AppleScript, but nothing >> after that ... >> >> It might be a nice addition to the user-contributed section on the >> OmniGraffle support page. >> >> Andrew S. >> >> -- >> Andrew Shugg >> ObDotMacHome >> >> "Time is an illusion. Lunch-time, doubly so." -- Ford Prefect. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniGraffle-Users mailing list >> OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users From support at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 23 17:13:19 2004 From: support at omnigroup.com (Joel Page) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: Announcing the OmniGraffle 3.1 public beta Message-ID: <7ED32CD8-4E0A-11D8-975D-000393199306@omnigroup.com> http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnigraffle/beta/ The release notes can be found at http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnigraffle/releasenotes/ Of importance: This is a beta release, and while it solves a great number of bugs and problems that existed in versions 3.0.x, the usual caveats go about using it for mission-critical work; Files saved with OmniGraffle 3.1 when opened in earlier 3.x versions of OmniGraffle will present an alert panel explaining that the document comes from a newer version of OmniGraffle. Many thanks go out to the initial pool of testers, the development and engineering team, and all OmniGraffle feedback that has helped bring this release to where it is right now. Cheers, and enjoy! Joel Page Support Engineer The Omni Group From nateg at pobox.com Sun Jan 25 06:27:05 2004 From: nateg at pobox.com (Nate Goldshlag) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: OmniGraffle to Word X best way? In-Reply-To: References: <50BDBC59-476F-11D8-859C-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> <8BB9BCF4-4A87-11D8-AEB1-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8CD4D473-4F42-11D8-A305-000A9575BF94@pobox.com> While the free epstool that Adam mentioned works for creating a TIFF preview that Word is happy with, setting it up is daunting. You need fink, ghostscript, the Apple developer tools, etc. For those of you with Graphic Converter, it shortly will have a TIFF preview that Word is happy with. In the convert menu will be an option to add a TIFF preview to an EPS file. Thorsten Lemke says that the trick is that Word crashes with a color preview, which is probably why an EPS with TIFF preview from an early version of OmniGraffle 3.1 a few months ago crashed Word. Thorsten sent me a beta of this and it works perfectly. Omni, perhaps you could talk to Thorsten about how he got the secret sauce to make this work. And if any of you with a need to have this do not have Graphic Converter, you should buy it. Best $35 I ever spent. Nate --- Nate Goldshlag nateg at pobox.com Arlington, MA http://www.pobox.com/~nateg From hartp at imagegroup.com Tue Jan 27 09:05:11 2004 From: hartp at imagegroup.com (Paul Hart) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: printing (#2) Message-ID: i have had a couple times where printing a document doesn't work right. there are areas of the layout that print grey shapes where text boxes should be. has anyone run into that? i even downloaded the new version, but it didn't help. | P a u l H a r t | T h e I m a g e G r o u p | | Interactive Media | Information Architecture & Art | | 616-393-9588 x.111 | http://www.imagegroup.com/ | "On the Web, all advantages are temporary, and you must keep innovating to stay ahead." -Jacob Nielsen From larkost at softhome.net Tue Jan 27 09:13:36 2004 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: printing (#2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24A55914-50EC-11D8-BD8F-003065D8C728@softhome.net> Everything I have done has come out fine. Could you provide more details: printer model, method of connection (USB with specific drivers, AppleTalk, IPP over Ethernet with Gimp-Print drivers, etc...). And maybe the file in question (scrubbed of confidential data) to see if others have the same problem... Ideally a reduced test case. Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Jan 27, 2004, at 12:05 PM, Paul Hart wrote: > i have had a couple times where printing a document doesn't work > right. there are areas of the layout that print grey shapes where text > boxes should be. has anyone run into that? i even downloaded the new > version, but it didn't help. From hartp at imagegroup.com Tue Jan 27 09:28:03 2004 From: hartp at imagegroup.com (Paul Hart) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34 2007 Subject: printing (#2) In-Reply-To: <24A55914-50EC-11D8-BD8F-003065D8C728@softhome.net> References: <24A55914-50EC-11D8-BD8F-003065D8C728@softhome.net> Message-ID: <29A87D07-50EE-11D8-9A21-003065BF1DB8@imagegroup.com> well, i've done some troubleshooting and noticed something weird: when i create a new shape and go to print preview, some of the text is not showing up. when i move my new shape back in the arrangement a few "layers," and go to print preview again, it shows some of the text. as i go farther down in the arrangement with my new shape, more text shows up. all the time, it looks right on my screen (not in print preview mode). so, i'm guessing it doesn't have anything to do with my printing hardware, because i've also tried it on two different printers. On Jan 27, 2004, at 12:13 PM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > Everything I have done has come out fine. Could you provide more > details: printer model, method of connection (USB with specific > drivers, AppleTalk, IPP over Ethernet with Gimp-Print drivers, > etc...). And maybe the file in question (scrubbed of confidential > data) to see if others have the same problem... Ideally a reduced test > case. > > Karl Kuehn > larkost@softhome.net > > On Jan 27, 2004, at 12:05 PM, Paul Hart wrote: > >> i have had a couple times where printing a document doesn't work >> right. there are areas of the layout that print grey shapes where >> text boxes should be. has anyone run into that? i even downloaded the >> new version, but it didn't help. > > | P a u l H a r t | T h e I m a g e G r o u p | | Interactive Media | Information Architecture & Art | | 616-393-9588 x.111 | http://www.imagegroup.com/ | "On the Web, all advantages are temporary, and you must keep innovating to stay ahead." -Jacob Nielsen From cs-omnigraffle-users-list at nil.ics.uci.edu Tue Jan 27 16:02:58 2004 From: cs-omnigraffle-users-list at nil.ics.uci.edu (Christian Stork) Date: Fri May 25 12:40:34