Re: gEDA-user: An idea: rework design support...

[John Griessen <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/14/2011 05:47 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 13:56 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > > >  >  I do not have a problem with the idea of single layer per physical
> > > >  >  layer,
> > >
> > >  PCB uses a single layer group per physical layer, with one or more
> > >  drawing layers within each group.  I see no reason to dump that now.
> > >  We just need to work on the UI and terminology so that it's less
> > >  confusing how it all works together.
> To counter that.. I see no compelling reason to keep it though.
> Certainly if we were to add the ability to tag objects and change
> viewing styles based upon tags.
>
> Given we'll probably end up keeping the irksome things, can we swap the
> terminology around?
>
> Physical PCB layer, mechanical drawing etc..
> --------------------------------------------
> WAS: "Layer group" ->   TO-BECOME: "Layer"

I'd like if the name was less ambiguous...
as in: "Layer group" ->   "Stackup_Layer" or "Physical_layer"
which would require changing how outline is done -- like John Doty suggested.

As is, the terminology makes people that use gimp or photoshop or inkscape
think of image or drawing layers that can be arranged in any order.

John Griessen


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user