Docs: explain group vs. layer

[pgilfernandez]

It might be not a bug as groups and layers are not the same but as groups have the opacity parameter exposed it would have to work...

example project: opacity.friction.zip

So, the opacity parameter doesn't work for groups, it's not something important but trying to follow a good UX, it would suggest to:

• hide the opacity parameter in Groups
• make it works

Thanks!

[rodlie]

Groups are not layers.

Opacity is part of transform, it does not know what the parent box/item/whatever is.

[pgilfernandez]

Groups are not layers.

Opacity is part of transform, it does not know what the parent box/item/whatever is.

I understand what you mean, but if, under a group, that property doesn't make sense (or does nothing), it should be hidden (for instance) or it could confuse users, don't you think?

BTW, this is not an important thing, but when you decide to fine polish Friction, this could be addressed...

[rodlie]

Yeah... but this is also a slippery slope, the more complexity added the worse things get over time.

If the code change is trivial sure.

[rodlie]

btw, it does serve a purpose as SVG supports opacity in groups.

[pgilfernandez]

Yeah... but this is also a slippery slope, the more complexity added the worse things get over time.

If the code change is trivial sure.

Yes, I agree with that, hehehe

btw, it does serve a purpose as SVG supports opacity in groups.

Once again you are right, but then, why not to add opacity support for groups inside Friction?

[rodlie]

why not to add opacity support for groups inside Friction?

Because opacity is a compositing operation.

in Friction a group can only affect transforms, not compositing operations, for that you need a layer.

[pgilfernandez]

I understand... well, if you fully feel like this is not an issue then close it ;)

[rodlie]

The best option IMHO is documentation, a dedicated "Groups vs. Layers" section probably.

[pgilfernandez]

The best option IMHO is documentation, a dedicated "Groups vs. Layers" section probably.

Hahaha, once again you are right, this is very important. I hope to help in this regard =)