CUSTOM Button Shapes

[CoZiMan]

This has been on my list for a long time.

For a graphically oriented program to have LIMITED shapes available for 'buttons' is dumb. Sorry, Filemaker, you could have a really awesome layout delivery if buttons took on the shape of the graphic. Just give us a file type to use and let us manage it, already.

Done with the rant.

[Dana G]

I agree. I am forced to search the internet for decent looking grapics to use.

[SteveB]

Create the graphic as a PNG file, Insert it on a layout and attach a script.

Look, Filemaker is not Photoshop, or a graphic program...it's a database program. It does better with graphics than Photoshop does with data retrieval. (boy, I hate having to defend them!).

Steve

[Lee Smith]

I agree with you Steve. However, I'm getting tired of this subject since it has come up twice in the last week or so.

CoZiMan and Dana,

If you do a search for PhotoShop as a Keyword and Lee Smith As the Member, and it will return several posts, of which, the first two are the ones I'm referring to.

Basically, you do have choices. You can use what is available in FileMaker, you can buy them from a vender, you can borrow them from some of the Free Open source files, or you can roll your own using PS.

[color:blue]Off Topic

I'm starting to get the opinion that some of you members think that FM Forum is connected to FMI. It isn't. AFAIK, no one that works for FMI even reads this Forum.

What I'm trying to say, is if you have a suggestion that you would like to see implemented in FM, you should post it directly to FileMaker's site.

Sharing it with us, is like discussing it with your significant other. We will say ah too bad, and by gosh you are right, etc., but it will not have an effect on your next upgrade.

my 2¢ worth.

Lee

[Vaughan]

Lee

You'd be very surprised to hear that they do read the Forums.

[LaRetta]

Ummm, Lee, this IS the Wants & Wishes Forum.

"no one that works for FMI even reads this Forum. "

I also can verify that many at FileMaker DO read this Forum ... and all Forums (maybe sometimes on their own time, but they do).

Edited December 22, 2005 by Guest

[Lee Smith]

Maybe so, and if they do, great. However, the only guy i knew that is a FMI employee and participates on a couple of other lists, has always maintained that he does so in an unofficial compcity.

He will tell you if you have a feature request, complaint, etc. to post it to FMI's site.

Lee

[Lee Smith]

Reread my post.

Whether or not they do read this Forum really isn't the point. The point is if you have a feature request, tell them direct.

In the meantime, back the truck up.

Lee

[LaRetta]

I'm just suggesting that Stephen put a Forum on here called Wants & Wishes and I would assume he expected it to be used. So getting on someone for posting in it just doesn't seem normal.

But you are right, they should ALSO post to FM directly.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Guest

[Ocean West]

for clarification...

http://fmforums.com/forum/showpost.php?post/187779/

[SteveB]

Does anyone besides me think it strange that Filemaker is generally unrepresented on the largest, most active forum dedicated to using Filemaker?:

I remember some years ago when some Filemaker employees like David McKee and Andrew Le Cates occasionally participated, but not now. Maybe they couldn't take the heat.

Steve

[Ted S]

I don't think it's strange at all. I would guess that FMI employees would be apprehensive about posting anything because their writing would be given more scrutiny than deserved and could be easily misinterpreted. Some Forum members would be constantly looking for hidden meanings in the posts and take the FMI employee's personal opinions as a statement of fact concerning FileMaker's official stance or future plans.

That being said, I have no doubt that many of the people at FMI lurk here on the Forums regularly. Just put yourself in their shoes. If your work was popular enough that thousands of people signed up to talk about it, I would guess that you would want to visit often to take the pulse of the community.

In fact, I think the FMI marketing and engineering folks especially would be seriously negligent in their duties if they didn't come to this forum and the other forums on a regular basis to listen to their customers. That's what its all about.

[SteveB]

While they may lurk in the background, their insights might prove invaluable, rather than having us guess as to why a certain feature works the way it does.

Why is that FMI is the only vendor that doesn't even have its own forum, and that many other forums have company moderators assigned to them? I just think with Filemaker, its in keeping with its generally poor level of customer support.

Steve

[Ted S]

Steve,

I agree with much that you have said. I was just giving a reason why their participation appears to be missing.

There are few people on this forum especially that seem to know the FM product from top to bottom and inside out. Maybe one or some of these guys are really FMI product engineers just mascarading as regular Joes. Who knows.

[LaRetta]

that seem to know the FM product from top to bottom and inside out. Maybe one or some of these guys are really FMI product engineers just mascarading...

OH TED! Don't give me away!! :wink2:

[Ted S]

Okay, well I guess LaRetta isn't an FMI engineer, she's probably their CFO! :smirk:

[LaRetta]

Good cover, Ted ... that'll throw them off. I guess I'd better flub up once in a while or everyone will begin asking me why we ... oh ... ummmm, I mean FileMaker doesn't provide event triggers. :wink2:

[CoZiMan]

Sorry this is so late of a response, just noticed the replies.

Sorry Lee, you missed the point here.

I am a graphic designer. (among other things)

I MAKE MY OWN GRAPHICS. COMMERCIALLY.

I don't want FMP to 'make graphics'

Woooo - watch out Adobe. That's not the 'Want n Wish.

Re-Read my post.

I want to CONTROL THE SHAPE OF THE BUTTON/BOX on the layout so that it matches my cute little graphic. Sheesh.

Have you ever noticed the UGLY box that is displayed when you click into ANY button shape? I sure do.

We are also limited, button shape wise, to the shapes provided by FMP in their infinite GRAPHIC wisdom. Heaven forbid I want a parallelogram or a rhomboid shaped button.

Rant over.

:

Edited December 24, 2005 by Guest

[CoZiMan]

PS -

In v8, WHy can't we place a graphic in a Tab Panel?: The tabs automagically change color and we have no CONTROL ! ! !

To paraphrase Steve Ballmer:

Appearances, Appearances, Appearances ! ! !

Edited December 24, 2005 by Guest

[comment]

You can do all these things - it's just a lot of work.

I would prefer FM to leave the graphics area completely. There should be access to system-level UI elements (buttons, tabs, drop-down menus, checkboxes, etc.), and an option to place a graphic object on a layout and assign some action to it - preferably a 4-layers/4-state object, like a Flash button.

[CoZiMan]

You can do all these things - it's just a lot of work.

I would prefer FM to leave the graphics area completely. There should be access to system-level UI elements (buttons, tabs, drop-down menus, checkboxes, etc.), and an option to place a graphic object on a layout and assign some action to it - preferably a 4-layers/4-state object, like a Flash button.

You sound a little sarcastic about the options you would like. System level access? Isn't that what a good application gives us with a fancy gui? Now graphic bounding box access ala icons (you use a clipping path), what's so strange about that? All the modern (and older) OS's have them.

I also would like to see one of these parallelogram shapes you think you've created with 'a lot of work'. I have customers with odd shaped logos and they say"how come there is that big ugly box when I click my logo?"

A multi state button graphic exists in the application. That's the reason we see them change color when we click them, so yes, that would be a nice option to control IF we controlled their shape as well. Otherwise, it's just another ugly box.

And while we are on the topic of image controls, what about the new tab panel? Talk about malfeasance. You have no control over ANY of the appearance / states other than font, font size, font color, and background color. You don't control anything else. Horrible. There are oodles of examples from days gone by where a programmer designed a really slick tabbed interface that looked GREAT. From placing repeating container graphics and text to having variable color text & boxes based on status.

I'll admit there are some pretty ugly designs out there as well and the new tab panels will help those programmers clean things up. It also goes a long way to solidifying the seperation model.

Anyway, I just wish there were more graphic options (mostly the clipping path). I've managed to find programmatic ways to do most of what I wanted otherwise, thanks to FM.

[comment]

I think I may have created this - but perhaps I am only imagining.

d8.fp7.zip

[Lee Smith]

Well, it has the illusion of it, but being that the file is locked... We can only guess at what we are seeing.

Lee

[CoZiMan]

Well, The shape is a bunch (probably more than 50 per image) grouped together, zoom in and you'll see.

Now if all my artwork consisted of simple lines . . . . .

Or if I had time to re-generate the artwork as a bunch of lines . . . .

Or if it looked GOOD as a bunch of lines . . .

And the text on the tabs is exactly what I said. Text. Woohoo - a circle - option 8 and size of 80 points?

Where are the graphics?

Like we can place inside any box and create a button :?

And locking the sample file REALLY convinces me this is a viable solution. Yes, this art is a rectangle, as I commented I would like to see. You took the time to build the same thing that I did. What do you do for variable colors ? Hmmm? I already have the logo. How do I create the button shape?

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Why can't we just put a clipping path / mask channel on a graphic and have the app pick up the outline? Seems pretty simple to me.

Oh well. Thanks for the effort, and example file.

[Søren Dyhr]

Or if I had time to re-generate the artwork as a bunch of lines . . . .

When ever you make one, where you have taken the time to draw invisible lines ontop to cover the entire shape, group it and save it for further use.

While the rest of us, seek shelter here:

http://www.scriptology.com/index.php?product=theme_library

--sd

[LaRetta]

CoZiMan,

I have to admit that I've found the tone of your responses to be quite rude. I saw no sarcasm in Comment's statement. He said it could be done with 'a lot of work' and your phrase "I also would like to see one of these parallelogram shapes you think you've created with 'a lot of work'." . And "Text with a circle ... woohoo ..." How condescending ...

What kind of doubting statement is this sir? He THINKS he's created? He then shows the demo of how it's accomplished and, not only do you snap back, but Lee joins in stating that since it's locked, it must be an illusion and is somehow deceptive or invalid. Good grief … point is - it WORKS!!

ALL design is an illusion, Lee. Must you see gravity to believe it exists? HOW it was accomplished wasn't the question ... CoZiMan didn’t ask to see HOW to accomplish it. He wanted to see it work!! And that is exactly what Comment presented. Nowhere in FM Forums is it written that we, when we post a sample of a technique, must also expose our method. If we choose to share how it was accomplished then that is our gift to the postee. But with CoZiMan’s tone, I doubt I’d want to show him how either. You can bet I’d post the technique to prove I’ve done it – and not just THINK I’ve done it – but I’d lock it too.

When someone is responding to help you, please accept it with a gracious spirit. People that try to help us deserve more respect than that and you both owe Comment an apology.

Back up the truck ...

LaRetta

[Ocean West]

Play nice folks :

Or I may lock this thread.

Remember this the purpose of this forum is to help a fellow member formulate or better articulate a request to FMI. Then the poster or participants can all run over to FMI's website to make the official request.

Those of us who have been around for a while know that there are MANY ways around the limitation of Filemaker and we end up with a LOVE/HATE relationship we love it dearly as it means our bread & butter but HATE it cause simple things that seem obvious to us or that would make our life and development easier have missed the boat.

It's fine to point out alternatives for users to use until such features become part of the core functionality of FileMaker. But alas some just won't invest the time or energies to implement these alternatives or use the current standards of practice adopted, endorsed, and advocated by the community and leaders in this field, simply because it's just to complex, above their skill level or because it's not officially blessed by FMI. They want or demand built in features because some other software or OS does it this way FileMaker should do it that way too. Some will never use plugins for this is very reason.

Just because a feature isn't standard in FileMaker and you have invested hours in a functional work around, you are entitled to be biased because of your investment. You can agree or disagree with someone's request to make a feature a standard part of FM. Your method may be the only viable solution until the powers to be are informed that this is a problem needing a better mousetrap if it can't do it exactly perhaps FMI could introduce other unrelated features that will inspire you to retool your solution and make it even better.

Remember folks we are a community here and the main goal is sharing the wealth of information that is available and graciously provided by each individual member. At times we may type things that may not translate or may be interpreted by the reader not as you have intended. So just take a minute to pause and re-read your post before you hit submit. Just to keep our main goals in mind.

Thanks Happy posting :tigger:

[Raybaudi]

:exactly:

Help if you can !

All other words are useless !

[LaRetta]

Thank you, Stephen!! :smile2:

[Miguels]

actually you can place a graphic in a tab panel...

It was one of the first things I tried to do.. the trick is to get the graphic( in my case OSX Aqua Look) in just the right spot.. where the graphic barely covers the tab.( in some case you may need to name these tabs specific to the size you want them as they're dynamic to the label).. Then on top of that for instance if you want a two tab panel you must in essence make use 4 graphics.. 3 tabbed.. 9 graphics.. etc.. I've learn to create the graphics, then however many copies I need for extra just copy and paste below and start putting each layer in it's place.. Pain in the but! but my boss likes it.. I'm sure you can accomplish this with global fields as well to make it more dynamic.. as well.

[CoZiMan]

Sorry if I mussed up anyone's hair with earlier posts but the whole point of the FIRST POST was to point out a lack in the application of a standard for graphic outlines as button shapes. There are lots of workarounds for many graphic and programming problems related to graphics. Just look at the effort that went into the tabbed interface. This was a great effort by FM to provide, programmatically, what many developers had painstakenly created for YEARS AND YEARS.

So to reply to Miguels, yes there are ways to create the graphics in the tabs. They are almost and possibly as difficult or as cumbersome as the previous way we developed a 'tabbed interface'.

I applaud the efforts of this community to provide insights and assistance. I applaud the many creative and hardworking individuals who have shared their hard work with others.

So here's to you, and I STILL want a better way to make a button and manage the look and functions of the interface.

[flapjacks]

CoZiMan

I agree. I would like a better way to do buttons. I hate spending time designing the interface when my real passion is for the code.

John