Question of Historical FM Practice re: Buttons

[T-Square]

I've been using FM since v. 4, and from the beginning I noticed that many of the sample files would split buttons up into a graphic showing a button, and an invisible area beneath (above?) the graphic that had the actual button functionality. Another question on the Forums got me thinking about this practice (since the invisible areas were not lining up with the graphics in IWP), and I confess I have no idea why this practice was ever used. Why wouldn't a developer just set the graphic up as a button?

Could someone shed light on the practice?

TIA,

David

[LaRetta]

Hi David

Well I can tell you why I use it sometimes. As you know, the entire graphic or button will highlight. Whether I use graphics or FM-generated embossed buttons, it (usually) looks better if just the inside (not including edges) highlight. I also use invisible on radio buttons. I use a transparent circle because it produces a circular highlight whereas the field (or normal button) will produce a square. There are probably different reasons others can share.

Secret ... leave them colored until you get them precisely placed; otherwise you can lose them, ie, you can't grab the innards (when transparent) and must grab an edge. And zoom in!

LaRetta :smile2:

Edited August 12, 2006 by Guest
Added sentence

[LaRetta]

Oh! And one more I've done. I may have a panel of buttons which is either a repeating field or portals neither of which could be split prior to 7) or is a graphic (all one piece). And I would group my transparent buttons after defining each script and just plop them over the top. This was usually for multiple 'same' layouts (now we have tab controls). We have many more tools now and I haven't done that for awhile...

Edited August 12, 2006 by Guest
Added Sentences