Thanks for a great app!
Being a graphic designer, I realize my viewpoint may be in conflict with the intent of CDFG, its philosophical or methodical purity etc. Never the less, here are a couple of features that would increase CDFG's usability to me:
1) Arbitrary shapes. Whether it's in the form of manual polygon definitions or importing a vector- or pixel based image. This is the culprit!
2) Vector output (for animation). If I had a PDF file I could fairly easily remove one shape per frame, FIFO or reverse order, and get an animation of the growing shape.
3) Vector or coordinates output (to bypass 1). If I had a PDF or text file containing the position, angle and size of shapes, I could replace the shapes afterwards with arbitrary graphic elements. (Even better: if there was some way to identify different shapes, so I could replace different shape types with specific graphic elements.)
Best regards
Andreas Gaunitz, lecturer
Graphic Design & Illustration and Digital Studio dpts
Konstfack, University College of Arts Crafts and Design
CDFG vs graphic design
Moderators: MtnViewJohn, chris, mtnviewmark