Sunday, April 17, 2016

Orientation is not Managed by View Template

When we choose to assign a View Template (VT) to a View, that makes the template the view's boss. It takes over control of each setting we choose to make it enforce. In this image notice the parameters that are gray, not editable?


Those are being managed by the View Template. I've got to edit the VT to change one of those parameters or use Enable Temporary View Properties to override them briefly.

I noticed yesterday that the Orientation parameter does not behave like other View Properties even when a VT thinks it is in charge of it. This is the VT's dialog showing it is currently assigned to Project North; we can choose either Project North or True North. The check in the Include column (on the right side) indicates we want the VT to take over.


Therefore I find it counter intuitive that we can still interact with and change the Orientation parameter in the Properties Palette even though the VT is in charge.


If the VT is changed the view will follow along as expected. I wouldn't expect to be able to change it back in the View's properties with the VT in charge, but I can. This means the Orientation parameter is affected (managed half-heartedly) by a VT but it isn't truly in charge of the parameter, not like it is for other parameters.

It is inconsistent, perhaps a bug?

3 comments:

Matt Taylor said...

Hi Steve,
I think this makes a little sense, actually.
The orientation has three possible values (that I know of).
The missing one is 'By Scope Box'. Assign a scope box to the view, and that is what it says.
It makes sense that that setting can't be saved in a view template, as it has a dependency with a non view template setting.

-Matt

Steve said...

Perhaps you're correct that's why it behaves this way. If a View Template is truly in charge of a view then I'd go so far as to say applying a Scope Box to it ought to be disallowed too. Perhaps to reconcile it they need to permit us to define a scope box in a View Template as well. Then the dots would connected.

Matt Taylor said...

I think your suggestion would be a welcome addition.