Align stroke problem

[KristjanP]

Hello!

Before reaching out to this forum (or any other forums), I tried to search about this problem, but couldn't really find anything. I then tried Adobe Support Chat and did a remote connection session with them. I described the problem and it seemed that the support worker did understand it. Seemed like a problem on Adobe's side. I got an answer that they would "return to me in 24 to 48 hours" with some kind of solution or answer. In the end, I got no solution and the support now wants to close my case as "they believe my issue is resolved". Yeah, right. I feel that I was just left there and I've lost my faith in them. Although I did get a quick solution with another problem at Photoshop before that, so thanks for that.

Anyway, here's the problem:

When changing the stroke alignment of a text box or a rectangle in InDesign CC (2017.0), the action also changes the dimensions and the placement of the box. This is unwanted and this doesn't happen in Illustrator CC (2015.3.1), for example. There, the dimensions and the placement stay put, and the stroke is rendered correctly in relation to the box itself.

I've made a screen recording which showcases the problem. At first, I change the alignment in Illustrator, then in InDesign. Notice the box placement coordinates and dimensions at the menu bar. Video: Align stroke - Illustrator CC 2015.3.1 vs InDesign CC 2017.1 - YouTube

My final goal is to create a printable A4 form, which would consist of stroked text boxes. The placement and dimensions of these boxes are crucial and currently, because of the aforementioned problem, changing the appearance of the form afterwards is not possible. I could, in principle, get to the goal with a table or tables too, but there are also some problems (which ask in another thread).

Any recommendations, tips, solutions are welcome

Best regards,

Kristjan

[vinny38]

Hi Kristjan,

You probably won't be glad to hear that but... That is just the way Indesign handles strokes. It it different from Illustrator, and you cannot change it...

You might think it is a hassle and it doesn't make sense, but INDD and AI have just different usages.

Would you prefer having a box that says its 100x100 mm but in fact looks 120x120 because of the 20mm stroke? I personally would hate that. Not talking about handling imported images that would become nightmare with such comportment...

You may want to have a look at this interesting-and related- thread:

Align Stroke To and Snap To are incompatible.

For tips and advises, screenshots and detailed explanation are welcome...

regards

Vinny

[KristjanP]

"but INDD and AI have just different usages."

Why would they limit InDesign at such a basic function? Why not give option to users to change that behavior on the fly?

"Would you prefer having a box that says its 100x100 mm but in fact looks 120x120 because of the 20mm stroke? I personally would hate that."

As a matter of fact, yes. In my particular case, that is (except I need a center-aligned stroke). I understand that it might not make sense when working on different projects. In mu case, I would simply calculate the "extra 20 mm" to page margins and be done with it.

To continue on what I need in the end, is that, for example, two text boxes with a stroke aligned to center would snap side-by-side so that the stroke they "share" would overlap 100%. Their outside edges would have a stroke, say 2 mm, and the stroke between them would also have a weight of 2 mm, instead of 4 mm it renders as of now.

I feel that this is an inflexibility in a very basic function. If that's the way it has do go down then fine, I'll try to create the work at Illustrator (and handle less flexible type options). And cancel the subscription, when the day comes. Luckily it's just a hobby right now.

[vinny38]

To continue on what I need in the end, is that, for example, two text boxes with a stroke aligned to center would snap side-by-side so that the stroke they "share" would overlap 100%. Their outside edges would have a stroke, say 2 mm, and the stroke between them would also have a weight of 2 mm, instead of 4 mm it renders as of now.

Kristjan,

You can easily achieve what you want by using "Distribution" panel, select frames and set negative space value, equal to your frames stroke weight (here, 2mm)

See example below, with multiply transparency effect for better understanding:

Regards

Vinny

[rob day]

Why would they limit InDesign at such a basic function?

Also, the tool you are using changes the interface. If you select an object with the black arrow Selection Tool the selection indicator includes the outside of the stroke—the entire object:

But if you direct select with the white arrow Direct Selection Tool you will get the more Illustrator like section—the object without the stroke:

Here I'm dragging a center stroked box from the center point with Direct Selection Tool using smart guides and snapping to a guide

A direct selection with center vs. inside stroke

[KristjanP]

Well, the "direct selection" method doesn't snap it, so it's still too inconvenient to do it like that. Maybe there's some checkbox in preferences that would allow that but I didn't find that right now. Without snapping, you'll have to add guides (like in Rob's example) which is too much work because the final form will have many boxes, looking like a table (and also containing an actual table, in Indesign's terms).

I think Vinny's workaround works better for me in this case. I didn't know about the distribution spacing option. Still, it'll add extra few steps when creating/copying the next box so it's not as perfect as it could be.

Te easiest way, in my mind, would be to have a simple checkbox somewhere to make InDesing work like Illustrator in this particular strokes' case. Maybe I'm simply naive here, but still.

Here's an example of the layout I'm trying to get to (this was currently achieved with Vinny's method):

Thanks for the help so far!

[SJRiegel]

KristjanP wrote:

the final form will have many boxes, looking like a table (and also containing an actual table, in Indesign's terms).

Here's an example of the layout I'm trying to get to (this was currently achieved with Vinny's method):

Is there a reason why this can't be set up as an actual InDesign table? It seems that that would solve the problem quite simply.

[KristjanP]

The problem is that I haven't found a way to change the column widths row by row. In the example above, you would acheive the border between fields 3 and 6 by dragging the border between them, but you can't do that to a single row - you'll just change the whole column width. I've tried all sorts of shortcuts and I've looked to the forums, too, but the solution eludes me. I know that's a pretty stupid thing to not understand, but that's how it is.

And I don't know how to quote your replies like you do

[winterm]

KristjanP wrote:

And I don't know how to quote your replies like you do

Here You are:

Regarding cells, try 'Split Cell Vertically' command. Sure, select the cell(s) before it... Width can be adjusted using Shift key.

[vinny38]

I would vote for a table also...

If you want to adjust cells without increasing size of table, press SHIFT while dragging.

You may want to split cells vertically and merge when necessary.

Edit: wintern was faster! and more explicit... go for it ^^

[KristjanP]

vinny38 wrote:

I would vote for a table also...

If you want to adjust cells without increasing size of table, press SHIFT while dragging.

You may want to split cells vertically and merge when necessary.

Well, it turns out that I needed to first split or merge some cells to achieve that functionality. One can't change the column width row by row on a fresh table. There's probably some reason for it, but it would make a lot of sense to me to have that ability right from the start (of a newly created table).

Also thanks to @winterm for the same suggestion and for leading the blind to their desired destination.

I'll give it a try using tables and see how that goes. Currently the conclusion would be that there are several more or less viable workarounds but no true solution to the original problem. Adobe could leave it like that or add some functionality with an update.

[winterm]

I second vinny and others here... A table is the way to go, definitely. And You can always come back with new questions. Good luck

[rob day]

Well, the "direct selection" method doesn't snap it, so it's still too inconvenient to do it like that.

Do the table layout without any strokes and smart guides will work, then select all and add a center stroke when you are done.

[KristjanP]

rob day wrote:

Well, the "direct selection" method doesn't snap it, so it's still too inconvenient to do it like that.

Do the table layout without any strokes and smart guides will work, then select all and add a center stroke when you are done.

This is indeed one possible workaround, but it takes away the graphical feedback to see if your on the right track or not. Maybe I'll give it a try if the table-direction doesn't work out.

Thanks!