I forgot to mention that we use latest OS X 10.8.4.
I deleted all prefs and caches for CS6 and CC a few days ago when I was struggling with another gradient bug. So I don't think this could matter now.
I can try CS6 in my collegues Mac later today.
Prefs may be fine, but I'd never presume thay haven't become corrupt again. Lots of stuff you run in the background can cause trouble.
For what it's worth, though, this could be OS specific -- I'm on Win7.
If I get some time later, and remember, I'll boot up my laptop and try it here in CC on Win7.
Thanks, that would be nice.
Are there any more OS X users out there perhaps who could report what they see?
I'm using CS 6 on Apple OS 10.6. Same behavior, though I don't think it's a bug. If you want to resize the box, why would you use the direct selection tool? If I apply another color, then reapply the gradient, it goes to the full gradient in the smaller box. I can somewhat see the logic in what it's doing, but I suppose it would be nice to see the full gamut of gradient when you select the box with the direct selection tool (much like you see the full uncropped version of an image).
1. InDesign behavior is not the same as in Illustrator, Photoshop
2. InDesign behavior is not the same in Windows vs OS X
But you still think it's fine as it is?
The example shows a simple square box and I think you need to think out of said box. I have rather complex forms with gradients and objects pasted inside other objects and so on.
I'm a little embarrassed to say this, but I'm not sure I was following your steps correctly yesterday. THis morning I tried it on the laptop in both CS6 and CC and again on the desktop in CS6, and I'm now seeing waht you describe, though I'm not entirely sure I see the same thing on both machines, but that could be related to monitors. The laptop seems to lose some steps in the gradient which remain on the desktop.
In any event, after thinking about this, I think it's actually expected behavior. If you create a frame and just apply a gradient to the fill without using the gradient tool that essentially tells ID to fix the gradient stop postions relative to the size of the frame, and extend to the largest dimensions as they exist. If you use the Regular selection tool you resize both the frame and the gradient, maintianing the relative postions of the stops to the frame dimensions.
When you use the Direct Select tool to modify the frame you are not maintianing the relative positions of the stops, but the absolute positions, as if you had used the gradient tool and strted and stopped inside or outside the frame, so the actual gradient continues to extend between the end points and is not scaled. If you take your filled frame and move two points inward, that's the same as if you dragged across the new frame size and stopped at the point where the edge used to be. If you add a pint to that edge, then drag it outward again, you should see the remiander of the gradient appear until you reachthe stop point, and from there it will become solid color.
Did that make sense?
It sounds fantastic!
Now describe the same thing in Illustrator (or Photoshop).
Here is an example where we think outside the box.
I am struggling to find something really, really smart to fix this dilemma.
Shouldn't there be a way to do this and make it work?
What would they have done in the ancient Greece?
What would Einstein have come up with?
After long contemplation I came to this really clever and smart solution to the problem:
It works in Illustrator
As you've no doubt figured out by now, ID and Illy don't work the same way most of the time.
I see your dilemma with the changing shape if you want to resize in one direction only, so the cheeky answer would be to start out at the right size, but don't forget you can always just reapply the gradient to the finished size using the Gradient Swatch tool.
You are still thinking inside the box. This object can have any shape or form.
Should we adjust the approach to our tools based on the shape of the object?
Or should our tools work the same way for all shapes and forms?
The solutions you offer are only work arounds and should not end this debate in my mind.
Adobe has provided a very large tool box. Why not just do this in
Illustrator and place or copy/paste the frame. You obviously don't like
InDesign's way of doing things and you have at your disposal a tool that
does work the way you like.
Mr. Andersson wrote:
The solutions you offer are only work arounds...
One man's workaround is another man's technique.
If reapplying the swatch solves the problem, I myself would be delighted to just move foward from there. I don't know for sure what Eistein would have done, but I doubt he'd allow a solved problem to persist just because he or someone else thought the solution wasn't clever enough.
I understand completely that this is not the only possible shape. I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. You only have a problem if you want to scale in one direction, and only then becasue it distorts your shape, whatever it might be. If you don't change the dimensions of the bounding box the gradient remains fully utilized no matter where you move points otherwise.
If you want Illustrator's behavior, use Illustrator. If you want to do the work in ID, accept the limitations of of ID's illustration capabilities (it's a page layout tool, after all) and reapply the gradient using the gradient tool when you need to. This isn't a lot different from having to use the tool to change the angle.
I like InDesigns way of doing things very much. It's easily my all time favorite software after 25 years in this business.
And I can understand different behavior between the Adobe apps. This app can only do a little bit of what the other app can do.
But it don't like when three apps have the exact same tools, and one app is programmed to do something else with these tools, when it just as easily could have been programmed to do the same thing.