Invisible shapes

In PPT 2003, if I needed an invisible shape (for example, to get a "connection point"
somewhere other than the poor selection we are given) I would create a shape like a
rectangle, give it "no fill" and "no line", and it was invisible. But in PPT2007, if I do
this, I get a faint outline that shows up both in the slide show and in the printed slide.

Exactly what part of "no line, no fill" did someone forget to pay attention to? And how
do I really get it to not show? (If I wanted it to show, I would have given it a line and
a fill! Duh!)

Note that I'm fine seeing it in "editing" mode, but for either slide show or printed
output I expect to see what I created, which is an invisible object (that is, I expect to
NOT see any trace of it!)

In addition, the "add custom path" has a serious bug. If I have a shape and draw a path

A-----------

and then I want to have a second path so that I can split the animation:

A--------------------------

and I draw the second path starting at the end of the first path, for some reason
PowerPoint thinks "Oh. you could not POSSIBLY have meant to do that! You OBVIOUSLY meant
to start that path AT THE OBJECT!" and it "nicely" adjusts the path so that it starts back
at A. So I have to Edit Points (and the Edit Points for a path is NOT the Edit Points I
see anywhere else! But it has the same icon!) to REDRAW what I ALREADY DREW CORRECTLY!

Note: in "edit points" mode, it would be REALLY NICE to see an invisible outline showing
where the object is relative to that point. Otherwise, I can't tell where the object is
going to end up! A real pain to have to keep adjusting it when I can't see what the
result would be! As I select each point, a bounding outline should be drawn to show where
the object will be so I can avoid collisions with other objects, get it to end up
precisely where I want, etc.

I also notice that the color mapping to gray seems to give me gray-on-gray-on-gray
results; in PPT2003, different colors came out as different shades of gray. So why is it
that I don't have a way to say exactly what shade of gray should be used in grayscale
display/printing? Instead, I get a silly set of options that are preselected and designed
to be as useless as possible while giving the illusion of giving me control.

But the bottom line question here is: why is it so hard to do what the user asks? Why
does it keep "inventing" an "improved" idea on what I intend? If I want a visible box,
I'll DRAW a visible box. If I want the path to start at the object, I'll START it at the
object!

(Of course, I wouldn't need invisible objects as connection points if I could add
connection points where I need them. Why, for example, are all the connection points on
the edges, when I need one in the center of the object? But allowing the end user to
define the connection points is FAR too obvious a solution! Otherwise, it would have been
in already!)
joe
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email:
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm

Could it be that the no line, no fill shape has a shadow?
--David

On 3/2/10 10:42 PM, Joseph M. Newcomer wrote:
In PPT 2003, if I needed an invisible shape (for example, to get a "connection point"
somewhere other than the poor selection we are given) I would create a shape like a
rectangle, give it "no fill" and "no line", and it was invisible. But in PPT2007, if I do
this, I get a faint outline that shows up both in the slide show and in the printed slide.

Exactly what part of "no line, no fill" did someone forget to pay attention to? And how
do I really get it to not show? (If I wanted it to show, I would have given it a line and
a fill! Duh!)

Note that I'm fine seeing it in "editing" mode, but for either slide show or printed
output I expect to see what I created, which is an invisible object (that is, I expect to
NOT see any trace of it!)

In addition, the "add custom path" has a serious bug. If I have a shape and draw a path

A-----------

and then I want to have a second path so that I can split the animation:

A--------------------------

and I draw the second path starting at the end of the first path, for some reason
PowerPoint thinks "Oh. you could not POSSIBLY have meant to do that! You OBVIOUSLY meant
to start that path AT THE OBJECT!" and it "nicely" adjusts the path so that it starts back
at A. So I have to Edit Points (and the Edit Points for a path is NOT the Edit Points I
see anywhere else! But it has the same icon!) to REDRAW what I ALREADY DREW CORRECTLY!

Note: in "edit points" mode, it would be REALLY NICE to see an invisible outline showing
where the object is relative to that point. Otherwise, I can't tell where the object is
going to end up! A real pain to have to keep adjusting it when I can't see what the
result would be! As I select each point, a bounding outline should be drawn to show where
the object will be so I can avoid collisions with other objects, get it to end up
precisely where I want, etc.

I also notice that the color mapping to gray seems to give me gray-on-gray-on-gray
results; in PPT2003, different colors came out as different shades of gray. So why is it
that I don't have a way to say exactly what shade of gray should be used in grayscale
display/printing? Instead, I get a silly set of options that are preselected and designed
to be as useless as possible while giving the illusion of giving me control.

But the bottom line question here is: why is it so hard to do what the user asks? Why
does it keep "inventing" an "improved" idea on what I intend? If I want a visible box,
I'll DRAW a visible box. If I want the path to start at the object, I'll START it at the
object!

(Of course, I wouldn't need invisible objects as connection points if I could add
connection points where I need them. Why, for example, are all the connection points on
the edges, when I need one in the center of the object? But allowing the end user to
define the connection points is FAR too obvious a solution! Otherwise, it would have been
in already!)
joe
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email:
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm


--
David M. Marcovitz
Author of _Powerful PowerPoint for Educators_
http://www.PowerfulPowerPoint.com/
Microsoft PowerPoint MVP
Associate Professor, Loyola University Maryland

I've seen a similar problem when the autoshape default had a bevel. (One of
the preset 3D effects.) When you remove the line and fill -- and even the
bevel -- there's still a lighting effect applied that makes the invisible
shape not become completely invisible.

It's incredibly frustrating to have to go into the Format Shape dialog and
change the lighting on the 3D tab. I figure when you remove the bevel
effect, the lighting should go away, too!

--
Echo [MS PPT MVP] http://www.echosvoice.com
What's new in PPT 2010? http://www.echosvoice.com/2010.htm
Fixing PowerPoint Annoyances http://tinyurl.com/36grcd
PowerPoint 2007 Complete Makeover Kit http://tinyurl.com/32a7nx



"David Marcovitz" wrote in message
...
Could it be that the no line, no fill shape has a shadow?
--David

On 3/2/10 10:42 PM, Joseph M. Newcomer wrote:
In PPT 2003, if I needed an invisible shape (for example, to get a
"connection point"
somewhere other than the poor selection we are given) I would create a
shape like a
rectangle, give it "no fill" and "no line", and it was invisible. But in
PPT2007, if I do
this, I get a faint outline that shows up both in the slide show and in
the printed slide.

Exactly what part of "no line, no fill" did someone forget to pay
attention to? And how
do I really get it to not show? (If I wanted it to show, I would have
given it a line and
a fill! Duh!)

Note that I'm fine seeing it in "editing" mode, but for either slide show
or printed
output I expect to see what I created, which is an invisible object (that
is, I expect to
NOT see any trace of it!)

In addition, the "add custom path" has a serious bug. If I have a shape
and draw a path

A-----------

and then I want to have a second path so that I can split the animation:

A--------------------------

and I draw the second path starting at the end of the first path, for
some reason
PowerPoint thinks "Oh. you could not POSSIBLY have meant to do that! You
OBVIOUSLY meant
to start that path AT THE OBJECT!" and it "nicely" adjusts the path so
that it starts back
at A. So I have to Edit Points (and the Edit Points for a path is NOT
the Edit Points I
see anywhere else! But it has the same icon!) to REDRAW what I ALREADY
DREW CORRECTLY!

Note: in "edit points" mode, it would be REALLY NICE to see an invisible
outline showing
where the object is relative to that point. Otherwise, I can't tell
where the object is
going to end up! A real pain to have to keep adjusting it when I can't
see what the
result would be! As I select each point, a bounding outline should be
drawn to show where
the object will be so I can avoid collisions with other objects, get it
to end up
precisely where I want, etc.

I also notice that the color mapping to gray seems to give me
gray-on-gray-on-gray
results; in PPT2003, different colors came out as different shades of
gray. So why is it
that I don't have a way to say exactly what shade of gray should be used
in grayscale
display/printing? Instead, I get a silly set of options that are
preselected and designed
to be as useless as possible while giving the illusion of giving me
control.

But the bottom line question here is: why is it so hard to do what the
user asks? Why
does it keep "inventing" an "improved" idea on what I intend? If I want
a visible box,
I'll DRAW a visible box. If I want the path to start at the object, I'll
START it at the
object!

(Of course, I wouldn't need invisible objects as connection points if I
could add
connection points where I need them. Why, for example, are all the
connection points on
the edges, when I need one in the center of the object? But allowing the
end user to
define the connection points is FAR too obvious a solution! Otherwise,
it would have been
in already!)
joe
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email:
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm


--
David M. Marcovitz
Author of _Powerful PowerPoint for Educators_
http://www.PowerfulPowerPoint.com/
Microsoft PowerPoint MVP
Associate Professor, Loyola University Maryland

Does setting the transparency on the un-filled shape to 100% do
anything? It's a hack I'd try....

Echo S wrote:
I've seen a similar problem when the autoshape default had a bevel.
(One of the preset 3D effects.) When you remove the line and fill --
and even the bevel -- there's still a lighting effect applied that
makes the invisible shape not become completely invisible.

It's incredibly frustrating to have to go into the Format Shape dialog
and change the lighting on the 3D tab. I figure when you remove the
bevel effect, the lighting should go away, too!

No. You have to remove that lighting effect. Otherwise (if I recall
correctly, anyway) the transparency isn't fully transparent.

Of course I'm having trouble repro-ing this right now, but I know I have
some client files that behave this way, and it's just frustrating.

Just tossing it out as another thing to check.

--
Echo [MS PPT MVP] http://www.echosvoice.com
What's new in PPT 2010? http://www.echosvoice.com/2010.htm
Fixing PowerPoint Annoyances http://tinyurl.com/36grcd
PowerPoint 2007 Complete Makeover Kit http://tinyurl.com/32a7nx



"James" jahbur-at-yahoo.co.uk wrote in message
...
Does setting the transparency on the un-filled shape to 100% do anything?
It's a hack I'd try....

Echo S wrote:
I've seen a similar problem when the autoshape default had a bevel. (One
of the preset 3D effects.) When you remove the line and fill --
and even the bevel -- there's still a lighting effect applied that makes
the invisible shape not become completely invisible.

It's incredibly frustrating to have to go into the Format Shape dialog
and change the lighting on the 3D tab. I figure when you remove the bevel
effect, the lighting should go away, too!