Connecting shapes with lines, ConceptDraw like

don Jao wrote:
Hopefully, Pages has it built in, otherwise it's not as priceless as it could be.

Pages is not as priceless as it could be. The functionality is missing.

I have moaned about this in the past, but most other users seem to accept the shortcoming.

*Pages has it built in, otherwise it's not as priceless as it could be. And I'd had no need to buy 2 products for making project blueprints and schemes fast.*

I know what you mean - I had hoped to use Numbers for editing pictures and I was thinking I could avoid buying a new stove by cooking in my dishwasher. Sorry for the sarcasm here but Pages is a *word processor* and light *DTP publishing* program. It isn't an illustrator and the fact that it has a limited ability to draw and drop shapes onto the pages doesn't make it one. Heck, AppleWorks, which had a dedicated drawing module, didn't have magnetic line points. Yes, I'm afraid you won't be able to perform all your computing functions with just iWork.

dwb wrote:
Sorry for the sarcasm here but Pages is a *word processor* and light *DTP publishing* program. It isn't an illustrator and the fact that it has a limited ability to draw and drop shapes onto the pages doesn't make it one.

Well, for as long as a steady stream of hopefuls are led to believe that Pages in any way can replace MS Word, this kind of assumptions will linger. Word has it. NeoOffice has it. There are other word processors that have it.

For you, it may be no big deal. For many others, who have been looking at products they were led to be equivalent, it is a big deal.

Just because a feature exists in Word which has every feature one might need - most of them unusbale by mortal creatures - doesn't mean Pages needs to have it. Pages isn't a Word clone. The fact that NeoOffice does have the feature is because it is an Office clone. Many, if not most of us, chose iWork *because it isn't Office*.

iWork comes with a 30 day trial period and downloadable documentation. I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for people who are incapable of engaging a little personal initative to find out if a product is right for them and then start whining when they find it missing.

I'm not sure than I understood correctly your question.

I draw a circle, a square then an arrow starting from the circle and ending on the square.
After that, I selected the three object and clicked the menu item "Arrange > Group"
Now, when I move the circle, the arrow and the circle remain linked and move together.

Is it what you wished.

Yvan KOENIG (from FRANCE mardi 15 juillet 2008 21:05:39)

It would indeed be handy if Pages (and Keynote) had this functionality -- it would greatly facilitate making things like org charts and flowcharts, and pretty much allow me to dump OmniGraffle (and ConceptDraw). It is also a fairly common functionality for word processors to have, and would be all the more suitable to a tool that has relatively strong page layout features.

It's not a deal-breaker for me, but it would be handy.

My whining remark was not aimed specifically at you and if you took it personally, please accept my apology. People come to iWork for lots of different reasons and some are under the mistaken impression that because Pages can import Word documents Pages must have every feature Word does. But that isn't why Apple created Pages and it isn't what makes it an attractive program to me and many others. It is a different kind of animal.

One of the conversations that many of us have engaged in for the last several years revolves around what features we think Pages should have.The conversation tends toward two extremes: those who want Pages to be more like Word (at least in its feature set) and those who want it to be more like AppleWorks (in its feature set and philosophy). I lean toward the latter at least in the sense that I want Pages to have a lean but rich feature set. I don't want a Swiss Army Knife of a program - that's why I don't use Word. If I want a simple diagram, Pages lets me do it. If I need a complex diagram Pages can do it but I'd rather use a different program, OmniGraffle for example, because Pages is a word processor - not a diagramming program.

*Practically, connecting shapes, is not an extra feature. It's just a smarter algorithm for present toolset of Pages...*

This could only be written by someone who knows nothing about programming 🙂 No, you are quite wrong about this. Writing a set of routines to put shapes on the canvas and move them is relatively trivial. Grouping those shapes is also trivial (but don't get me started on how non-trivial grouping is if we add transforms to the toolset). You'd be surprised how a simple 90º transform on a square becomes a nightmare when we have a group of squares.) Connecting shapes with elastic lines is another totally new nightmare. I speak from experience...I'm a programmer.

The bottom line is that every feature adds new complexity and new features impinge on old features in both expected and unexpected ways. The little feature you want added is a potential hand grenade thrown into a quiet room. If you want to get some idea of how messy this feature can be, take a look at how Word implemented organizational charts in version 2004 and now in 2008. Then download OmniGraffle and see how it is done there and ask yourself why Microsoft didn't follow OmniGraffle's implementation in either version.

dwb wrote:
Writing a set of routines to put shapes on the canvas and move them is relatively trivial. Grouping those shapes is also trivial (but don't get me started on how non-trivial grouping is if we add transforms to the toolset). You'd be surprised how a simple 90º transform on a square becomes a nightmare when we have a group of squares.) Connecting shapes with elastic lines is another totally new nightmare.

But is this not a possible problem for Pages? There is plenty of functionality I would not have have added to the product, and which I guess was added just because it was easy: shapes, bezier curves, alpha-channels, picture adjustments, and so on.

On the other hand there are things like the tables, that people still do not come to grips with. One problem is when people feel the need to let a cell span pages, but I have a feeling that there are much more problems than that with tables. I just find it too much of a hassle to isolate exactly what goes wrong.

I realise that fixing tables may be difficult, especially as I cannot even pinpoint exactly what is wrong. But surely tables is much more of word processor functionality than bezier curves?

From a programmer perspective, I realise it is cheaper to add bezier curves. From a user perspective, I think it is strange that tables do not work "properly".

From a programmer perspective, I realise it is easier to add just shapes than adding connector points. However, from a user perspective, I think it is strange to implement what I perceive as half baked functionality: shapes without connectors.

*From a programmer perspective, I realise it is cheaper to add bezier curves. From a user perspective, I think it is strange that tables do not work "properly".*

Hold on, let's talk about one thing at a time! Pages started out life as a WP/DTP program with a simple but rather sophisticated feature set that lets us write a letter to grandma, create a brochure for the home business, or create a church newsletter. Obviously for such a program we'll need basic shapes and a little control over photos is going to be easy because Pages can leverage the build in Core Graphics. Bezier curves? Well, Core Graphics will let us create masks, we just have to have a mechanism for creating the shape.

The question I am asking now is how much farther do we take Pages in the direction of creating graphics? I argue that as a DTP program it has to offer some functionality in that direction. And I can defend the photo editing features because Pages doesn't have to do any heavy lifting since it is built into the OS and makes sense within the context of a DTP program. But Pages is not a graphics package and I argue that adding connecting lines is a graphics feature not a DTP feature.


The problem here is that everyone has their own hobby horse. You want page spanning tables, someone else wants connecting lines, there's another fellow who insists that a full grammar checker is needed and Pages is worthless without it. What I maintain, and what I have maintained from day one with this program, is that the feature set needs to be grown slowly and carefully. This isn't Word and we shouldn't be pushing to make it turned into Word. Whenever someone pulls out the old "Well Word has this feature" line I cringe. If Pages lacks a feature it isn't always Pages fault - sometimes it means you need another program.