[CS5] Pixel rulers - how to change increments from 72?

[tomaugerdotcom]

When setting rulers to use Pixels as the unit, the ruler lines fall in increments of 72, or some multiple / factor thereof. This is great for working in points, but for the web, we're often more comfortable in units of 10 etc. Is there a way to ocver-ride the default behaviour?

Note: "changing zoom level" does not automatically fix this issue, as the base factor is still 72, not 10.

[Mike_Gondek · Accepted solution]

No can do.

Use grids.

view >> show grid

eidt >> preferences >> guides and grid

[tomaugerdotcom]

Thanks for the attempt Mike. I had already tried that in the hopes the ruler increments were informed by the grid settings, but they aren't.

Any other ideas?

T

[Wade_Zimmerman1]

As Mike wrote "No can do!" he means it is not possible.

[tomaugerdotcom]

Hehe. Well that seems like a bit of an oversight, doesn't it? It makes perfect sense in the context of points and picas, but when pixels are chosen, this is just an error.

[Larry G. Schneider]

Since pixels are not a real unit of measurement, it's immaterial.

[tomaugerdotcom]

Ha-ha, Larry, what a ridiculous statement.

Do pixels map 1-to-1 to a unit of physical distance? No, it's true they do not.

But is counting distances in pixels an essential task in any web- or

screen-related design activity? Unquestionably. So "immaterial"? Most certainly

not.

There are good use cases for leveraging rulers while in pixel units,

particularly for establishing guides at arbitrary locations. Assuredly, setting

up a grid will help. But it's just plain silly to force a user to figure out

which grid snap increment is closest to that 144 pixel mark to snap to 150px

instead of just showing increments of, say 10 pixels, or 50, or some other

"metric" system.

Sure, if all you do are resolution-independent vector illustrations, then this

discussion is immaterial, and I hope you never even bother to set your rulers to

"pixels", as the entire procedure would be noncupatory.

But if you're doing web work, or pixel-sensitive icon work: in short, if you're

doing anything that benefits from "Pixel Preview" being on, then pixels, not any

distance-absolute unit of measurement are your prime concern.

[JETalmage]

Well that seems like a bit of an oversight, doesn't it?

Yep. Most certainly does. Illustrator is the only program in its league to still not provide proper user-defined drawing scales.

　

But is counting distances in pixels an essential task in any web- or screen-related design activity?

　

No. You are not counting off distance. You are merely counting off number of pixels, and a number of pixels does not correspond to a distance. The distance any number of pixels will span depends on the monitor on which it will be viewed. So Larry's comment is certainly not ridiculous. It just isn't really pertainent to your question.

What you want is a custom ruler capability that lets you specify ten minor tick marks for each major tick mark. That's a legitimate need regardless of unit of measure. All that's ridiculous is the fact that Illustrator still doesn't provide for it. (And that an object-based program like Illustrator pretends to use "pixels" as a unit of measure.)

JET

　

[Wade_Zimmerman1]

This assessment I agree with it is a bit ridiculous.The general lack of user defined customization seems unduly restrictive
and kind of cheap on Adobe's part, No need to change anything just allow the user to change it.

Unfortunately the concept recently has been either or either instead of allowing the user to define which way.

[Kar209]

That just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would Adobe leave out a ruler with ... let's say .. this is One pixel this is Two & so on. ?? That way as we are creating we can split things in half much easier than 7.2 increments. I've been going NUTS trying to align things while trying to make a compass. The whole thing seems nuts to me.

Isn't Adobe aware that their users make web graphics?

Even though a Pixel is not a "Real" unit of measurement it does actually exist on the web & in regard to web graphics. right? Or am I wrong?

I understand that a pixel is rather arBITrary (<heehee) b/c it's device dependent. However being able to know rather I'm in the right city compared to the right continent makes a world of difference for me.

I guess I'll have to send in a request to Adobe. LOL sure they'll jump right on it.

Dang ... I am just so bummbed out to find out that there's no way to make the ruler land on even numbers rather than 36, 72 etc.

I mean ... 7.2 increments? Is there an emoticon for pulling hair out?

So, why don't those of us that would like to see a pixel ""ruler"" in Illustrator start a petition/thread & forward to our pals at Adobe HQ?

Just an idea. Squeaky wheel gets the grease ... right?

[JETalmage]

Why would Adobe leave out...

I can give you a long list of basic things left out.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease ... right?

The wheels have been squeaking for almost three decades.

Even though a Pixel is not a "Real" unit of measurement...

If you are determined to waste your breath in the feature request black hole; don't muck it up by couching it in terms of such limited scope. It's a simple, glaring, no-brainer omission: Illustrator needs user-defined ruler scales, like any decent illustration program has. That need applies to everything, (least of all web graphics). It is such an assumed feature (in everything except Illustrator), it needs no further explanation.

Just like live geometric primitives, dimensioning, callouts, a proper cutting tool...

JET

[Kar209]

Hey there JET...

Yes, I agree with you.

I wasn't actually calling a pixel an unreal measurement ... I was more reffering to it having been called as such by others to whom I have spoken with ...  due to its device dependent thingy ...

I certainly wouldn't take time out of my day to contact Adobe about this particular request and then abate the suggestion/request in a particular style that could possibly be construed as not being viable.

Certainly with all the misses and near misses regarding user tools and such this specific one is HUGE ... imho and also in mho it merrits tossing yet an other echo into that void you speak of

I can be relentless ... I'll drive 'em nuts till they see my (our) way ... lol ... heee heeee

Feel free to lmk if you'de like to start a petition w/me 

[Gordon_Wagner]

I was certain I'd been able to change ruler units in the past. Yet I found no such command. HOWEVER if you depress the CTRL key and click in the blank corner where your x and y rulers meet, you will behold a contextual menu which allows you to choose between inches (meh), points, pixels, centimeters, cubits, et cetera!!!!!!!! HOORAY!!!

[Kar209]

thank you Gordon for finding this!

but can you explain a bit more as to where you're talking about?

[emil_emil]

He is talking about changing the units in Illustrator. Right click anywhere on the ruler and choose the desired unit. You can also change them in the preferences and the document setup.

[Kar209]

emil ...

ohh okay. ya, i already knew that but i thought he meant he found a way to change the increments from 36, 72 ... to 10, 20 etc. so that it would work better with pixels. darn. lol

[Steve Fairbairn]

When you come to think about it, 72 is a much more useful number than 10.

You can divide it easily by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9, which is why it has been used by typographers for centuries.

10 is really a most unsuitable number. You can only divide it by 2 and 5. It is really only useful because we have 10 fingers and have become used to reckoning on a 10 base.

[tromboniator]

Hmm, convert the world to base 72. Good idea, Steve. We'd only have to devise and agree on characters for the (base 10) numbers 10 through 71. It would probably only take a couple of weeks to retool manufacturing, economies, science, education, and so forth; and universal acceptance would be a foregone conclusion. Just look, for example, at the enthusiasm with which the US embraced base 10 measurements! And Adobe would be in the forefront!

[Steve Fairbairn]

For all practical purposes a base 12 would be ideal. Then we would only need to grow 2 more fingers.

See how much more practical inches are than centimeters when it comes to actually working with them hands on, like in carpentry.

I grew up with inches (and 12 pence to the shilling) and even though I have been living with centimeters for over 40 years I still occasionally curse those Frenchmen who invented them.

[Jacob Bugge]

I am with Steve here, still mourning over the Dreadful Day in 1971, and still remembering the struggle to get used to centimeters (if the latter should be better, why are we still getting all kinds of wood in inch (based) sizes?).

And now we are at it, left is the the right side to drive in, of course.

[Steve Fairbairn]

At last a soul-mate! Reckoning with twelves is so easy.

And why on earth did Napoleon want to mount his horse from the wrong side? It meant he had to go out into the middle of the road and get his boots muddy.

[Silkrooster]

Whether it is carpentry or metal working, it doesn't take long to realize that inches can be in fractions or decimal. Which is taught in school as decimals are required when dividing fractions. Anywho, that is getting a bit of topic (I think)So...

[Steve Fairbairn]

An inch is a twelfth of a foot just like a penny is/was a twelfth of a shilling. Makes for easy carpentry and easy giving of change.

And once you’ve divided your inches in half it doesn’t make much difference whether each half is divided into fifths or quarters. At my age you need glasses to see the difference!

All the best threads (those nice long ones) are off topic; that’s what makes them best.

[tromboniator]

My life years ago as a patternmaker (does that job even exist any more?) would have been a lot simpler if dimensions had not been given in multiple units, i.e. feet, inches, and non-common-denominator fractions, and shrink factors as fractions of an inch per foot. If you have an engineering drawing in which parts of inches are given in 8ths, 16ths, 32nds, and 64ths, and tolerances are expressed as +.003/-.001, you'll appreciate metric a lot more. One day we got a job in that was all in mm and percentages, and it was like the clouds parting. If being within an eighth or a quarter is close enough for your task and you don't have to add a bunch of mixed fractions together, feet and inches are okay, but I think it's clunky and absurd.

I need coffee.

[Steve Fairbairn]

Like I at least implied, feet and inches are fine for working with, hands-on. But until we grow an extra pair of fingers we are stuck with a base ten system which is fine for calculating with, precisely because we have ten digits, although it is far from being an optimal number in its inability to allow division into whole integers.

But mix units and you are truly in deep spaghetti. Remember that awful Challenger accident which was caused by the use of mixed units in the manufacture of some gaskets that helped hold the fuel tanks together. Not a good way to go.