Yes, setting the opacity to 0% and then back again is EXACTLY what I want to do, but I can't do that because the moment I click something else, I can't get back to the object. Keeping it selected is not a solution, I want to do other things to my image while the object is invisible, and the fact that I can't even move it around while it is invisible is also a major source of frustration.

As for working on other people's images, I think that's just yet another reason that 0% opacity objects shouldn't be hidden. How are you ever going to find those objects again? Do you check all images you get from other people for hidden objects?

Like you said, one quickly forgets about all the hidden things, so making them unselectable just makes that even worse. At least when you click an invisible object and you see a selection frame around something you didn't expect, you know that there is an invisible object there. When you click a black object on a black background you also get a selection frame around it even though it's not what your eyes would expect to find by looking at the picture.


I fiddled around a bit with the 'hide' property and this is pretty much what I was talking about earlier. So it seems like the functionality for hiding objects in the way that you want for splicing is already there (if a bit more hidden. I couldn't even select the hidden object with Tab or a drag box).
Hiding an object as a property makes perfect sense!  Even in the property dialog box the ability to 'hide' an object is clearly a boolean property, but somehow you're saying that the same boolean property should exist between 'opacity 0%' and opacity '1-100%'?

I've tried to find another picture editing, picture drawing, or vector drawing program that hides things at opacity 0%, but none of them do that.
I could also mention that the Inkscape documentation says nothing about this hiding property on the opacity page, but that's a minor issue. What bothers me is that no documentation I can find on Alpha blending, or in the Inkscape documentation, or in any descriptions, or glossaries, or anything that define Alpha channels, opacity, or transparency say anything about hiding objects.

I still insist that an object which you set to let light pass through at the maximum level should not suddenly be turned into an empty, unclickable, unmovable frame. When I set the opacity slider to 0%, what I actually want is 1% opacity and a little less. I don't want 'hidden'.
If you want to get technical, it's the Alpha property I want to adjust, which is supposed to be just another color channel like R, G, or B. I expect the opacity slider to adjust the Alpha channel, not to change any other properties on the object.


If you want consistency, what about gradients? If I set a gradient with 255 Alpha at the top and 0 Alpha at the bottom, by your logic, shouldn't Inkscape actually shrink the object because the bottom part is now hidden?


My argument here is very simple: The current 0% opacity setting makes no logical sense, it makes no intuitive sense, and it violates rules of consistent UI design.
The "0% opacity is the same as a hidden object"-argument may make sense in a programming context, but not in a UI context. The opacity slide bar is in a *color selection* menu. As a user, I don't expect that changing the color, fill and opacity of my object will make it behave fundamentally different.

The opacity bar right now is essentially a slider that lets me adjust the brightness of the Moon on a scale of 1 to 100, except when it hits zero it turns into cheese.