Distribute functions in the align/distribute dialog ignore "relative to" setting

[Shane Goodwin]

Win7, Inkscape 0.48.1

Distribute functions (center, edges, top, etc) all operate relative to the selection (all currently selected objects). They do not operate relative to page, biggest, first selected, etc

As an example relative to biggest:
1. Draw a large box.
2. Draw 3 circles inside the box.
3. Select everything, open the Align/Distribute dialog, select relative to largest.
4. Click distribute vertical centers -> all selected objects - including the large box - are moved to space their centers equidistantly.

Expected behavior: large box stays where it is, all the circles are spaced vertically inside the box: top edge of box -> circle #1 center -> circle #2 center -> circle #3 center -> bottom edge of box are all equal.

As an example relative to the page:
1. Draw 3 circles on the page.
2. Select all your objects, open the Align/Distribute dialog, select relative to page.
3. Click distribute vertical centers -> nothing happens.

Expected behavior: as above, taking the page as "largest".

Other "relative to:" selections all have either very buggy behavior or default to behaving as is "selection" has been chosen. For an example of buggy behavior, go through the first example above with relative to biggest selected, using "make vertical gaps between objects equal".

[su_v (suv-lp)]

> Expected behavior: (…)

If you take a closer look at the dialog, you will notice that the 'Relative to:' selector is within the section of 'Align', and not of 'Distribute'.

Linking as duplicate to
Bug #569096 “"distribute" does not honor "relative to"”
<https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/569096>

Please add a comment here and revert the duplicate status if you don't agree and think these are different issues.

[Shane Goodwin (ithacanz)]

I see what you mean about the dialog - my mistake and yes, it's not intended to be related as it stands right now. But I think the content of the initial bug report stands, in that it *should* be relevant. Makes sense from a value/usefulness standpoint, and the logical extension makes sense too.

I've just done a quick strawpoll/usability test amongst colleages (I'm a UX professional by trade) and everybody took the "relative to" setting to relate to both alignment and distribution. They all realised their mistake when I pointed it out, but I think the end result is that there should at least be a change visually to more strongly separate the sections. I still think the most "correct" change is to alter the functionality to honour the "relative to" setting though.