#Illustrator rounded rectangle how to#
#Illustrator rounded rectangle software#

This procedure is described in the Help section on removing effects. Any other effects or 'customizations' that were applied to that path will remain intact. You can remove a single effect such as arrowheads without removing other 'line customizations', by selecting that path, opening the Appearance palette, highlighting the row in the Appearance palette with the name of the effect, and either dragging it to the trash can button at the bottom of the palette, or clicking on that button. Hey, this forum and these answers have been great! I have my solutions thanks to youse guys, and I appreciate it. But, then, I write this stuff for a living.

#Illustrator rounded rectangle software#

So, if the software doesn't do the thing specifically, the documentation should anticipate the need and address the workaround. But, creating line segments joined by curves must be a fairly common thing, like removing _only_ arrowheads. Indeed, my first effective solution to creating rounded corners between segments was to create multiple rounded rectangles and delete the unwanted lines and curves. Regarding rounded corners, I understand searching for rounded corners pulls up some appropriate related topics, like rounded rectangles. that is, you have to remove all line customizations. If there is a topic called 'adding arrowheads,' then there should be reference to at least a procedure, if not a topic, for 'removing arrowheads.' There is no such link or reference.Īlso, as I found out, you cannot remove arrowheads.

#Illustrator rounded rectangle how to#

Who would expect a program to have a different procedure for removing an arrowhead effect than it does for removing a drop shadow effect or a zig-zag effect? So 'remove effects' or 'removing effects' is the logical search phrase, just like you wouldn't search on 'adding red' or 'adding blue' if you were trying to find out how to add color. (Removing them, adding them, modifying their options, converting them to regular objects, etc.)Īctually, I suppose it would be possible for the html authors to put the names of all the live effects into the 'Keywords' meta tag for each page discussing actions you can do with effects, then it would be considered to be 'used' on that page even though the reader wouldn't see it.īut if I were searching any software's help system, I would enter search terms that were at the level of generality that you'd expect the features to work at. The Help search engine is not set up to find a page that doesn't actually use the word being searched for, and it would be impractical to list all the effects on each page that talked about something you can do with them. I've seen questions asked on this forum about removing rounded corners, removing zig-zag, removing drop shadows, removing arrowheads, removing roughen, and removing glows. You can't search specifically on removing arrowheads because there are over 100 different live effects, and the steps to remove any live effect are the same. Seems like pretty good topic coverage to me. Searching the online help for 'Rounded' or 'Rounded Corners' gets hits on the Rounded Rectangle tool, and the Round Corners filter and live effect, and the Rounded caps and joins options in the Stroke palette. Re: 'And, how about looking up how to create rounded corners, and how to remove arrows from certain lines?' So our Help authors probably specifically removed 'Link' from the generic exclusion database, and neglected to remove 'Join' as well. Of course, you'd also expect 'link' to be excluded from a generic search engine, because there would be too many references to html links. It's just a guess, but I imagine that the exclusion database derives from a generic search engine, and in the context of Internet searches, 'join' might be something that would be excluded because there would be so many hits on joining chat rooms, joining email lists, joining clubs, etc. 'Link', for example, is the same length and is probably used on more Help pages, and it is accepted as a search key, yielding 33 matches. You're right, I wouldn't expect Join to be excluded, especially since it is a command name. Re: Why would 'join' be too simple of a word?