7

Here's what I've got at the moment:

\begin{frame}


\frametitle{Nazewnictwo}

\tikzstyle{na} = [baseline=-.5ex]
\large

\[
\tikz[baseline]{\node[fill=blue!20,anchor=base] (t1){\Huge{$a$}};}
 \tikz[baseline]{\node[fill=red!20,anchor=base ] (t2){\Huge{$^n$}};}
\]

  \begin{itemize}
 \item[]<2-> \tikz\node [fill=blue!50,draw,circle] (n1) {}; podstawa
  \item[]<3-> \tikz\node [fill=red!50,draw,circle] (n2) {}; wykładnik
   \end{itemize}

    \begin{tikzpicture}[overlay]
     \path<4->[blue,->] (n1.north) edge [out= 60, in= 135] (t1.north west);
    \path<5>[red,->] (n2.south) edge [out=-70, in=-110] (t2.south);

       \end{tikzpicture}
   \end{frame}

Which looks like this:

enter image description here

And that's what I would like to have:

enter image description here

Is there any way in which I can make the arrow point directly to the exponent and the highlighted red rectangle adequately smaller as in the 2nd picture?

1

1 Answer 1

5

You don't need to make the node written as a superscript to make it look like it. The math font size command \scriptstyle is actually does it for you together with \displaystyle,\scriptscriptstyle etc.

Also you can put the item disks as an argument to \item macro. Lastly, you need to remember those pictures.

\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage{tikz,lmodern}
\tikzstyle{na} = [baseline=-.5ex,remember picture]
\begin{document}

\begin{frame}{Nazewnictwo}

\large

\[
\tikz[baseline,remember picture]{
\node[fill=blue!20,anchor=base] (t1){\Huge{$a$}};
\node[fill=red!20,anchor=west] at (t1.north east) (t2){\Huge{$\scriptstyle n$}};
}
\]

  \begin{itemize}
 \item[{\tikz[na]{\node [fill=blue!50,draw,circle] (n1) {};}}]<2->  podstawa
 \item[{\tikz[na]{\node [fill=red!50,draw,circle ] (n2) {};}}]<3->  wykładnik
   \end{itemize}

\begin{tikzpicture}[remember picture,overlay]
     \path<4->[blue,->] (n1.north) edge [out= 60, in= 135] (t1.north west);
    \path<5>[red,->] (n2.south) edge [out=-70, in=-110] (t2.south);

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{frame}

\end{document}

enter image description here

4
  • Thats what I was going to say too :-)
    – Tobi
    Oct 20, 2012 at 12:03
  • Wow, great! Thank you very much, that's exactly what I was looking for :)
    – Martin
    Oct 20, 2012 at 12:15
  • @Tobi Ah, I hate when that happens. Sorry about that.
    – percusse
    Oct 20, 2012 at 13:40
  • No problem. Wasn’t so much work in this case :-)
    – Tobi
    Oct 20, 2012 at 13:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .