From: Kevin Wheatley (hxpro_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-06 11:09:13
Martin Wille wrote:
> Kevin Wheatley wrote:
> > want to know exactly what they are seeing in order to make such
> > judgements, they want the raw pictures as much as possible without
> > something (beyond their control) translating for them where its not
> > needed.
> It is this attitude that leads to websites labeled "optimized for
> FooBrowser at bar resolution".
I should of course explain that the company I work for deals with
images... to us image is everything, so our most important widget is
the canvas/opengl widget, everything else should be as small and
un-obtrusive as possible, like invisible until a hot key is pressed,
placing a frame around an image affects the perception of the image,
so we play with the colour schemes of almost all applications to make
them fit with the images.
We have rejected software that costs tens of thousands of pounds on
the grounds that it could not display an image 1:1 pixel for pixel -
for us it is not a trivial concern.
I also think (agree) that every other widget in the world can be
specified, layed out etc with no reference to the pixel count, here
they should be vectors, with some form of sub-pixel precision where
pixels are in the 0-10,000 range (very common) we'd naturally need at
least 16 bits of precision to specify the images, never mind
oversampling, etc, so a float (32 bit IEEE style) is quite OK for us.
But ley the contained object and the containers work out exactly how
big they need to be, rescalable widgets interactively sounds good to
-- | Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this | | Senior Technology | My employer for certain | | And Network Systems Architect | Not even myself |
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk