Subject: Re[2]: [linux-audio-dev] Plugin GUIs
From: Rick Burnett (destinytech_AT_spacey.net)
Date: Tue Mar 27 2001 - 05:26:39 EEST
I think it should be pointed out that many authors do not use special
'routines' or 'rendering' for their icons. Out of the 5 applications
that I have designed and written all the way to being marketed, only
one had rendered images. I have to agree that it gets annoying using
software written for one screen resolution and then trying to use it
on a different resolution. Even if you develop a methodology for
developers to use for creating a more 'scaling' GUI, it doesn't mean
they will use it. I would say, before you go down that path to seeing
how to implement it, first determine just how many people would want
to use it. If there is very small demand for it, I know they are
probably a ton of other things that need developing at this point that
would be more beneficial to the LAD developers.
FWIW,
Rick
Monday, March 26, 2001, you wrote:
>>From: David Olofson <david_AT_gardena.net>
>>> I think its reasonable to do the scaling at distributiuon time, its
>>> not liek the user needs or wants 500x500 images of gui objects (not
>>> this year anyway ;)
JS> Scaling at the distribution time is the one what is done now; it is not
JS> enough. Scaling at installation time would be okay. Most flexible case
JS> would allow resizing as a part of the GUI features (just like the resizing
JS> of windows) -- like one would be able to zoom a window (and its content).
JS> Even 256x256 could be too large for distribution, but certainly there
JS> should have the original images or rendering scripts available somewhere
JS> so that modifications can be done later. For example, DAP icons are so
JS> tiny that they cannot be processed further (for example, addition of
JS> extra 3D depth and shadows to them). If we are going to use POV and
JS> GIMP, both POV and GIMP scripts should be saved. Is it possible to record
JS> the interactive GIMP manipulations to a file? If not, then scripts
JS> should be used.
JS> Rescaling of a text pixmap is not a trivial rescaling. Plain rescaling
JS> (to smaller image) just blurs the text and makes it unreadable. There are
JS> at least three solutions: (i) unsharp mask, (ii) widening of the ink
JS> before scaling, (iii) greyscale curve bending after rescaling. Unsharp
JS> mask doesn't work that good, though.
JS> I have an example of plain rescaling vs. widened ink rescaling here:
JS> http://www.funet.fi/~kouhia/textrescaling.html
JS> Truelly the font style should be slightly different for different sizes,
JS> but perhaps we don't have to go that far. Widening should be enough for
JS> all sizes.
>>However, I don't see how we could possible get GUI designers to
>>always provide more than one size. It's enough work as it is to do
>>*one* size.
JS> The whole process of creating the pixmaps should be recorded so that
JS> they can be recreated easily with any modifications.
JS> Regards,
JS> Juhana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 15:40:03 EEST