[Openicc] GoSoC 2011: CPD and target printing
edmundronald at gmail.com
Wed May 4 18:28:05 PDT 2011
Maybe I find devicespace to be really useful to have around as a working
- retouch in the printer space is a habit I fell into for my exhibition
- When printing with Gutenprint I find I often prepare files on a Mac, use
Photoshop to do color conversions, and then move the file onto Linux *just*
for the final print which is thus made as if the print were a target.
- I I always have countless small problems with targets, want to move them
around on the paper or legend them so I remember what they are. These mods
are best done in the GUI with the same type of app that is usually employed
for layout and printing.
Look, you may have a different workflow, and you can have a special target
printing app for all I care; I would like to be able to print my targets
from the GIMP.
Last, not least, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PRINT TARGETS FROM A REMOTE
SYSTEM, by declaring my intentions for that print queue. At the moment, for
CUPS, this *should* be possible.
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com>wrote:
> On May 4, 2011, at 5:26 PM, edmund ronald wrote:
> > I would like the target print stuff hidden behind an "Advanced" tab
> > of a dialog.
> Why in an advanced tab that appears in every application, rather than
> "subscribed to" by a particular target printing application? Something that
> the Gimp could also subscribe to (or any other application because it would
> be well published).
> > It would also mean targets can always be printed from *any* installed
> > graphics app.
> Why is this remotely useful?
> What if an application always scales its print jobs? An advanced tab option
> for printing targets is then misleading because almost no targets printed
> from such an application would ever be usable. There are any number of
> things applications could do that would make them unhelpful as target
> printing apps.
> In an opt out system, I'm not finding a compelling case for the opt out
> being presentable to either a.) all users; b.) by default, even in an
> advanced area. It's superfluous clutter for 98% off users.
> I think there is a role for application developers to decide how their apps
> behave. I don't think a good case can be made for exposing such an opt out
> feature in every application. I have zero issue thoroughly documenting it
> for application developers and letting them get away with, wholesale, opting
> out even by default, even without a way for users to then re-opt back in.
> Chris Murphy
> openicc mailing list
> openicc at lists.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openicc