[Openicc] GoSoC 2011: CPD and ... Mike Sweet workflow

[Chris Murphy]

On May 12, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:

> Michael Sweet wrote:
>> What is the use case for this? Accurate profiling requires a stable target print, which
>> requires some amount of drying/curing time. This isn't an ad-hoc process...
> 
> The main user case is that it always be possible to calibrate and profile
> a printer. If this is a "special application", then it won't get maintained
> or tested.

That's a risk we sign up for by virtue of going with an opt-out system, out of the gate. A CPD, an application, it doesn't really matter, it would all need to be maintained and tested. If we get it right there won't be much to maintain or keep up to date because not a lot should change.

Otherwise I agree with everything else.

Chris


> It's all very well to try and prevent users of different capabilities from
> causing themselves problems, but ultimately if the experts can't make a
> system work, it becomes a "recommended you stay away from this"
> for all users, because it's not possible to get it to work correctly.
> 
> Such is currently the case with Apple due to the problems with printing
> test targets.
> 
> Although expert users may be a very small proportion of the user base, disenfranchising
> them has disproportionate costs, since they are the very ones to setup the systems
> for non-expert users, and are the ones that non-expert users turn to for advice.
> 
> By all means use "successive disclosure of complexity", and aim for "it just works",
> but you need to cater for the full range of users, including experts, if your
> systems are to be used and recommended by those experts.
> 
> Graeme Gill.
> _______________________________________________
> openicc mailing list
> openicc at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openicc