On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 09:31:26AM -0800, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:18:58 +0100, Oliver Rauch <oliver.rauch@Wolfsburg.DE> said:
>
> Oliver> I am working an a new frontend that solves this problem, but
> Oliver> it will take some days until I can publish a
> Oliver> pre-alpha-version of it. I think in 1-2 weeks I will have
> Oliver> the first version ready. I will send a mail about it into
> Oliver> the sane-devel-list!
>
> I'm not sure I'd call this "solved". Yeah, it solves the _space_
> issue, but not the complexity issue. There is a danger that SANE
> backend writers go "options nuts" and just make every knob and bit in
> a scanner a separate option without much thinking. In the interest of
> simplicity of use, we should pay attention to user interface design
> issues. Are the options we include really all needed? If not, how
> can we simplify things?
I have just included another "option nut" into the microtek2 backend for
the next release, but it is configurable in the configuration file,
whether this option is active or not. Normally I would not have included
this option, but there are users, who asked for it.
I am planning to do so for some other, already existing, options, too.
The primary reason for doing this was indeed the height of the
xscanimage window, but this discussion shows, that useability issues
should play a greater role.
So, is this a reasonable way to go, to make it configurable, whether
options are active, with a "simple" set of options activated per default ?
Bernd
-- Bernd Schroeder Email: mailto:bernd@aquila.muc.de PGP public key available: mailto:pgp@aquila.muc.de | Subject: send key
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com