> >>>>> 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'm not saying that the space issue shouldn't be solved. Maybe what
> we should do is just add a sentence or two to backend/GUIDE that
> talks about the user interface design issue.)
>
Yes, you are absolutly right.
I myself prefer only the absolute necessery options in the "Option"-window.
E.g: the umax-backend supports a lot of options, but there is no scanner that really uses
all of them and the less important ones are "advanced".
I don't want to encourage the backend-programmes to push all options in one window,
but I want to encourage them to implement as much functions of the scanner as possible.
What I wanted do say is that there will be a frontend that can handle all options on small
desktops, too.
Bye
Oliver
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com