> Hi,
>
> 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
>
Hi Bernd,Hi David,
I don`t know if this should be included into the backend.
May be we should move this to the frontend and make a function to
disable (make invisible) some options!
Bye
Oliver
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com