Re: Conceptual questions

[Florian Höch <lists+gnome-color-manager hoech org>]

Am 01.07.2010 20:23, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 1 July 2010 19:00, Florian Höch<lists+gnome-color-manager hoech org>  wrote:
> > I think is missing for softproofing is a checkbox "Simulate media (paper)
> > color" which when checked (which would be a good default), means absolute
> > colorimetric intent should be used, otherwise relative colorimetric
>
> Isn't that a per-application thing, rather than a per-session thing?
> By "softproof" GCM indicates the proofing mode to use when doing
> things like print preview. In a print preview aka "softproof" you
> already know the device you are targeting and the ICC profiles
> available.

Ok, sounds reasonable. If the device/profile being simulated is chosen 
in the application, there's probably no need for GCM to provide settings 
for a default "softproofing" colorspace.

> I also think it's useful to talk in terms of use-cases, rather than
> presenting lots of tickyboxes in preferences panels. I've got enough
> feedback (of the negative kind :-) from my boss about the number of UI
> elements we expose already. Maybe if we all refer to the three people
> here http://live.gnome.org/GnomeColorManager#Typical_Users we can all
> work towards further use-cases and application notes.

:) don't worry, I'm not keen on having a GCM plastered with checkboxes 
either. Re use cases: My original inquiry would fit in no. #4 ("An 
application wants to softproof for a printer device to show the user how 
the colors are going to be clipped when the file is printed").
Now you already said thats probably a per-application thing. I'm just 
trying to wrap my head around where the current GCM "softproof" intent 
setting comes into play, what users are choosing with it exactly (like I 
said, my assuption was it is the image -> device being simulated 
transform, in which case it makes sense to expose all four intents), and 
how it interacts/relates to the "display" intent setting (which should 
then actually be ignored for softproofing by an application).

> I do think this is a really important discussion and am really pleased
> you're onboard. Thanks.
>
> Richard.

--
Florian Höch
http://hoech.net