Re: Conceptual questions

[Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>]

On 1 July 2010 20:22, Florian Höch <lists+gnome-color-manager hoech org> wrote:
> 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.

Right. I don't think a "default softproofing device" makes much sense
when you're aiming the feature at things like print preview. A
"default softproofing device" might make sense as a per-application
option if you're proofing to a PDF or something, although that sounds
all very application specific.

> 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'm guessing it's just choosing where to put the line. I would argue
that asking the user what rendering mode they want to use for a print
preview is overboard, as you could just choose a good default and use
that. Similarly for rendering random RGB spaces to the desktop,
perceptual is probably the best plan.

You could argue, the rendering intents should be hardcoded in the
application, or just in GSettings/DBus and not in the UI, and I might
agree with you. GCM is just trying to find the sweet pot between
options-city and not-enough-control-to-be-useful. I still don't mind
drastically changing the UI or DBus interface if we need to.

If you've got any better ideas about what should be in the UI (BPC?)
as a sensible per-session default then I'm interested. You could also
argue that dispcalGUI and GCM should be working closer together in
this respect, and I'm open for suggestions.

Richard.