As a rule of thumb, applications should be designed to fit on a 640X480.
I've never had an assignment where I was permitted to violate this
convention. But this is only a rule of thumb. For image editing, this is
just too small, and the rule of thumb can probably be relaxed. Is anyone
running at 640x480? In any case, this whole discussion of min res is moot,
since I don't think any of the changes being proposed would overflow an
800x600 screen.
Frank Paris
marshalt@spiritone.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:06 AM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
>
>
> "Hersch Nitikman" <hersch@silcom.com> wrote:
> > This time you are wrong, Frank. I'm sure there are more than a couple of
> us
> > with 17" monitors. With a 17", anything over 800x600 is
> dysfunctional. I'm
> > happy for you that you have something larger, but please don't penalize
> all
> > of us who don't have the cash or the desk real estate for
> anything larger.
>
> I agree about not designing on the assumption of 1280x1024, but I have
> always run my 17" monitors in 1024x768. I wouldn't call it dysfunctional.
>
> Having said that, I think that designing for a minimum 800x600 would be OK
> since anyone using vuescan would surely be using Photoshop or PSP, both of
> which are unworkable in 640x480. I know Ed has stated in the
> past that most
> of the
> reason for Vuescan's somewhat crowded interface is to fit it into
> a 640x480
> screen.
>
> Rob
>
> PS It occurs to me that Nikonscan fits into a lot less than 640x480, but
> then it has its own pecularities of interface design which are frankly
> unconventional and in many cases counter-intuitive.
>
>
