# Re: sane 0.71 and microtek E3

David Mosberger-Tang (David.Mosberger@acm.org)
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:19:29 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: Sane patches/observations on solaris 2.6/umax s6-e"
- Previous message: Martin Radford: "Mustek MSF-06000SP Rev. 2.10"

>>>>> On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:41:22 -0700, Bob van der Poel <bvdpoel@kootenay.com> said:

Bob> Minor complaint: why do authors always figure we have large
Bob> screens? I use a 14 monitor and anything larger than 800x600 is
Bob> virtually unreadable and virtual screens are, well...I hate
Bob> them. Shouldn't we all be designing screens to fit on a
Bob> 'reasonable' screen? And IMHO anything larger than 800x600 is
Bob> NOT reasonable. So, to use this I either have to restart X in
Bob> a larger screen or I have to move the program window back and
Bob> forth to access all the functions. Grrrrr.

I'm absolutely with you, Bob. Indeed, I myself often run SANE on a
800x600 laptop. If you look at the xscanimage code, you'll see that
it goes to fairly great lengths to try to be smart about this (such as
trying to avoid absolute positioning etc). However, the option-layout
algorithm is not very smart right now, so if there is a backend with
tons of options, the dialog will get big. But the "normal" dialog
options should always fit on an 800x600 screen since more advanced
options can and should be hidden as, well, "advanced" options. That's
the theory at least---I'm not sure how good each backend is in this
respect. But patches are always welcome.

--david

    --
    Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
    To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

- Next message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: Sane patches/observations on solaris 2.6/umax s6-e"
- Previous message: Martin Radford: "Mustek MSF-06000SP Rev. 2.10"