# Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage

David Mosberger-Tang (David.Mosberger@acm.org)
Wed, 13 May 1998 21:31:32 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: David Mosberger-Tang: "Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage"
- Previous message: Tim Kallinis: "Need SCSI card advice"
- In reply to: charter@cs.ualberta.ca: "Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage"
- Next in thread: Daniel Stephens: "Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage"
- Reply: Daniel Stephens: "Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage"

>>>>> On Wed, 13 May 1998 14:31:05 -0600 (MDT), charter@cs.ualberta.ca said:

Kevin> Sorry if these numbers seem a little weird. I could make the
Kevin> default be some standard page size, if this actually is the
Kevin> problem. (the current default is the size of a typical
Kevin> photograph in Canada; it's what I bought the scanner for
Kevin> originally and it seemed like a good default at the time :)

I don't know how others feel about this, but in my opinion it is best
to default to scan the _entire_ scan surface by default. The
experiences with the Microtek and SnapScan backend seem to indicate
that anything else simply confuses the (naive) user.

When a user naively puts something into his/her scanner and starts
"scanimage" and the resulting image is "too big" I think it will be
fairly obvious to the user that s/he should be looking for an option
to reduce the scan area. On the other hand, when artificially
limiting the scan area by default, the scan may not catch anything of
the user's image and then the user is most likely to conclude that
something is broken with the scanner. No?

Obviously this is just my 2 cents...

Cheers,

--david

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

- Next message: David Mosberger-Tang: "Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage"
- Previous message: Tim Kallinis: "Need SCSI card advice"
- In reply to: charter@cs.ualberta.ca: "Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage"
- Next in thread: Daniel Stephens: "Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage"
- Reply: Daniel Stephens: "Re: problems with snapscan and scanimage"