[Decapod] Updated design for thumbnails (before and after image dewarp)

Boyan Sheytanov boyan.sheytanov at asteasolutions.com
Thu Jan 14 09:51:47 UTC 2010


Hi again!

I thought things over a bit and here's what I reached at. If we are always
working with the two images (left and right) as a pair (that's certainly the
case in Capture, and it is making things easier in Remastering mode), then
it's better not to split the image of the page spread in two and work with
the grouped pair. If we have a single image, it won't be noticeable to the
user since he cannot work with only one of the pages. And it would simplify
code and markup. One point for working on the page spread level.

On the other hand, what happens if a page spread captures the one half
clearly and the other is defective (imagine a thick book when you capture
the pages in the beginning or at the end - the page on the thick part would
look differently). In this case the user might want to recapture the spread
by repositioning the book but keep the good page. Is that making sense or am
I trying to be a nasty user? As for duplicates, we might persist the indices
of the pages that have been deleted and when the user recaptures the spread,
ask him to choose whether to keep the original or update it with the newly
captured (on second thought, that really looks kind of complex and
confusing).

Not sure if we want to provide such a sophisticated interface to the user.
Might be a good idea to keep things simple (as in your design) as a start
and if there is user feedback on inabilities to deal with single pages, add
that feature at any later stage.

Open to any thoughts on my chaotic ideas.

Greetings,

Boyan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20100114/f71fba42/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list