We don't have to continue this debate. This is a topic where there is no
right/wrong or even optimal answer. I feel like focusing on flavors of
print quality only exacerbates the already clouded sales and marketing
overload of these few tokens whereas "saving money" (essentially) rings
true enough in enough consumers minds that it deserves highlighting. But,
we're already so far down the path (of behaving as if there is really
meaningful and common understanding behind any of these descriptors) that
I doubt it matters which handful we canonize. So... I'll be the first to
"give"... so Peter can get on with his job.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <bobt at hp.com>
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
07/15/2003 11:21 AM
To
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
cc
"IPP Discussion List (IPP at pwg.org)" <IPP at pwg.org>,
printing-driver at freestandards.org, printing-jobticket at freestandards.org,
"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler at crt.xerox.com>
Subject
RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution
The trick here is that there are also implementations in the field that do
the same thing with extensions to print quality - e.g.
(Ultra|High|Normal|Draft|EconoFast) {insert any SpinalTap jokes about "my
amp goes to 11" here ;)}. In other words, PrintQuality is already being
used to provide optimization options between PQ/Saving/Speed. I don't
have a fundamental issue with declaring *Saving - but the semantics to me
are somewhat duplicative with how PrintQuality is actually used in many
implementations. I'd also add that, as Harry noted, there are
algorithm(s) "plural" that can save toner/ink/market, so *Saving is
probably a vendor-extensible enumeration, not a boolean - which makes it
look yet more like PrintQuality.
bt
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:05 PM
To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP at pwg.org); printing-driver at freestandards.org;
printing-jobticket at freestandards.org; Zehler, Peter
Subject: RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution
>My main question with TonerSaving/InkSaving/MarkerSaving is how this is
any different than PrintQuality(High|Normal|Draft)
To answer this question, straightforward, there are implementations where
you can select High|Normal|Draft independently from "Saver".
Administrators may want to configure policy that "Saving" must always be
on yet still allow the choice of High|Normal|Draft, within that context.
>PrintQuality=High & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say "print in high
quality, and waste toner/ink for no good reason
I think people would expect:
PQ=High|Saving=Off to result in the BEST possible quality.
PQ=High|Saving=On to result in the best possible quality while still
saving marker (toner, ink ...)
PQ=Draft|Saving=Off to result in the FASTEST possible printing
PQ=Draft|Saving=On to result in the fastest possible printing with
legibility that may not stand up to close scrutiny because marker (toner,
ink...) has been used sparingly.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <bobt at hp.com>
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
07/14/2003 02:36 PM
To
printing-driver at freestandards.org, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler at crt.xerox.com>
cc
"IPP Discussion List (IPP at pwg.org)" <IPP at pwg.org>,
printing-jobticket at freestandards.org
Subject
RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution
My main question with TonerSaving/InkSaving/MarkerSaving is how this is
any different than PrintQuality(High|Normal|Draft). We as well have nifty
algorithms for saving "marker" without impacting quality - but I don't
know why we'd ever want to turn it "off" seperately from the notion of
PQ/performance/economy tradeoff (which I maintain is what PrintQuality
actually is). The semantics of this as a separate attribute seem somewhat
odd to me - i.e., PrintQuality=High & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say
"print in high quality, and waste toner/ink for no good reason", and
PrintQuality=Draft & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say "print in poor
quality, but waste tone/ink anyway". IMHO, a "separate" TonerSaving mode
is really a vendor-specific extension of PrintQuality, which as Ira noted
as already supported (though they are supposed to be IANA-registered,
which I'm guessing most vendors have not bothered to do).
thanks,
bt
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:49 AM
To: Zehler, Peter
Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP at pwg.org); printing-driver at freestandards.org;
printing-jobticket at freestandards.org; Zehler, Peter
Subject: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution
My concern is that "save toner" is probably the most concrete concept
compared to "Good, Better, Best" or "Text, Image, Graphics". The later has
efficient application only in special cases (some of which may be very
significant, like printing photo's). Otherwise, people stare at their
mixed object document and wonder. I feel "save toner" should be explicit.
We went from a flat set of descriptors to a pairing.. perhaps we should
really go to a matrix (although I don't like the perceived complexity)
Good - Better - Best
Text - Text+Graphics - Graphics - Image
TonerSaving
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler at crt.xerox.com>
07/11/2003 04:54 AM
To
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler at crt.xerox.com>
cc
"IPP Discussion List (IPP at pwg.org)" <IPP at pwg.org>,
printing-driver at freestandards.org, printing-jobticket at freestandards.org
Subject
RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution
Harry,
We felt that there are many different attributes involved in heuristics
for saving toner and printing fast. Some of those are "resolution",
"media" and aspects of the document content. We felt the requirements
were met by keeping the existing "print-quality" values and augmenting
them with hints on how to process the document content to achieve 'draft'
'normal' and 'high'. The assumption is that draft is fastest and uses the
least toner.
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Innovation Group
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 422-7961
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:26 PM
To: Zehler, Peter
Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP at pwg.org); printing-driver at freestandards.org;
printing-jobticket at freestandards.org
Subject: Re: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution
> We finally agreed that the two values 'save-toner' and 'speed' are
implied by the "print-quality". Since they were not required, they were
removed.
I think this warrants further examination. I have known toner saving
methods that do a very good job of preserving print quality.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler at crt.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
07/10/2003 01:41 PM
To
"IPP Discussion List (IPP at pwg.org)" <IPP at pwg.org>,
printing-jobticket at freestandards.org, printing-driver at freestandards.org
cc
Subject
IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution
All,
During the PWG/FSG meeting in Portland we had a discussion about the IPP
"print-quality" attribute and FSG's desire to add two new values,
'economy' and 'fine', where 'economy' is lower than 'draft' and 'fine' is
higher than 'high'. The FSG further proposed the addition of a new
attribute, called "print-optimize", that would augment "print-quality"
with values of 'image', 'photo', 'text', 'text-and-image', 'save-toner'
and 'speed'.
With regard to 'economy' and 'fine', we agreed that 'economy' would map to
"print-quality"='draft' and 'fine' to "print-quality"='high'. There may
be end user visible features that map to multiple attributes. We leave it
to specific print domains to model these higher level aggregate features.
When appropriate we will add needed elements to the Semantic Model.
There was a lot of push back on "print-optimize". The main concern was
that "print-optimize" contained a mixed bag of items. The two main
categories were content metadata and rendering hints. We finally agreed
that the two values 'save-toner' and 'speed' are implied by the
"print-quality". Since they were not required, they were removed. The
remaining values are needed to direct the type of optimization/processing
that will be performed on the content. It does not necessarily mean the
value describes the content. To clarify this we changed the attribute
name to "print-content-optimize". Finally the value 'image' seemed the
same as 'photo'. The name for this was changed to 'graphic'.
As a result the following attribute will be added to the JobX
specification in it next revision.
print-content-optimize (type2 keyword)
This attribute refines the value specified by the print-quality
attribute.
The standard keyword values are:
'graphic': optimize for graphic clarity
'photo': optimize for photo clarity
'text': optimize for text clarity
'text-and-graphic': optimize for both text and graphic clarity
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Innovation Group
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 422-7961
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/20030715/3f36ec7a/attachment-0001.html