IPP Mail Archive: RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quali

IPP Mail Archive: RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quali

RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 18:57:55 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "IPP> Simple Device extension to Semantic Model"

    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@hp.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    07/15/2003 11:21 AM

    To
    Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    cc
    "IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>,
    printing-driver@freestandards.org, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org,
    "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@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@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:05 PM
    To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
    Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org;
    printing-jobticket@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@hp.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    07/14/2003 02:36 PM

    To
    printing-driver@freestandards.org, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>

    cc
    "IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>,
    printing-jobticket@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@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:49 AM
    To: Zehler, Peter
    Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org;
    printing-jobticket@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@crt.xerox.com>
    07/11/2003 04:54 AM

    To
    Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>
    cc
    "IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>,
    printing-driver@freestandards.org, printing-jobticket@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@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@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:26 PM
    To: Zehler, Peter
    Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org;
    printing-jobticket@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@crt.xerox.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    07/10/2003 01:41 PM

    To
    "IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>,
    printing-jobticket@freestandards.org, printing-driver@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@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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 19:02:19 EDT