Re: Xpdf fuckware
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 02:52:57AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Let's don't get our morals confused with technical usefulness. There is no
> > moral obligation on the part of xpdf to tell you anything about the
> > author's wishes WRT these bits. It's only obligation is to satisfy the
> > design, presenting the contents to the screen and to the printer at the
> > user's choice. There is nothing in the (non-existant) design spec that
> > says this product is supposed to act on anyone elses desires, not even
> > those of the author.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. I think that those bits convey some information that
> might be useful to some, though. In my opinion, the best solution in function
> and design would be to have some display for these bits (for example a small
> text box "protected" or something appropriate) which shows the state of
> these flags for the current document. No command line options, no dialog
> boxes, just some way to see what the bits contain (either automatic in the
> main window or in the property box).
Great idea! I have no objection to presenting information, only to
impeding the ergonomics of the tool. A bit window showing the state of
these bits would be great! (and Joseph doesn't have to write any special
scripts!)
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: