[Scribus] Congratulations and initial comments...

[Louis Desjardins]

2007/9/23, Frank Cox <melville.theatre at gmail.com>:
>
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:20:01 -0400
> Louis Desjardins <louis_desjardins at mardigrafe.com> wrote:
>
> > What I know for sure is in the end, once you have
> > picked pics from all around, having them in one single location rarely
> > hurts.
>
> I use pictures from locations A B and C. Joe across the room uses pictures
> from
> locations A B and C.  Why do we both need a copy of that picture in our
> collect
> directories, especially if we're not collaborating on our documents?


In fact, there are *very* little instances where one would need pictures A B
and C for two different projects (at least in my experience). And even if
there were, this doesn't prove my point wrong, given I say since the
beginning this would be an option.

One exception to this would be the use of logos by sponsors... or logos for
any reason. And for this reason alone, considering the small weight of these
particular images (the vast majority of them are vectors), I would not
bother about network traffic and prefer by far to have a copy of the actual
file that was used for a job in my job's directory.

In the end, we still would need those pics for achiving and thus the Collect
for output is ok.

My question is: What is the difference between a collect for output function
that one activates or uses when he/she needs it, but he/she's allowed to do
it only at the end of the process (as it is at present time), than the same
function presented as an option that one would activate when he/she needs
it, knowing ahead of time what his/her needs are, and this would occur at
the beginning of the process instead? When is one making more network jam?

I think coming at this in an absolute manner and in a theoric ground doesn't
help the discussion here. I come at this from the real life scenario of
having to retrieve sometimes jobs done previously when a client tells us to
pick the logo on page n in issue i from month m without further details.
Having this logo (what was the name again?) placed in a folder named "logos"
or anywhere else on the server won't help us to know exactly if "that" image
is the one my client has in mind... But I agree, the situation can be saved
(half-saved) just by the way the collect function works now... unless we
forgot to do it at the end... or maybe we thought it was the end and we made
the collect before the real end... Doing it first would help, no questions!

Plus, when the links go wrong for "any" reason, having the images all over
the place makes the re-linking a real pain. We can't work that way. There's
no way we can work that way, actually. This is just exactly why someone
someday came up with the idea of Collecting for output...

All I say is make that process dynamic, instead of static, and start from
the beginning.

A logo can be different from year 1 to year 2 and have the same name...

> This location could also be your server, diminishing the
> > trafic on your network. No?
>
> Actually, no.
>
> Depending on your work flow and directory structures, this could greatly
> increase the traffic on your network instead.  And again, for very little
> gain.


Disagreed, for the reasons stated above!

Cheers!

Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20070924/7c6aeecf/attachment.html