User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070509 SeaMonkey/1.1.2
email@hidden wrote:
I once had a monitor engineer mention a "concave CRT monitor"... I replied
that I had seen them flat, and I had seen them convex, but never concave! He
replied that many monitors, from the perspective of the gun, are concave... leave
it to an engineer to view an object with a clear human interface orientation,
from the other side, personifying more with the gun inside it that the user
outside. Naming the filtration functions of a spectro based on the filter, not
the effect the user will obtain from it, would be as inverse as talking about
a concave CRT screen!
Sorry, but I think it's you lot that are being perverse in
wanting to name it after the mechanism used, thereby leaving
yourselves a mental inversion step every time you want to
understand what effect there is on the reading. As soon as
a different mechanism is used (ie. a U.V. LED!), you now will
now be confused again. Is "UV LED on" the same as
"UV filter present" or not ?
By contrast "UV included/excluded" remains unchanged.
(It's usually poor U/I design to expect the users to understand the
technological mechanism, rather than directly representing
the end result.)
