Re: UV Filter - DTP70
Re: UV Filter - DTP70
- Subject: Re: UV Filter - DTP70
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:13:21 +1000
Marco Ugolini wrote:
In my own opinion, Graeme, there is a user side and a technology /
manufacturer's side to the tools we use in our work. My natural inclination
is to side with the user, because I'm one too.
And I think that's exactly what I'm doing here, siding with the user.
The user shouldn't have to understand the mechanism used (filters
and all that stuff), they should be able to directly request
what they want, a reading that includes UV illumination, or
one that does not.
I think the issue driving this discussion is that traditionally
the user was intimately involved in the means of doing this
(ie. fitting or removing a UV filter from an instrument),
so this is the dominant mindset of those with a long involvement
in this stuff. Someone approaching instruments that
conceal the mechanism (a switch or UV LED) for the first time will
probably find this talk of filters, indirect and confusing.
There are many levels of use for these measuring instruments. Some people
may view the use of anything other than the strictly and terminologically
correct nomenclature on the instrument as a step down a slippery slope. But
if all that the user *needs* to know is that the measurement has to be made
with the UV filter on, is it really necessary to force the user instead to
perform mental acrobatics for the sake of preserving "good U/I design"? If
it's not good for the user, whom is good for?
But you are expecting the user to be an "expert" in the operational
mechanism of the instrument (fitting filters), exactly what you
have just been arguing against ! :-) :-)
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden