Pasting images: purity or usability?

Tue May 17 05:33:23 EDT 2005

Klaus Major wrote:
>> There's an outstanding request to fix an issue in the engine with  
>> regard to pasting images:
>>
>>    Currently, pasting an image from the Clipboard causes one
>>    of two things to happen:  either the image is pasted into
>>    the bottom-most image object, or if there are no image
>>    objects it creates a new image sized to match the entire
>>    card.  It's rarely the case in my own work that either is
>>    what I want. :)
>> <http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=2473>
>>
>> While RunRev hasn't taken the time to address this in the engine,  
>> they did take the time to implement a workaround in their IDE's  Edit 
>> menu:
>>
>>     if the clipBoard is "image" and the selectedImage is empty then
>>       lock messages
>>       lock screen
>>       create image
>>       put the clipBoardData["image"] into last image
>>       unlock messages
>>       unlock screen
>>       put true into tObjects
>>       choose pointer tool
>>       select last image
>>
>> The question for us is whether we should maintain the purity of the  
>> MC IDE by using the engine's Paste command as it does now, or favor  
>> usability by implementing the workaround script from RR.
> 
> OK, this is now (obvious) engine bug nr. 2 (besides "set cursor to  
> hand", and maybe more...) I don't think that we should workaround
> this in our beloved lean IDE...

Ah yes, the cursor ID issue.  I had held out hope for apparently too 
long that backward compatibility would ultimately become the higher 
priority, and that they'd adopt the principle of introducing new cursor 
images with new IDs in a quick bug-fix release.

But it's been long enough that it seems perhaps time that we all 
consider updating all of our software to correct for that anomaly, and 
that would include the MC IDE.

Should we update our cursor resource IDs to match the latest engine? 
Seems we're moving to a world in which is increasingly difficult to have 
a single IDE that works with multiple engines (consider libURL too), and 
thus far I think I've been the only one striving for that anyway.

I don't mind updating those resources if the general mood here is that 
it's time to do it.

> We CAN of course, if necessary. ;-)

"Necessary" is the only question.  We can't determine how long this 
legacy bug with image pasting will remain in place, so if we want 
improved behavior it seems more productive to do what we can with what's 
in hand than wait for an unknowable possibility down the road.

So do we really want this behavior?  I'd find it useful, but I'm not 
sure if that's a universal desire; maybe some folks like the current 
behavior (can't imagine it, but HyperCarders sometimes have the 
strangest habits and this behavior seems to play into the 
only-one-bitmap HC paradigm).

> Mr. Miller once promised (yes, he did!) to NOT touch anything in the  
> engine, so we "friends of Carlotta er Metacard" will not experience
> any  incoveniences...
> 
> But it looks like that his memory i fading... :-/

On the contrary, with this specific issue he's fulfilling that promise 
to a fault:  the engine's always had this anomaly, and RunRev has thus 
far preserved the behavior perfectly. :)

> Yes, they lack resources (actullay i heard this one much too often  and 
> cannot stand this argument any longer!!!) but WE cannot tell this to
> our  customers, i think...

I've sent some of my customers to the Apple feedback page for bugs in OS 
X that affect WebMerge.  But Kevin's a much nicer person than Jobs, so I 
wouldn't do the same with RR.

> So the question is will Rev support the engine fully or not resp.  
> "tweak" its IDE to "balance out" some engine inconsistencies?

I'm not clear on why so many engine issues are addressed only in their 
IDE scripts, but since I work on the MC IDE and neither the engine nor 
their IDE it wouldn't be productive for me to conjecture.  My job is 
just to get the best results I can with what I have to work with at the 
moment, and leave the learnability of the Rev IDE to its keepers.

> Yes, i AM a bit upset :-)
> 
> Especially if there are so many serious(!) and pending bugs and
> we  have to hear something like "...upcoming features/news that
> will change the way of using Rev completely", as Mr. Miller
> stated in the chat last week, then i DO feel a bit pissed... :-)

I don't think things are quite so dire. Consider how long this behavior 
has been in place, and that the BZ request to update it was posted only 
in December '04.

I have no doubt that there may be some nifty things in the works, and I 
understand how they can be useful in driving new sales.  But I also 
agree with the pervasive feeling expressed in all corners of RunRev's 
community that cleaning up language orthogonality and tightening up some 
behavioral loose ends will do more for their conversion rate than 
anything else.

But their conversion rate doesn't line my pocket so my time is best 
spent focused on the task at hand:

Should we consider this proposed script change, or let the old behavior 
stand?

And Klaus, relax.  If you let other people's performance affect yours 
you'll become grouchier than a barking Texan. :)

PS: I saw a documentary recently on Klaus Nomi, and while I realize you 
have nothing in common but the first name if you're old enough to 
remember Nomi it's a wonderfully nostalgic film: <http://thenomisong.com>

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com