| |
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Tony Hafner wrote:
> In my opinion, this may be a valid reason to put "(needs work)" on a part.
> Or perhaps that's even too harsh. However, I'd much rather have this
> version of the part than no version at all. The "error", if it is such, is
> "Slightly and only visible at extreme mag."
>
> The part is good enough for now, and passes the critical checks:
> orientation, origin, and filename. And it looks pretty darn good. At that
> kind of magnification, you'll notice other errors in the corresponding
> wheel- see how the axle hole isn't mapped quite perfectly to the surrounding
> circle?
>
> I hate to dig up this thread, but Tore had a very good point in a post about
> a month ago that I think we could all take to heart. I'll skip the thread
> reference, but this part of the message is very useful:
>
> "The parts I make are good enough for making instructions
> and overqualified for animations, but never good enough
> for the authorizing crew."
>
> ...
>
> "There is a balance between quality and quantity and my
> opinion is that this whole thing has heeled over badly to
> paying attention to insignificant details."
This relates to what I think is something important to consider for the
future development of the LDraw library: rating parts. I see advantages
to adopting a rating scale like, say:
Not suitable -- not yet voted on, or with errors which make the part
unacceptable for the official library.
Acceptable -- meets the minimum standards for inclusion in the
library (and a more accurate version will not break models made
with this), but not as good as would be preferred.
Good -- the preferred level of quality for parts in the
library
Very Good -- almost perfect; models the part as accurately as
current technology allows
With such a scheme, it would no longer be a choice between accepting or
rejecting a part for all time; a part which was "good enough" could be
available to all users, while still being on the record in a visible way
as needing improvement so that parts authors who were so inclined could
find it and make those improvements. Exacting standards could be applied
to parts to make the LDraw library as good as it can be (over time) while
not inhibiting the growth of the library.
Something to think about, anyway. . .
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~tgarriso/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
