Subject:
|
Re: Technic Half-beam
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Dec 1998 20:21:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1113 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi:
Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "Selçuk <teyyareci>" <sgore@nospam.superonline.com> writes:
>
> > Explanation not easy but, just look at this (by the way, do not forget
> > checking the whole sit. One of the best Lego fan sites ever, IMHO.
> >
> > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/r_beam.html
>
> Well, that said, I still think it's a bad idea to put the whole page
> contents on single images, and to put the names of pieces on the images,
> thus making the names unsearchable.
The purpose of putting all of the images into a large graphic had two reasons
First, to have the element labels directly associated with the element and have
similar elements grouped for easy comparison. I liked the idea of having no
call outs of other annotating devices that the reader would have to know
and search to figure out what part is called what. For a well reasoned
discussion of the informational graphic theory that I have tried to use
see Edward Tufte's The Visual Display of Quantitave Information (Graphics Press
1984) and Tufte's Envisioning Information (Graphics Press 1990), both of
the books are classics and any web site designer could benefit form reading
them.
The second reason is that is was much easier for me to manage the site with
one big image than 20-40 smaller images (the entire site has well over 100
html pages and images).
To summarize the images were a design decision and I am kinda lazy!
Having said that I agree that the images have become too large. The next
major version of the site may have the images more divided and possably
in some searchable form. I am currently playing around with some DB design,
although it is unlikely that I would be able to implement a useful CGI
interface to the registry.
>
> And another issue: I've never seen the author discussing the names of
> the pieces with other people on the newsgroups. That way, we have three
> sets of names for some pieces: The names in LDraw, the names in AucZILLA
> and the names in Jim Hughes's element registry. Consistency in the
> names would have been a nice thing.
I have in the past discussed the naming conventions in the newsgroup. In
general the names are "official" Lego US CA names (about 60-70%), some US
Lego DACTA names, names in common use or names that have been suggested by
others. I have in the past discussed the naming of Technic elements with both
the late James Jessiman and Todd Lehman. Note, however that each of these
projects has a different need and the same name may not suitable for each.
I agree that a consistant set of element names would be useful, the next
revision will at least have part numbers which should cut down on some
of the confusion.
Thanks
Jim
hughesj@one.net
P.S. A half-beam is a technic beam 1/2 the width of a regular 1 x (n)
beam.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Technic Half-beam
|
| (...) contents on single images, and to put the names of pieces on the images, thus making the names unsearchable. And another issue: I've never seen the author discussing the names of the pieces with other people on the newsgroups. That way, we (...) (26 years ago, 5-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
