h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"If someone wants to go through and modify the specs to be less precise, and rely more on common sense, then i will be happy, but as long as the rules are as they are, they are way too many blobs breaking them."

No, based on that sentence and the preceding one, you recommend following the "rules" more closely (or in Amy's words, more tightly). You give the option of loosening the rules as an hypothetical "if".

"So you are closed to any suggestions that you might be anything short of perfect? That is arrogance."

Amy's point is that the CAs will never be perfect, for human reasons and for technical ones. You have completely misread that.

Why do you view the "rules" as rules, Tango? These are editorial policies, and most editorial policies are meant to flexible enough to accommodate real-world usage and situations. Because the NY Times has policies about word usage and grammar does not mean that one never sees alternative practices or outright mistakes in the pages of the Times. Ditto the BBC.

Besides, when it comes to art rules are meant to be broken.

You have to put the people first, not because they're self-important but just because they are important. More important than the art, more important than the specs.

Let me try another tack. Suppose you were to promise that all your posts from now on would be free from spelling errors. In theory that's possible, in practice it isn't likely to be achievable.

If I were to promise you that all our graphics from now on would be a perfect match with the written specifications, two things would be guaranteed:

1. The first graphic I did would contain a major booboo in accordance with Sod's Law.
2. I wouldn't be able to keep my promise. Nothing would change. It isn't deliverable in practice. I'm a champion nagger, as the other CAs will confirm, but even I can't bring myself to nag that much and the other CAs are all far too nice. Even if I did nag that much, something would slip through just like the typos on the front page that Gnomon so diligently finds every day - and I bet even he misses some.

If the rule was rewritten to define 'black' as anything between, say, #000000 and #070707, it would make no difference because that's no more achievable than leaving the definition of black open to interpretation as it is at the moment. I really could not, and would not, ask someone to fix a pixel that was #080808.

What you see as loosening the rules would in fact be tightening them. That's because you see the word 'black' in the rules and take it to mean #000000 but the CAs see it as meaning 'looks black.' You're not interpreting 'one pixel wide' as an artist does. One pixel wide could mean anything between 1 and 3 or even 5 depending on the circumstances.

You and I are reading the same 'rules' but not reaching the same understanding, Tango.

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F84729?thread=320271&post=4220437#p4220437 post 376 Post: 361 i would tend di disagree, (if itdidn't break the house rules) seems removelal descision is decided by person viewing "interputation " of those rules. And i would also remark on occasions i have noticed postings replaced alltogether with the next posting in thread ,this form of censorship may or maybenot noticed to the casual visitor, and may explain the doublepostings that seem to crop up on various threads. "blobs" or "individual's art............it then goes on Or you may want to beleive the idea that it was nothing more than a amuseing or personal bookmark to me. its part of a big plot to bring down this capatalistic society being master minded by the teenagers and "nerd's"see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F127493?thread=327052 it was if you follow link back to message i replied to somebody requesting an answer and since the post no for reply was 221 the question could have been what is 2 x 21

http://www.lynda.com/hex.html - for (in part) the discussion of the mathematical nature and arbitrariness of the colors commonly used. I've heard her speak on the subject and there is much more detail about the nature of color in computer systems.

The less specific reference to that site that I gave earlier should probably be removed because it is more commercial than informative.

I got that quiz entirely wrong, and I could only see 2 graphics that looked odd to me...#19 (which just looked fuzzy, but maybe that was the intent) and #25, because the edges of the butterfly looked kinda jagged.

Perhaps there's something to the fact that I know nothing about the CAs, or about computer graphics in general. Perhaps the issue shouldn't be about scientific specs, but about how it looks to folks like me who don't know, and frankly don't care, if something is a pixel wide, or it's antialiased within an inch of it's life. Random testers, or something, who get a hootoo email every once in a while, asking them to pop over to this page, which contains the images submitted for the last month (or whatever time period) shown in all the skins, and see if they look okay. If they look fine, then case closed. If they're fuzzy or skewed or what have you, then they get returned to the artist for clean-up.

Or would that just be too much work for folks, particularly the italics? Or perhaps the CAs have something like this already in place?

Are these rules actually rules, or guidelines? Will you get kicked out of the CAs if your borders aren't one pixel wide?

Whoever's hiding behind the CA group persona, please don't. If you don't want your name attached to what you say, don't say anything at all. If it was a mistake, then just be more careful in future, and can you now please tell us who you are. In answer to your question, i am waiting for the person the compiled the list to get back to me, and that could be some time.

"No, based on that sentence and the preceding one, you recommend following the "rules" more closely (or in Amy's words, more tightly). You give the option of loosening the rules as an hypothetical "if". "

Indeed, i recommend following the rules more tightly, i also recommend making the rules looser.

"Amy's point is that the CAs will never be perfect, for human reasons and for technical ones. You have completely misread that."

So she admits that the CAs aren't perfect, but isn't willing to consider suggestions for improvement? In that case, i stand corrected. It isn't arrogant. It is stupid.

"Why do you view the "rules" as rules, Tango? These are editorial policies, and most editorial policies are meant to flexible enough to accommodate real-world usage and situations. Because the NY Times has policies about word usage and grammar does not mean that one never sees alternative practices or outright mistakes in the pages of the Times. Ditto the BBC.

Besides, when it comes to art rules are meant to be broken."

When it suits the italics they see them as rules, so why shouldn't I? One of their reasons for not allowing non-CAs to do artwork is because they may not fit the specs. If the specs are there to be broken, why should that matter?

"You have to put the people first, not because they're self-important but just because they are important. More important than the art, more important than the specs."

I would disagree. The people have decided to volunteer to do the artwork. In doing that they have said that the artwork is worth more than them, so they are sacrificing their time to do it.

"Let me try another tack. Suppose you were to promise that all your posts from now on would be free from spelling errors. In theory that's possible, in practice it isn't likely to be achievable."

Of course not. I have never said that everything should be perfect, i have said that people should either state that perfection is not required, or try as hard as possible to be perfect.

"If I were to promise you that all our graphics from now on would be a perfect match with the written specifications, two things would be guaranteed:"

Then change the written specs, like i suggested.

"If the rule was rewritten to define 'black' as anything between, say, #000000 and #070707, it would make no difference because that's no more achievable than leaving the definition of black open to interpretation as it is at the moment. I really could not, and would not, ask someone to fix a pixel that was #080808."

That is not common sense. Common sense would be to say the border must be "undistingishable from black by the lay user" or something like that.

"What you see as loosening the rules would in fact be tightening them. That's because you see the word 'black' in the rules and take it to mean #000000 but the CAs see it as meaning 'looks black.' You're not interpreting 'one pixel wide' as an artist does. One pixel wide could mean anything between 1 and 3 or even 5 depending on the circumstances."

I never gave any details on what i count as loosening, so what on earth are you talking about? One pixel means one pixel. If you mean anything between 1 and 5 you say "about one pixel".

"You and I are reading the same 'rules' but not reaching the same understanding, Tango."

I am reading the rules, you are interpreting them to suit you. There is a difference. Your interpretation may make more sense, but it isn't the rules.

Tango

Yes thanks for the advice. I'll take pragmatism everytime.

"So she admits that the CAs aren't perfect, but isn't willing to consider suggestions for improvement?"

See, Tango, this is where I think perhaps you are confused. Personally, I wouldn't consider any of the suggestions or comments you have made to be "suggestions for improvement". It's possible that *you* might think they would improve the CA scheme and subsequent art, but that doesn't necessarily make the suggestions valid.

Thus far, everything I've seen make *specific* complaints on (not just "this is substandard") have been things that have no negative impact on:

a) the CAs, the people doing the art
b) the average h2g2 member, viewing the art, or
c) the italics, processing the art

So when you say that your suggestions are for improvement, who, exactly, would they improve things for? Who would see any benefit from your suggestions? If none of the parties involved would see a net benefit, I'm not sure how something can validly be considered to be "for improvement".

Given that you've previously acknowledged that the world does not, in fact, revolve around you, I'm sure that you can easily understand that "Tango doesn't like how things are happening" is not going to be a sufficient motivator for change. Given that, I'm also willing to bet that you can understand why people find your complaints to be relatively trivial -- is there something specific you'd like to complain about that actually has a negative affect on the larger community?

"Whoever's hiding behind the CA group persona, please don't. If you don't want your name attached to what you say, don't say anything at all. If it was a mistake, then just be more careful in future, and can you now please tell us who you are."

So... it's alright for *you* to hide behind a 'group account' when it suits you, but not for me to do so? Is that it?

I'm glad to hear it Oetzi .

Tango, I see I'm stupid again . That's a relief.

I don't like these arguments that disintegrate into hundreds of barely-related points. I refuse to play that game. The point I needed to make, and have made to my satisfaction, is that when you refer in your posts to sub-standard CA work you're being petty-minded. Nothing for anyone else to worry about, nothing that justifies infiltrating the CAs' Yahoo Group.

You aren't an artist, you've said as much and it shows. Look at <./>B4131176white</.>. That has a perfectly legitimate one-pixel black border. Load it into a graphics program, remove the transparency if it doesn't happen automatically and look at the border. It's two or three pixels thick at nearly all points and hardly any of those pixels are truly black. And there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that.



MR said "I got that quiz entirely wrong, and I could only see 2 graphics that looked odd to me...#19 (which just looked fuzzy, but maybe that was the intent) and #25, because the edges of the butterfly looked kinda jagged."

You got 19 right . The others were 4, 13, 20, 21, 28 and 6 (although 6 isn't a CA graphic). 20 is an interesting one because it's probably the most obviously wrong to the naked eye and yet, strictly speaking, it adheres absolutely to the specs. The problem is not with the outer pixels but with the next layer in - but the rules say nothing about those pixels, they can be any colour the artist chooses. In fact the border has been over-enthusiatically anti-aliased by a program called Adobe Illustrator. Stuff happens, as they say.

"Perhaps the issue shouldn't be about scientific specs, but about how it looks to folks like me who don't know, and frankly don't care, if something is a pixel wide, or it's antialiased within an inch of it's life."

Yes, it's about how it looks. We take the written rules and apply a dollop of common sense. We talk to each other. If it makes sense consciously to 'break' a rule we say so and explain our reasons. And before shipping the finished problem we do a final visual check - but not under magnification except for an artist's first graphic on joining the group. The process is reasonably efficient and catches most of the problems we want to have caught.

"Are these rules actually rules, or guidelines?"

Yes .

It's just a matter of common sense. For example the standard size of a graphic is 200 wide by 160 high. The width affects the flow of text on the page so the width rule is a rule and the height rule is more of a guideline. I suspect some people would find that difficult. Artists don't though .

Will you get kicked out of the CAs if your borders aren't one pixel wide?

No. Not unless you were being deliberately difficult.

""So she admits that the CAs aren't perfect, but isn't willing to consider suggestions for improvement?"

See, Tango, this is where I think perhaps you are confused. Personally, I wouldn't consider any of the suggestions or comments you have made to be "suggestions for improvement". It's possible that *you* might think they would improve the CA scheme and subsequent art, but that doesn't necessarily make the suggestions valid. "

Maybe my suggestions so far haven't been very helpful. I would disagree with that, but it doesn't make any difference. What amy said was that *whatever* i said, nothing would be changed. So even if i came up with a brilliant idea that would make the CAs 100 times better, it still wouldn't be implemented. That is what i was calling stupid.

"Thus far, everything I've seen make *specific* complaints on (not just "this is substandard") have been things that have no negative impact on:

a) the CAs, the people doing the art
b) the average h2g2 member, viewing the art, or
c) the italics, processing the art

So when you say that your suggestions are for improvement, who, exactly, would they improve things for? Who would see any benefit from your suggestions? If none of the parties involved would see a net benefit, I'm not sure how something can validly be considered to be "for improvement"."

My latest suggestion has been to reword the specification to fit better with common sense. That would benifit the CAs because they wouldn't have to spend as much time checking pictures fitted the specs and explaining why at times they don't. It would benifit the h2g2 members because the pictures would be of better quality if they didn't have to fit with rules that don't add anything to the art. They would benifit the italics because they wouldn't have to worry about people like me complaining when things aren't right. Does that answer your question?

"So... it's alright for *you* to hide behind a 'group account' when it suits you, but not for me to do so? Is that it?"

Firstly, the atled account was not a group account, as you well know (or at least should if you have read even half of the threads about it). Secondly, when i used an account other than my own, people expected me to explain my reasons why. I expect the same thing. Why are you using a group persona?

Tango

"Firstly, the atled account was not a group account"

That's where I disagree with you. You may have been the only one posting on h2g2 using the Atled account, but somebody else provided the graphics for Atled's aplication, which is what this thread is all about. That makes them a contributor to the Atled account, and thus makes the Atled account a group one.

Tell you what, you tell me who did the graphics, and I'll tell you who I am.

Seems right enough.

Tango, are you saying that you simply want the "rules" and how they are enforced to be in agreement, and that you don't particularly care which changes, that changing the "rules" would be just as good as changing the way they are enforced?

By the way, you mentioned earlier that many of these arguments would not stand in a court of law. In fact they would. The courts regularly weigh the spirit of the law against the letter of the law, and hold things up to the standard of the "reasonable man." Life is full of fuzzy (anti-aliased? ) interpretations, and the law recognizes that.

73s U 2
Oetz Bye!

I have already made a comparision between the atled account and the CA group account. I want to know your reasons for using a group account. I don't really care who you are, i just want to know your reasons. If i don't think your reasons are good enough, i may ask you who you are, but if you have good reasons for keeping that secret, i will let you.

I think that changing the rules is in fact better than changing the enforcement, because common sense is usually the best route to take, and strict rules aren't really common sense when it comes to art.

And, whoever is using the atled account (because it isn't me [i'm not meant to use other accounts while on pre-mod]), what do you think you are doing? I know exactly who has access to the password, and i can only think of one person who would use that smiley, yet i can't think of a reason for that person not using their own account. (unless, of course, someone else is using that smiley to frame the person i'm thinking of, in which case: grow up).

Tango

Um, I thought you had just said a few posts back that the Atled account wasn't a group one? If someone else has access to the account, I have a hard time seeing how that's the case.

Ooooh, the plot thickens. So there are more than two with access to the atled account. I'd call that a group.