[Bf-funboard] Re: Re: ShadowBuf name

[GSR]

Hi,
matt at mke3.net (2006-12-02 at 1706.25 +1100):
[...]
> There's plenty of room for technicalities in the tooltip and in a  
> reference manual. The point is to provide the appropriate kind of  
> information where it's most relevant. In the interface where things  
> are tweaked for a visual result, it should be something simple and  
> understandable that describes the practical effects that it has.

Naming provided should not be subjective and variable. The terms
legacy, sharp and soft are, while nobody can say minimum, midpoint and
irregular do not apply. They can be other things, soft can be sharp,
legacy is useful (SSS anyone?) not something to get rid of, but they
will still be those "technical" names no matter how many twists you
try. I prefer to take them as vocabulary of the 3D field that will
match other programs and documents (tech or not, see below), as
andante is music vocabulary or kerning is typography's.

Only way to get rid of the "tech" names will be changing what the
things are. What will happen if yet another method is added, more
renaming to match the new situation of what is sharper or older? With
the other names there is nothing to change.

[...] 
> The names 'irregular' or 'classical' or whatever algorithm names on  
> their own do not carry any inherent meaning. Calling them  

Uh? You proposed legacy, which is pretty much like classical, at least
IMO.

> "flurblebrop shadows" would communicate just about the same amount of  
> meaning to the average artist. It's just a name that's representative  
> of something else, that then has to go though one extra step of  
> translation in the minds of artists, from programmer language  
> (irregular) -> plain English (causes sharp shadows) -> visual result,  
> and going through this thought process is completely irrelevant and  
> extra mental overhead to the visual task of deciding how you want  
> your shadows to look.

Well, then saying sharp when the other systems can be sharp too is
misleading and you are not helping the user, you are giving a false
security and provably making harder to experiment and think new
tricks.

It is the same with filtering or shaders. They get the name of whoever
invented them (Phong) or an intrinsic characteristic (Box), not of
what somebody thought they can do or for how long they have been
avaliable. And then everyone has a proper common (not just Blender
users, but the 3D community) term without preconceived ideas imposed.

Why I saw a lot of discussion of what was best filter but no agreement
in the end? Subjectiveness. Nobody proposed renaming as it was clear
that it would add just an extra step and still opinions would not
match ever. Learning some terms is a small price to pay. I doubt we
would be having this discussion in other fields like music. That the
terms have been coined in last decades is unimportant, what matters is
they are innate to what they are attached to.

Following the logic, OTOH, we have to rename filter and shaders,
getting rid of the 3D vocabulary and more towards plain words (maybe
more terms in the UI, those two are the first that come to mind).

[...]
> Not at all, if you *do* want to know the technical details of how it
[...]

Papers do not have to be technical. You can also get a nice "no maths"
paper, and I include those in "papers". For you it seems as soon as
something is explained, it has to be at the coders level. That was not
my intent, sorry if not clear enough.

GSR