Software that makes placemats

[PhilW]

The radius chosen, those of the new form are then moved along the straight line from (x y) to (x1 y1), as far as possible without crashing into another circle. This will be done pairwise, each circle being moved a proportion p along the line, p chosen to be the lesser of 1 and first crash. Each circle will be moved the least of its pairwise p’s. (This is robust and simple, but wouldn’t handle complicated sequences of possible collisions.)

The simple algorithm has the advantage of simplicity. Can better be done?

As an example, let the pattern include [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 1 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ], and that the ellipses include circles much closer to each other, such that the three circles shown aren’t initially touching, and by a good margin. Then there are multiple solutions: for example, any of the three could land at (0, 0). And what about [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 2 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ]?

Algorithm suggestions welcomed.

I see what you're aiming to achieve, but I think this might be over-complicating? For the more advanced case where a simple [x y] with subsequent affine transform (as currently) is not sufficient, I would suggest an easier option for the advanced user to make specific patterns would be to use an [x y] with affine=off - still performing suitable H/W scaling and max circle size selection as before.

In the example we've been using, you could move from the following with affine=on which creates the pattern with four regular along the top:
[ [0 4]; [2 4]; [4 4]; [6 4]; [0 2]; [3 2]; [6 2]; [0 0]; [3 0]; [6 0]; ];
to using the following with affine=off which would keep the required pair together.
[ [0 4]; [2.5 4]; [4.5 4]; [7 4]; [0 2]; [3.5 2]; [7 2]; [0 0]; [3.5 0]; [7 0]; ];
(or scaled up by 10 if we're only allowed to use integers, you get the idea).

This would then seem straightforward to use for any unusual bespoke patterns required?

[RAYC]

The radius chosen, those of the new form are then moved along the straight line from (x y) to (x1 y1), as far as possible without crashing into another circle. This will be done pairwise, each circle being moved a proportion p along the line, p chosen to be the lesser of 1 and first crash. Each circle will be moved the least of its pairwise p’s. (This is robust and simple, but wouldn’t handle complicated sequences of possible collisions.)

The simple algorithm has the advantage of simplicity. Can better be done?

As an example, let the pattern include [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 1 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ], and that the ellipses include circles much closer to each other, such that the three circles shown aren’t initially touching, and by a good margin. Then there are multiple solutions: for example, any of the three could land at (0, 0). And what about [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 2 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ]?

Algorithm suggestions welcomed.

This makes my head hurt...but i will be more than happy to give an opinion based on napkin sketches at the next tasting!

In general, the critical element to my eye is symmetry, and alignment of the first and fourth columns. I do not think i feel strongly about what i think you are debating.

[jdaw1]

over-complicating?

I plead the fifth.

In the example we've been using, you could move from the following with affine=on which creates the pattern with four regular along the top:
[ [0 4]; [2 4]; [4 4]; [6 4]; [0 2]; [3 2]; [6 2]; [0 0]; [3 0]; [6 0]; ];
to using the following with affine=off which would keep the required pair together.
[ [0 4]; [2.5 4]; [4.5 4]; [7 4]; [0 2]; [3.5 2]; [7 2]; [0 0]; [3.5 0]; [7 0]; ];
(or scaled up by 10 if we're only allowed to use integers, you get the idea).

This achieves something different. In the general case it could shrink the radii of the circles. I was trying to have, in order: the general pattern specified; radius as large as possible; then things touched. If the touching is done too early the radius would be shrunk.

Also, no requirement that numbers be integers. Easier for examples, but reals fine, subject only to the requirement that yi≠yj ⇒ division by (yi”“yj) does not produce an error.

[PhilW]

This achieves something different.

True, although I thought it might be useful for the general case for other purposes too (rather than simply enabling the touching issue) as well as providing a possible solution to that specific example. Agreed that it could lead to non-maximised circles, which I would have accepted in return for ease of use. Always just suggestions though, no problem with them being rejected

[jdaw1]

So, just to check, please confirm that you think that the current generality of outcomes is sufficient.

[DRT]

So, just to check, please confirm that you think that the current generality of outcomes is sufficient.

Rob and I vote yes. Three times each.

[PhilW]

So, just to check, please confirm that you think that the current generality of outcomes is sufficient.

Aye. For now

[jdaw1]

This makes my head hurt...but i will be more than happy to give an opinion based on napkin sketches at the next tasting!

The proposed new feature would allow a move of the two circles from their evenly-spaced position (green) to a central-touching position (black). I thought that this is what you wanted for the GC/SW/QH tasting, with the horizontally central circles being the 1977s.

However, the consensus is that it isn’t needed, so won’t be added. (Unless I’m bored, at home, and for some reason unable to work on the book.)

[jdaw1]

First feedback on sticky sheets do we have water tick-boxes?

(There was also a link to this post on FTLoP, but it was deleted. Still pretending to be the only port forum on the web. Cool.)

[jdaw1]

Presumably there should be a flag specifying whether the water boxes go on the glasses sheets or the TN sheets. If the latter, a possible location is shown in green. (This example derived from the first page of the ‘Placemats’ (meaning stickers and tasting-note sheets) used at The Bell on Thu 15 Dec 2011.)

Does that work? It certainly intrudes into the space for the last port’s tasting note. Should the boxes be on the other side, so also switching ↔ name? Or should the boxes surround the name?

Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

[g-man]

I check off on the placements actually since i usually drink some water with pen still in hand after drinking previous port.

This way I check off, put pen down, grab next glass all from the same sheet.

[jdaw1]

I check off on the placements actually since

You probably check the glasses sheets because that is where the check-boxes are, at least currently. But should they be?

[jdaw1]

Alternative arrangement in dark red.


Or the name could be one box to the left, with the boxes starting one row further down (shown in purple).


Comments?

[SushiNorth]

Presumably there should be a flag specifying whether the water boxes go on the glasses sheets or the TN sheets.
Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

Choices: Tasting Note, Placemat, Both

I might choose both, and print that way, then the taster can decide.

[jdaw1]

Choices: Tasting Note, Placemat, Both

‘Both’ is an excellent suggestion. What should be the default? And where on the TN sheet should the boxes go.

Currently there is a line

Code: Select all

/WaterCounts true def

This might become something like

Code: Select all

/WaterCountLocations /Both def  % /Glasses /TastingNotes /Both /None

[Glenn E.]

Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

No. I have a notebook that I use when taking Port TNs, as do most of the people with whom I taste, so I typically do not even print the TN sheets. Yet I do find the water boxes useful and would like to continue having the option of them being on the placemat itself.

[jdaw1]

and would like to continue having the option of them being on the placemat itself.

Wilco. SushiNorth’s ‟Both” is looking better and better.

[SushiNorth]

Presumably there should be a flag specifying whether the water boxes go on the glasses sheets or the TN sheets.
Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

Btw, I vote for a solid line (clarification: of tickboxes) across the bottom -- after all, I'll probably have it flat on the table, it's good to just be able to tick them casually as I go. Unlike the placemats, they won't be covered with glasses.

[PhilW]

Presumably there should be a flag specifying whether the water boxes go on the glasses sheets or the TN sheets.
Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

Btw, I vote for a solid line (clarification: of tickboxes) across the bottom -- after all, I'll probably have it flat on the table, it's good to just be able to tick them casually as I go. Unlike the placemats, they won't be covered with glasses.

Agree with horizontal preference over vertical (though am happy with current 'cluster'). Personally prefer them bottom right (since am right handed), either next to the name or would happy with initials being bottom left instead with logo+glasses cluster at right (option: left side for lefties, right side for righties?).

[jdaw1]

Henceforth let’s assume right-handed. Obviously sides reversed for lefties.

I think I would prefer having icon and name on the left, and water boxes on the right. The water boxes would be in a cluster, like the green example above, excepting on the right.

Does that work for others?

[DRT]

That works for me.

[PhilW]

Henceforth let’s assume right-handed. Obviously sides reversed for lefties.

I think I would prefer having icon and name on the left, and water boxes on the right. The water boxes would be in a cluster, like the green example above, excepting on the right.

Does that work for others?

Sounds fine.

[Alex Bridgeman]

My preference would be to have the tick boxes on the glass sheet (because I will often make my notes, fold up and safely stow away for later use and then carry on drinking) but where no glass sheets are used then having checkboxes on the tasting notes pages would work.

Of course, instead of glass labels 23 and 24, perhaps I could have had an adhesive water glass label that I stuck on my water glass and ticked off as I went along.

[jdaw1]

perhaps I could have had an adhesive water glass label that I stuck on my water glass and ticked off as I went along.

Interesting idea. If water glasses are large wine glasses, with stem and foot, that might work. But it would be more awkward on a pint glass.

[jdaw1]

and would like to continue having the option of them being on the placemat itself.

Wilco.

But what if there aren’t placemats? What if it’s stickies? AHB’s suggestion of a water-box sticky is growing on me and it wouldn’t have to be stuck to a glass.

[RAYC]

and would like to continue having the option of them being on the placemat itself.

Wilco.

But what if there aren’t placemats? What if it’s stickies? AHB’s suggestion of a water-box sticky is growing on me and it wouldn’t have to be stuck to a glass.

Or...

we could invest in some of these for use at tastings, obviating the need for tick boxes altogether!

[jdaw1]

The nurses would need tick-boxes.

[RAYC]

The nurses would need tick-boxes.

Good point.

In which case there is some merit to the solution of tick boxes on stickers (that are then stuck to the table/a glass/a watch face/ the back of your palm)

However, tick boxes on placemats should, i feel, be the default. There are not too many tastings that do not involve placemats.

[DRT]

Perhaps the nurses should only wear stickers?

[jdaw1]

However, tick boxes on placemats should, i feel, be the default. There are not too many tastings that do not involve placemats.

That is already agreed. We are dealing with the difficult cases, not the ordinary cases.

In which case there is some merit to the solution of tick boxes on stickers (that are then stuck to the table/a glass/a watch face/ the back of your palm)

Next I need to think about how to parametrise this.

[jdaw1]

Note to self: the fonts available on both home and work computers are as follows.

1. /Arial-Black
2. /Arial-BoldItalicMT
3. /Arial-BoldMT
4. /Arial-ItalicMT
5. /ArialMT
6. /ArialNarrow
7. /ArialNarrow-Bold
8. /ArialNarrow-BoldItalic
9. /ArialNarrow-Italic
10. /BookAntiqua
11. /BookAntiqua-Bold
12. /BookAntiqua-BoldItalic
13. /BookAntiqua-Italic
14. /BookmanOldStyle
15. /BookmanOldStyle-Bold
16. /BookmanOldStyle-BoldItalic
17. /BookmanOldStyle-Italic
18. /Calibri
19. /Calibri-Bold
20. /Calibri-BoldItalic
21. /Calibri-Italic
22. /Cambria
23. /Cambria-Bold
24. /Cambria-BoldItalic
25. /Cambria-Italic
26. /Candara
27. /Candara-Bold
28. /Candara-BoldItalic
29. /Candara-Italic
30. /Century
31. /CenturyGothic
32. /CenturyGothic-Bold
33. /CenturyGothic-BoldItalic
34. /CenturyGothic-Italic
35. /ComicSansMS
36. /ComicSansMS-Bold
37. /Consolas
38. /Consolas-Bold
39. /Consolas-BoldItalic
40. /Consolas-Italic
41. /Constantia
42. /Constantia-Bold
43. /Constantia-BoldItalic
44. /Constantia-Italic
45. /Corbel
46. /Corbel-Bold
47. /Corbel-BoldItalic
48. /Corbel-Italic
49. /Courier
50. /Courier-Bold
51. /Courier-BoldOblique
52. /Courier-Oblique
53. /CourierNewPS-BoldItalicMT
54. /CourierNewPS-BoldMT
55. /CourierNewPS-ItalicMT
56. /CourierNewPSMT
57. /CourierStd
58. /CourierStd-Bold
59. /CourierStd-BoldOblique
60. /CourierStd-Oblique
61. /FranklinGothic-Medium
62. /FranklinGothic-MediumItalic
63. /Garamond
64. /Garamond-Bold
65. /Garamond-Italic
66. /Georgia
67. /Georgia-Bold
68. /Georgia-BoldItalic
69. /Georgia-Italic
70. /Haettenschweiler
71. /Impact
72. /LucidaBright
73. /LucidaBright-Demi
74. /LucidaBright-DemiItalic
75. /LucidaBright-Italic
76. /LucidaConsole
77. /LucidaSans
78. /LucidaSans-Demi
79. /LucidaSans-DemiItalic
80. /LucidaSans-Italic
81. /LucidaSans-Typewriter
82. /LucidaSans-TypewriterBold
83. /LucidaSansUnicode
84. /MicrosoftSansSerif
85. /MinionPro-Bold
86. /MinionPro-BoldIt
87. /MinionPro-It
88. /MinionPro-Regular
89. /MonotypeCorsiva
90. /MSReferenceSansSerif
91. /MyriadPro-Bold
92. /MyriadPro-BoldIt
93. /MyriadPro-It
94. /MyriadPro-Regular
95. /Tahoma
96. /Tahoma-Bold
97. /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT
98. /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT
99. /TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT
100. /TimesNewRomanPSMT
101. /Trebuchet-BoldItalic
102. /TrebuchetMS
103. /TrebuchetMS-Bold
104. /TrebuchetMS-Italic
105. /Verdana
106. /Verdana-Bold
107. /Verdana-BoldItalic
108. /Verdana-Italic

[DRT]

In the discussion thread Quantifying opacity

To assess, look at the circle text through about 1cm of port in a titled glass.

Perhaps we could devise a standard way of doing this by using a feature on the placemats?

Imagine a horizontal bar about 5mm wide running across the bottom of a Placemat or TN sheet. The bar is white at one end and black at the other, with all of the shades of grey in between. Written inside the bar, in a black font, are the gradients 0%, 10%, 20% ! 100%, the latter of which would be invisible.

Now place a tilted glass above one end of the bar and move it along until you cannot read the number below it. That is the opacity of the wine.

Would that work?

[jdaw1]

A good idea.

➊ I’d like the test to be based on something standard, recommended by those expert in this field.

âž‹ Different printer resolutions can make different greys appear quite different. Might that confound the attempt at standardisation? (Also, but I think less, different toners might be a problem.)

[RAYC]

Or invest in one of these...

[DRT]

A good idea.

➊ I’d like the test to be based on something standard, recommended by those expert in this field.

âž‹ Different printer resolutions can make different greys appear quite different. Might that confound the attempt at standardisation? (Also, but I think less, different toners might be a problem.)

On 2, provided the 100% was invisible or as good as, and the graduation of grey looked consistent, I don't think the variation of printer/toner would have much effect.

Perhaps if someone very clever could produce a test sheet we could each print a copy of it and bring them to the Bunghole to test whether or not the printer variation is significant. The test sheet does not have to part of the placemets.

[DRT]

Or invest in one of these...

I'm no expert, but I suspect it would be extremely difficult to embed one of those into Postscript.

[Alex Bridgeman]

A good idea.

➊ I’d like the test to be based on something standard, recommended by those expert in this field.

âž‹ Different printer resolutions can make different greys appear quite different. Might that confound the attempt at standardisation? (Also, but I think less, different toners might be a problem.)

On 2, provided the 100% was invisible or as good as, and the graduation of grey looked consistent, I don't think the variation of printer/toner would have much effect.

Perhaps if someone very clever could produce a test sheet we could each print a copy of it and bring them to the Bunghole to test whether or not the printer variation is significant. The test sheet does not have to part of the placemets.

I agree with DRT - if the 100% is invisible then this should be a self-balancing test.

An alternative approach might be to print a small ruler along one edge of the test; then to tip the glass and measure the distance from the rim at which the ruler becomes invisible. We could conduct some tests to develop an agreed standard.

[Glenn E.]

An alternative approach might be to print a small ruler along one edge of the test; then to tip the glass and measure the distance from the rim at which the ruler becomes invisible. We could conduct some tests to develop an agreed standard.

This is similar to (better than, really) the method I use to judge very young Ports. I judge pencil-widths visible at the rim, but a ruler would be more precise and allow for rating older Ports as well.

The key to this system is a consistent fill level in a standard shape glass. This might be difficult at a larger tasting where pour sizes are smaller, but I think it's a relatively easy system to use.

[SushiNorth]

In the sake world, clarity is measured by putting the sake into a white ceramic glass with two blue circles in the bottom (bullseye-like). At equal pour for each sake, the judge can differentiate clarity and color.

[jdaw1]

People might want to do the opacity test in different light, so will want to be able to hold it. Hence it must be on the TN sheets rather than the glasses sheets.

Is what is wanted anything like this?

[DRT]

Is what is wanted anything like this?

That is what I had in mind, although the version I had in my head had white on the left and black on the right.

I think the bar needs to be quite wide so that the precision with which you have to hit the right spot becomes easier.

[jdaw1]

That is what I had in mind, although the version I had in my head had white on the left and black on the right.

With numbers descending, 9 to 1? Ascending numbers seemed more natural to me, though it is easy to change.

[DRT]

That is what I had in mind, although the version I had in my head had white on the left and black on the right.

With numbers descending, 9 to 1? Ascending numbers seemed more natural to me, though it is easy to change.

No. White on the left = 0% (as in fully transparent) and black on the right being 100% (as in 100% opaque).

[jdaw1]

Are you sure? I think the ‟9” of ‟90%” needs to be against very pale grey. If you can’t see black on 10% grey, then the port is ≥90% opaque.

[jdaw1]

Updated test page.

[DRT]

That is what I meant when I asked...

Would that work?

You are, of course, correct. My idea was in the early stages of development when I wrote the first post. Thankfully there are people here who can take semi-flawed ideas and make them work

[jdaw1]

Updated test page.

[Glenn E.]

Is what is wanted anything like this?

That is what I had in mind, although the version I had in my head had white on the left and black on the right.

That's because you're Scottish.

Are you sure? I think the ‟9” of ‟90%” needs to be against very pale grey. If you can’t see black on 10% grey, then the port is ≈90% opaque.

The numbers are reversed to me. We're judging opacity, not the printed greyscale, so to me the numbers should indicate the opacity of the Port. I cannot be expected to do math while consuming alcohol. 

[jdaw1]

Printing on two laserprinters gives different apparent greys. As a form of standardisation, this is miserable. (Though within each printer, the four lines are very similar.)

[jdaw1]

To help those unwilling to open a PDF: