Software that makes placemats

[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:

[Glenn E.]

Does anyone know, without resorting to significant effort, how many glasses the software can reasonably place on a 11" x 17" placemat?

I have done 11 glasses on standard US Letter (8.5" x 11") and that was fine. That leads me to believe that it might be possible to squeeze 4 rows of 6 glasses each onto an 11" x 17" placemat. Has anyone done that before?

[jdaw1]

There are separate pages describing: the choosing of the page size

• North American paper sizes:
  • !
  • 12→16: either split over multiple sheets of /USL, or /USL2 = US Ledger = 11″×17″

I have done 11 glasses on standard US Letter (8.5" x 11") and that was fine.

Eleven?! That's way too tight for glasses that aren't thimbles. You sure that wasn’t US Legal? For the Crusting Pipe glasses I now have a maximum of six on A4. Anyway, many such questions are answered by the following diagram.

[Glenn E.]

Eleven?! That's way too tight for glasses that aren't thimbles. You sure that wasn’t US Legal? For the Crusting Pipe glasses I now have a maximum of six on A4.

Hmm. That's possible, I guess. I'd have to pull it up (at home) to be sure. As I recall it was tight, but not so tight that the glasses were touching or even too close to pick up.

Thanks for the chart - that answers all of my questions nicely.

[jdaw1]

We tried the opacity test, from two different laser printers. The printers were too different, but both useless. Good experiment; bad result. Scrapped.

Opacity conversation continued in thread entitled Quantifying opacity in TNs.

[jdaw1]

For blind-tasting ‟What is it?” voting, typically the person who brought a bottle should not guess. Rectangles can be crossed out by setting VoteRecorderCrossedBox to code evaluating to a boolean, that code typically referring to WithinTitles and NameNum.

[RAYC]

Does this easily allow for occasions where one person brings blind bottles for him/herself but also for adoption by others (where that person obviously knows the identity of all bottles he/she is providing but the adopters know only the price they are paying and not the wine itself)?

[jdaw1]

VoteRecorderCrossedBox is code returning a boolean. Code can return true for any desired combination values of WithinTitles and NameNum. So it allows for any such occasion. Whether or not easily, hmmm, you tell me what form of parameters would be both flexible and easy?

[RAYC]

The fact that it allows is sufficient.

If it is not "easy" (by the standards of a non-programmer following your instructions), i would suggest that the default should be that crosses are not included (which is indeed already the case if i understand your post correctly).