Software that makes placemats

[SushiNorth]

3. H = Hutcheson, which might be worse than Hooper.

I was pretty sure we had a list, somewhere, of abbreviations but each time I go looking for it I can't find it. Do you have the URL handy for us? We used QV for Quevedo, after much discussion about Vesuvio and Vargellas (which are apparently other abbreviations).

[Glenn E.]

There isn't a separate listing of abbrevations that I'm aware of, but you can easily find them by using the alphabetical index of tasting notes in the TN forum.

Taylor (Fladgate) Quinta de Vargellas is TV to indicate that it is Taylor's Vargellas and not an independent Quinta.
Quinta do Vesuvio, on the other hand, is just plain V as there are no other producers that start with V.

Quevedo, being the only producer starting with Q ("Quinta d_ Something" doesn't count) should be just plain Q. First come, first served.

[SushiNorth]

There isn't a separate listing of abbrevations that I'm aware of, but you can easily find them by using the alphabetical index of tasting notes in the TN forum.

You know, I've looked at that list multiple times wondering why it wasn't there, and only just realized i've been skimming right over it.

[JacobH]

Taylor (Fladgate) Quinta de Vargellas is TV to indicate that it is Taylor's Vargellas and not an independent Quinta.

Such a system works until the Quinta changes hands; for instance, it would seem inappropriate to abbreviate Vargellas 1890 as TV 1890

[jdaw1]

Such a system works until the Quinta changes hands; for instance, it would seem inappropriate to abbreviate Vargellas 1890 as TV 1890

Ahh, back to building a singl definitive list of port names from which the abbreviations flow readily.

Plus, my computer is being repaired, so I don’t have the data to hand. (And the backup is somewhere on or approaching the Atlantic.)

[Glenn E.]

Taylor (Fladgate) Quinta de Vargellas is TV to indicate that it is Taylor's Vargellas and not an independent Quinta.

Such a system works until the Quinta changes hands; for instance, it would seem inappropriate to abbreviate Vargellas 1890 as TV 1890

Agreed. But to me it would also seem inappropriate for them to use the same abbreviation, because the cash influx from the purchase of a large Quinta like that can easily change the entire dynamic of the estate. Thus creating, essentially, an entirely new producer.

It's a difficult decision, in no small part because there are only so many reasonable combinations of suitable letters available. If a Quinta changes hands a few times over 100 years, does it really need to have a different abbreviation for each set of owners?

Hmm.

[SushiNorth]

It's a difficult decision, in no small part because there are only so many reasonable combinations of suitable letters available. If a Quinta changes hands a few times over 100 years, does it really need to have a different abbreviation for each set of owners?

One might also say that someone who truly appreciated the Port would know in which years the quinta or house had each owner, and thus the combination of abbreviation and year would say everything necessary. (snark snark)

[jdaw1]

The objectives:

• Pedantic uniqueness;
• Brevity;
• Clarity, at least having received a prompt.

I think the choices made come close to the best possible realisation of those objectives.

[jdaw1]

∃ new code, a major new version. Changes:

• VerticalMiddling! parameters implemented.
• DecanterLabelMaxLargerDimension and DecanterLabelMaxSmallerDimension implemented, lessening the fiddliness of controlling the size of the Titles and Subtitles.
• PageOrderingGlasses, PageOrderingTastingNotePages and PageOrderingPlaceNames replace the less-powerful NamesInOuterLoop.
• TypeOfPagesBeingRendered replaces the ungainly pair of RenderingTastingNotesPages and RenderingPlaceNames.
• Parameters beginning with low-information words such as ‟Num” and ‟Max”, and some other parameters, renamed for greater legibility and consistency.
• Default parameters re-ordered for greater ease of use.

[jdaw1]

In Paris last weekend DRT and I discussed two new ideas.

• The first was a single-shipper single-year bottler comparison, now being discussed in Comparing the bottlers.
• The second was the problem of ink-jet printers, the ink smudging if wetted even slightly. Derek suggested printing to the ‘underside of’ acetate, therefore in reverse. Controls (especially MirrorPagesNonDecanterLabelGlasses) have been added to the software, producing output as in this example. Comment welcomed.

[jdaw1]

Separating flights within a page (pdf).

[jdaw1]

For some time I have known that the code needed three non-trivial additions. The third, SideBySideGlassesTastingNotes, has just been completed (the previous two being VerticalMiddling! and FlightSeparations).

For a small tasting, say two people and three bottles, it is natural to have everything on one sheet: For right handers the glasses should be to the left of the tasting notes; for left handers to the right.

Mr Right-Handed


Miss Left-Handed

[jdaw1]

As further examples, the following link to placemats from actual tastings, or draft placemats for future tastings. Note: some of these required expert use of the program’s features; most were made with an earlier version of the software. â—¦ 22nd March 2010, Malvedos; â—¦ 23rd February 2010, Vesuvio; â—¦ 1st February 2010, bring a bottle; â—¦ 30th January 2010, decanter labels; â—¦ 5th January 2010, 1985 or 1970; â—¦ 17th December 2009, blind tasting at The Bell; â—¦ 13th November 2009, partially blind double vertical; â—¦ 13th November 2009, bring a bottle; â—¦ 28th October 2009, Portal Restaurant; â—¦ 23rd October 2009, Paris; â—¦ 14th October 2009, AHB’s birthday; â—¦ 2nd October 2009, Warre vertical; â—¦ 29th June 2009, best mature ports; â—¦ 26th June 2009, Sandeman; â—¦ 13th June 2009, Fonseca mini-vertical; â—¦ 13th February 2009, Graham; â—¦ 30th January 2009, Horizontal of 1970; â—¦ 3rd January 2009, Emergency Port.

Might, I wondered, be of general amusement.

Edit in late 2012: instead see www.jdawiseman.com/papers/placemat/placemats_list.html.

[jdaw1]

â—Š Tastings arranged on ThePortForum are for a maximum of fourteen people, in order to give a 5cl portion to each person (75cl bottle, less the angels’ share and less a little loss during decanting leaves only an edge more than 14×5cl = 70cl). At a tasting attended by eight people, decanters can circulate and people help themselves. But when there are fourteen people and so only 5cl each, portions need to be pre-poured. Typically this necessitates many trays holding fourteen glasses, and, to avoid confusion, these trays should be labelled: a sheet of paper on each tray.

Rephrased for the hard of understanding: before pre-pouring glasses, put one of these sheets on a tray, then fourteen glasses on that. Then pour. Should reduce the what-is-on-this-tray type of confusion.

[jdaw1]

Why both decanter labels and bottle labels? Decanter labels are ‘front of house’, intended to match very closely the design on the glasses sheets, and to be pasted to business cards and hung around decanters. Because of the desired close match between glasses sheets and decanter labels, the decanter labels are generated as a special type of glasses sheet, omitting the inappropriate elements.

So go back in time, to the start of decanting. Some bottles will be clearly labelled. Others might have little more than a capsule, so after opening, could be entirely unlabelled. To prevent confusion there should be, printed onto sheets of sticky labels, a means of avoiding the potential confusion. These are the bottle labels, and their specification largely requires describing the sheet of labels.

Bottle labels appear if BottleLabelsNumCopies exceeds zero, and multiple copies are permitted. The following are then defined assuming that the page is portrait.

• BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitNumRows is the number of rows.
• BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitNumCols is the number of columns.
• BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapBetweenRows is the gap between the rows of labels. ! Likewise, BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapBetweenCols is the gap between the columns of labels. !
• BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapL is the margin on the left of the page, that is, the gap between the edge of the page and the left edge of the leftmost column of labels. Mutatis mutandis, BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapR, BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapT, and BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapB.
• BottleLabelsPaperType is the paper type of the sticky labels, accepting values such as /A4 or /USL, and defaulting to TastingNotesPaperType.

The default parameters were fitted to Ryman product 0220013460 (or equivalently 0220023460), being 8 labels per A4 sheet. Therefore those constrained to /USL (8½″×11″) will need to alter the bottle-label specification.

[jdaw1]

• Points: The Vote Recorder

â—Š At the end of a tasting there is typically a vote for the Wine Of The Night (WOTN), and for large tastings there might also be a vote after each flight or page. The vote is not usually secret, people being asked to declare 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places (scoring 3, 2, 1). To assist the ‘returning officer’ there are VoteRecorderNumCopies copies of a single sheet of paper on which votes can be recorded. It is the points that should be recorded, rather than the ranks, as doing so simplifies the addition of the totals. (There is also benefit in there being agreement as to what is recorded: if you record, but I retain the vote-recorder sheet and enter it into a description of the tasting, it is useful that ‟3” be unambiguously first place three points.)

Examples of this new page can be found on the 10th page of the PDF example, and also on the last sheet of the paperwork for the forthcoming 1982 horizontal.

Comment and feedback encouraged.

[DRT]

Excellent. Only a genius would have thought of this.

Thank you.

[jdaw1]

Excellent. Only a genius would have thought of this.

Thank you.

It was derived from a suggestion of DRT. Send some gratitude to him.

[JacobH]

The vote is not usually secret, people being asked to declare 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places (scoring 3, 2, 1).

Comment and feedback encouraged.

Insufficient consensus was built as to what would be the best voting system. Considering this only became an issue at 10pm following a "8-bottles-for-6-people" tasting, consensus was not achieved. I suggest the Approval System.

[jdaw1]

Insufficient consensus was built as to what would be the best voting system. Considering this only became an issue at 10pm following a "8-bottles-for-6-people" tasting, consensus was not achieved. I suggest the Approval System.

Even with that, ahem, voting system, I think the vote-recording sheet produced by the software would work: ✠“ each approved port.

Voting system: are you voting for ‟Port Most Widely Deemed Drinkable” (for which Approval is excellent), or for ‟Wine Of The Night” (for which Approval is awful)? See www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/conundrum.html.

[JacobH]

Voting system: are you voting for ‟Port Most Widely Deemed Drinkable” (for which Approval is excellent), or for ‟Wine Of The Night” (for which Approval is awful)? See www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/conundrum.html.

A good point. I note, however, that the 3-2-1 points system produces a similar result: the Niepoort 1982 was WOTN at the 1982 tasting due a consistent performance as the 2nd choice. I think (though AHB has the ballot sheet), AV would have done likewise. STV produced a hung result. Which is preferable for determining the WOTN?

On an unrelated point, the translation of the placemat software into Dutch has made the ij ligature issue live...

[jdaw1]

On an unrelated point, the translation of the placemat software into Dutch has made the ij ligature issue live...

Not really live in this context. If a context strongly implies that only the Dutch language is being used so there isn’t a ‟ÿ” then a connected ‟ij” can be OK. But a port tasting can contain ports with names of non-Dutch origin (J. H. Andresen comes to mind), and non-Dutch drinkers. So I’d much prefer the simple ‟ij” non-ligature.

Is that a controversial view on ?

[Alex Bridgeman]

...I’d much prefer the simple ‟ij” non-ligature.

Is that a controversial view on ?

Zzzzz...

[jdaw1]

Changes to placemat software:

• Added WaterCountsOverrideShowEverySheet (a parameter simplification for DRT).
• Changed default value of SameSizeTitlesIfAllOf (you probably don’t care).
• Fixed bug on pre-pour pages:

  Not using Adobe Distiller revealed a very small bug in code, and the following is a note to self.

  Code: Select all

  				false false PaperType Orientation SetPaperSize  % Perhaps page dimensions accessed by CrossHatchingTitles or CrossHatchingSubtitles
  				TitleSubtitleForms SheetNum get WithinPage get  VariesByNameTitlesSubtitlesOrnamentsDecanterLabels {dup /PaintProc get exec} {execform} ifelse
  				false false PrePourPaperType PrePourOrientation SetPaperSize

  [/size]

[DRT]

• Added WaterCountsOverrideShowEverySheet (a parameter simplification for DRT).

Thank you. I like simple things.

• Changed default value of SameSizeTitlesIfAllOf (you probably don’t care).

I do care. Deeply. Thank you.

• Fixed bug on pre-pour pages:

  Not using Adobe Distiller revealed a very small bug in code, and the following is a note to self.

  Code: Select all

  				false false PaperType Orientation SetPaperSize  % Perhaps page dimensions accessed by CrossHatchingTitles or CrossHatchingSubtitles
  				TitleSubtitleForms SheetNum get WithinPage get  VariesByNameTitlesSubtitlesOrnamentsDecanterLabels {dup /PaintProc get exec} {execform} ifelse
  				false false PrePourPaperType PrePourOrientation SetPaperSize

  [/size]

[/list][/list]

This doesn't sound like something I should either care about or understand. But thank you anyway.

[jdaw1]

Another feature is planned, about which readers might have opinions and ideas for improvements.

Too often there is faffing when ordering food, and again when it comes and people can’t remember what they ordered. So turn to the penultimate page of the example PDF output, on which votes for WOTN can be recorded. There is a column for each person, and a row for each wine.

Perhaps something similar could be done with food? One column for each person, one row per possible nosh. Rows could be ‘grouped’, the line between courses being heavier. For tastings at The Crusting Pipe the possibilities could be pre-entered (somebody please email me a picture of the menu); alternatively on the day the food titles could be hand-written in blank cells. The paper would circulate round the table, people entering into appropriate cells the likes of ‟✠“” or ‟Bleu”. The completed paper could be handed to the waiter” .

Thoughts? Improvements? Indifference? Not worth it?

”  I recognise that more interaction with some waitresses might be desired. As always, the paperwork is intended to be an optional aid, not a straitjacket.

[benread]

You have too much time on your hands! You need a job.

It is however an idea that appeals to my nature. A simpler option could simply be a small footer on each persons tasting note sheet to record "starter", "main" and "dessert".

[jdaw1]

Actually, it won’t take that much time to code.

The footer solution works only if people are choosing food several days in advance. It also fails to centralise things: when food arrives people need to look at their own footers, and getting attention is hard. Whereas a separate piece of paper can be held by an alert somebody who can then direct food to people.

[DRT]

I approve of this suggestion - and with the small print.

[Glenn E.]

I have never really found this to be a problem, so will be perfectly happy with whatever concensus is obtained by the masses.

[jdaw1]

Reminder for this week’s tasting at TCP:

(somebody please email me a picture of the menu)

[Alex Bridgeman]

I will try and remember to take a photo of the Crusting Pipe's menu when we are next there.

[jdaw1]

Thank you for volunteering to try to remember.

[Alex Bridgeman]

No, I didn't try and remember to remember and do that.

I said that I would try, and remember, to take a photograph of the menu but got lazy with my commas. For which, of course, I apologise to any I may have offended.

[jdaw1]

A first draft comments welcomed. (To see unscaled right-click > View Image.)

[DRT]

Truely marvelous. I am most impressed by your choice of desert.

[jdaw1]

If somebody wants to share, we can share. If nobody wants to share, I’ll share with myself: half each.

[DRT]

If somebody wants to share, we can share. If nobody wants to share, I’ll share with myself: half each.

As you witnessed first hand last weekend, the same principle can be applied to "individual" steak and kidney pies.

[jdaw1]

For those not in the know, a vendor local to DRT does fantastic S&K pies, of a size best described as ‘generous’.

[jdaw1]

Done: uploaded.

[DRT]

A trend has been established recently that made me think of a suggested improvement to the software. By "trend" I mean something that has ocurred on at least 5 consecutive occassions.

It would perhaps be useful if all placemets designed for use at the Crusting Pipe would automatically generate a bonus space for the inevitable late addition of a Sandeman 1982?

[jdaw1]

In some multi-page tastings, for each page all the wines have something in common. A typical example is a multi-horizontal, in which wines from several houses are tasted from two or few vintages. As everything on a page has a common feature, perhaps this common feature should be marked, faintly, as in the two-session four-page example

”ƒ

[jdaw1]

At The Bell, for the Christmas tasting on 16 December 2010, for the first time, glass stickers were used rather than placemats. At the Bell glasses and space is tight, there just not being space for each person to use three pages of A4 of table.

The following quotations all come from the review thread.

• Paperwork (tasting-note sheets, and several sets of stickers).

This was the first placemat-free tasting, with glasses being identified with stickers. Feedback welcomed.

Stickers for glasses works really well, except that we need one sheet of stickers person (or per two people) as we were constantly passing the sheets around and trying to find our respective labels - at one point [somebody] put one of his on his forehead so he could find it later!

Problems:

• At the time the PDF is made, it isn’t yet known who will be sitting next to whom.
• One sheet has 65 stickers, so one sheet per person would waste two-thirds to three-quarters of each sheet.

Indeed one sheet per person would be too much waste; but would it be possible to slot the stickers of two or three people on equal sections onto one sheet (each person has ~20 stickers)? They could be after printing cut into the portions of the individual person.

The stickers also worked extremely well; thanks Julian. As Wolfgang suggested, the only improvement would be to have each person’s stickers as a block so they could be cut up and distributed before the tasting starts. Also, for blind tastings it might be nice if the number took up only half the sticker so that we can write the name of the wine in when revealed.

The glass stickers were also rather hackerish to produce, so some improvement to the code is required.

It would be relative easy to add boolean flags that produce one sticker per glass per person, with some number of extra blank people, and that the Names loop be outermost. This would put all of each person’s stickers on the same page, except those who crossed a page boundary. Extra boolean controls could prohibit crossing page boundaries. But this could still be difficult to cut, as roughly illustrated in the following text diagram, in which the people are A, B, C, etc.

Code: Select all

AAAAA  FFFFF
AAAAA  FFGGG
AABBB  GGGGG
BBBBB  GGGGH
BBBBC  HHHHH
CCCCC  HHHHH
CCCCC  HIIII
CDDDD  IIIII
DDDDD  IIIJJ
DDDEE  JJJJJ
EEEEE  JJJJJ
EEEEE  KKKKK
FFFFF  KKKKK

(If boundary-crossing is prohibited pages would look like the left of these, with the last row empty.)

The cutting would have awkward 90° turns. Better suggestions welcomed.

[Deleted_User_1]

My Niepoort 1942 had Woolfgangs' sticker on it but I do not recall this having any adverse effect on the contents of my glass

[jdaw1]

My Niepoort 1942 had Woolfgangs sticker on it but I do not recall this having any adverse effect on the contents of my glass

Would your cool have survived Wolfgang drinking your Ni42? (You’ll be pleased to know that your post made it to Apostrophe crimes.)

Back to the subject. Would it suffice to have a boolean compelling each person’s stickers to start on a new line? That strikes a balance between simplicity of cutting and not wasting too many stickers.

Code: Select all

AAAAA  EEEEE
AAAAA  EE   
AA     FFFFF
BBBBB  FFFFF
BBBBB  FF   
BB     GGGGG
CCCCC  GGGGG
CCCCC  GG   
CC     HHHHH
DDDDD  HHHHH
DDDDD  HH   
DD     IIIII
EEEEE  IIIII

[JacobH]

Back to the subject. Would it suffice to have a boolean compelling each person’s stickers to start on a new line? That strikes a balance between simplicity of cutting and not wasting too many stickers.

Does Postscript have a modulo operand? If so a slight optimisation would be to test to see whether the stickers should be arranged horizontally or vertically by calculating the number of wasted stickers left. For example, consider 4 people (A-D), tasting 5 wines, with a 5 by 4 set of stickers:

Code: Select all

Hoz. Vert.
AAAA ABCD
A... ABCD
BBBB ABCD
B... ABCD
.... ABCD

A further optimisation might be to allow two cuts to be made. That would avoid the problems illustrated in your first example since each of the two cuts could be made in a straight line from the boundary and would improve the fit of (e.g.) an 8-person tasting of 5 wines on a 4 by 10 set of stickers:

Code: Select all

1cut 2cuts
AAAA ACEG
A... ACEG
BBBB ACEG
B... ACEG
CCCC ACEG
C... BDFH
DDDD BDFH
D... BDFH
EEEE BDFH
E... BDFH

I am not sure, however, as to the complexity of solving this packing problem for arbitrary numbers.

[jdaw1]

Does Postscript have a modulo operand?

Yes, mod, though even if it didn’t one could be written as something like /Mod {2 dict begin /n exch def /m exch def {m 0 ge {m n lt {m exit} if /m m n sub def} {/m m n add def} ifelse} loop end} def.

You’re right about it being possible to find tighter fittings, still with complete cuts, but fewer cut or fewer wasted labels. However, my immediate reaction is that the problem of minimising could be a form of Knapsack problem. Also, before veering off to a completely general case, with the parameters actually likely to be used, is this really useful? With the 5×13 labels, and quite a few glasses per person, wastage will not be much worse than lightly sub-optimal. I’m reluctant to rearrange and rewrite code for a more general case that will be encountered rarely, and with little gain to the simple case.

Is that unreasonable?

[JacobH]

You’re right about it being possible to find tighter fittings, still with complete cuts, but fewer cut or fewer wasted labels. However, my immediate reaction is that the problem of minimising could be a form of Knapsack problem. Also, before veering off to a completely general case, with the parameters actually likely to be used, is this really useful? With the 5×13 labels, and quite a few glasses per person, wastage will not be much worse than lightly sub-optimal. I’m reluctant to rearrange and rewrite code for a more general case that will be encountered rarely, and with little gain to the simple case.

I suppose the simplest way of dealing with it is to have one option to choose whether force a line-break after each person's stickers or not, and another to choose whether to arrange the labels horizontally or vertically. That is especially true since the optimisation is perhaps a bit more subtle than I had first thought: the aim is to have the remaining labels in the largest block so they are most likely to be reusable. For example:

Code: Select all

xxx
x..
xxx
x..
xxx
x..
...

is less preferable to:
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
...
...
...

However, if we are looking for a simple solution would a test of: "if the modulo of the number of wines compared to the width of the sheet is less or equal to the modulo of the number of participants compared to the height of the sheet, then the labels should be laid-out horizontally, else lay them out vertically", suffice?

[jdaw1]

I was hoping to avoid the extra coding of allowing either order of laying out. But you’re basically right though the code will directly compute wastage and go from there.

[JacobH]

Not so. The printing is of the PDF, which has been distilled. The calculations for each page have been done. (Average page size: only 4k!)

I understand the theory, but the last time I printed a very large set of placemats, it did take a disproportional amount of time. I think the problem was because of the density of complex vector patterns in the file which are inexpensive in terms of instructions--hence the small file size--but expensive in terms of rendering. I think when the file is unpacked into the printing stream the amount of data exponentially increased to such an extent that it choked the printer (100s of megabytes). Looking around this seems to be a general issue with PDFs (particularly with patterns), although apparently when printed on a printer without postscript support, since those with postscript support can print the vectors in the document natively.