Software that makes placemats

[Alex Bridgeman]

You should delight that, at no effort to yourself, TPF’s finest minds are keeping me in check. Express joy.

This is true. I apologise for my earlier, churlish comment. My thanks and appreciation go to those able to contribute meaningfully to this thread and keep Julian challenged and in check.

I raise a glass of port to the good health of you all. Cheers!

[jdaw1]

In a sheet for displaying corks, what should be the default minimum space required per cork? Three inches across? And how much vertical space? (The algorithm will be efficient about space usage, but the minima are important.)

[jdaw1]

if it's ready in time, i can try next month for the GC-SW-QH tasting. But i appreciate this is non-essential!

Updated draft of the placemats.

• +Cork display sheets, as requested.

The manual has not yet been updated, but will be soon.

I hope that people appreciate that this functionality diminished my cellar by a very fine bottle of T77. The sacrifices one makes.

[jdaw1]

The manual has not yet been updated, but will be soon.

Some minor fixes to the new code, and manual updated. Please use the latest code.

[RAYC]

I hope that people appreciate that this functionality diminished my cellar by a very fine bottle of T77. The sacrifices one makes.

Probably not as much as you appreciated it!

[jdaw1]

I have an algorithm problem.

We need a known number of cork-display rectangles, this being computed using CorkDisplayNumCopies and CorkDisplaySpaceForNumExtras. We need to compute how many rows and columns go on each page, subject to CorkDisplayMinWidth and CorkDisplayMinHeight.

So the code loops over /Portrait and /Landscape, computing available space, and loop over numbers of rows and columns:
• Preferring possibilities that meet the CorkDisplayMinWidth and CorkDisplayMinHeight constraints.
• Within those, preferring those requiring as few pages as possible.
• Within those, preferring those for which each rectangle has maximal area.

It’s not bad, but the area preference is wrong, because it has no bias towards rectangles being of the ratio implied by the minima (tall and thin being unhelpful, for example). So, relabelling the minima as H and W, both positive, I want to maximise over positive h and w a function f[h,w,H,W] satisfying:
• f[h,w,H,W] = f[w,h,W,H];
• ∂f[h,w,H,W]/∂h > 0;
• ∂f[h,w,H,W]/∂w > 0;
• w/W > h/H ⇔ ∂f[h,w,H,W]/∂h > ∂f[h,w,H,W]/∂w, equality implying equality.
What should be f[!]? I’m stumped. Suggestions please.

[RAYC]

I have an algorithm problem.

We need a known number of cork-display rectangles, this being computed using CorkDisplayNumCopies and CorkDisplaySpaceForNumExtras. We need to compute how many rows and columns go on each page, subject to CorkDisplayMinWidth and CorkDisplayMinHeight.

So the code loops over /Portrait and /Landscape, computing available space, and loop over numbers of rows and columns:
• Preferring possibilities that meet the CorkDisplayMinWidth and CorkDisplayMinHeight constraints.
• Within those, preferring those requiring as few pages as possible.
• Within those, preferring those for which each rectangle has maximal area.

It’s not bad, but the area preference is wrong, because it has no bias towards rectangles being of the ratio implied by the minima (tall and thin being unhelpful, for example). So, relabelling the minima as H and W, both positive, I want to maximise over positive h and w a function f[h,w,H,W] satisfying:
• f[h,w,H,W] = f[w,h,W,H];
• ∂f[h,w,H,W]/∂h > 0;
• ∂f[h,w,H,W]/∂w > 0;
• w/W > h/H ⇔ ∂f[h,w,H,W]/∂h > ∂f[h,w,H,W]/∂w, equality implying equality.
What should be f[!]? I’m stumped. Suggestions please.

I suggest the formation of a working group chaired by AHB

[PhilW]

What should be f[!]? I’m stumped. Suggestions please.

Perhaps:
f(h,w)=wh/(ah+bw) for all h>=H,w>=W else 0 (invalid)
where a,b are positive constants essentially defining the ideal ratio; a>b, perhaps a=kb where k>1.0, likely ~2.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I suggest the formation of a working group chaired by AHB

I would be delighted to chair such a group, hereby known as the Taylor '77 Working Group.

[jdaw1]

An opening question for the Taylor 1977 Working Group (‘T77WG’?):

In a sheet for displaying corks, what should be the default minimum space required per cork? Three inches across? And how much vertical space? (The algorithm will be efficient about space usage, but the minima are important.)

We need the help of somebody who is expert in the handling of broken corks.

[Alex Bridgeman]

My suggestion would be to use a minimum length of 3 inches and a minimum width of 2 inches. These dimensions should allow all pieces of a fragmented cork to be reasonably contained in the rectangle.

[jdaw1]

So you prefer a portrait display to landscape? I am surprised.

[jdaw1]

f(h,w)=wh/(ah+bw)

An excellent form. It doesn’t quote solve the problem as asked, but if one is instead differentiating with respect to Ln[h] and Ln[w], so considering proportionate increases, it works well.

f[h,w,H,W] = h w /( W h + H w ), or ”“1 if the denominator is ≤0.

This is increasing in both h and w. It can be rearranged to be a constant times a function of (h/H) and (w/W), and is faster increasing in the smaller of these.

Thank you. To be implemented at the next opportunity.

[Alex Bridgeman]

So you prefer a portrait display to landscape? I am surprised.

I've mentally tried both layouts and while I don't feel very strongly one way or the other, I did find myself naturally holding a sheet of A4 in portrait form as the more natural form. However, i do accept that others may feel more strongly inclined to the landscape format.

[jdaw1]

Think not of the paper, but of the rectangle to hold the cork or cork pieces. That rectangle could be landscape, even on a portrait page (e.g., two columns and four rows). Should the rectangle be portrait or landscape?

[PhilW]

f(h,w)=wh/(ah+bw)

An excellent form. It doesn’t quote solve the problem as asked, but if one is instead differentiating with respect to Ln[h] and Ln[w], so considering proportionate increases, it works well.

f[h,w,H,W] = h w /( W h + H w ), or ”“1 if the denominator is ≤0.

This is increasing in both h and w. It can be rearranged to be a constant times a function of (h/H) and (w/W), and is faster increasing in the smaller of these.

Thank you. To be implemented at the next opportunity.

Minor note
f[h,w,H,W] = h w /( W h + aH w )
where a>0 (or scaled by rearrangement) would allow for the optimum proportion being potentially different from the ratio of the minimum values.

Think not of the paper, but of the rectangle to hold the cork or cork pieces. That rectangle could be landscape, even on a portrait page (e.g., two columns and four rows). Should the rectangle be portrait or landscape?

I'd suggest landscape rectangles for preference, whether page is landscape or portrait.

[jdaw1]

To be implemented at the next opportunity.

Done.

Code: Select all

/CDSizeScore  % http://www.ThePortForum.com/viewtopic.php?t=175&start=205
	CDHeightOneCork CDWidthOneCork mul
	CorkDisplayMinWidth 0 gt  CorkDisplayMinHeight 0 gt  and
	{
		CorkDisplayMinWidth CDHeightOneCork mul  CorkDisplayMinHeight CDWidthOneCork mul  add  dup 0 gt {div} {pop pop -1} ifelse
	} if  % positive minima
def  % /CDSizeScore

[PhilW]

@Julian - ty for making the placemat postscript freely available online; used to great effect last night for non-TPF session.

Also discovered another possible bug, as follows:
- first define all the /Belowtitles as ( ) (i.e. a brackets with two spaces between; defining one member of the array this way and all others as () is also sufficient)
- then set /DecanterLabelsNumCopies to 1
- then convert to pdf (using ps2pdf.com)
- this causes the distiller to crash due to overflow (probably something to do with assessing font size based on only space characters?).

The reason this occurred was that I previously had values in all the /Belowtitles fields, all with start and end spaces, such as "( Magnum )" and simply removed all the words, but not the additional start/end spaces.

You might perfectly validly say "don't set values in the /Belowtitles aarray to a pair brackets with two spaces between"; Alternatively, setting a minimum value for BelowtitleFontSizes or similar might be worthwhile to prevent the crash.

[jdaw1]

You might perfectly validly say "don't set values !"

I would not say any such thing. It should work.

It was a minor problem. In outputting to the log, a number was being cvsed into a string that was one character too small. Fixed.

Thank you for the clear bug report. Please re-test.

[PhilW]

Thank you for the clear bug report. Please re-test.

Fix verified.

[jdaw1]

New version. The code did some checks for errors. Over time this had grown into a disorganised and incomplete part of the code. Now improved.

[jdaw1]

I acknowledge the bug apparent on page 139 (pre-pour, CáF80 aus Portugal) of the draft of the placemats for the 1980 Horizontal in Leverkusen. Page 142 (pre-pour, SW) has a similar problem.

Expect repair within a few weeks.

[jdaw1]

The joy of a post-whisky shower: the problem was a factor of two, and I realised just where. Fixed.

[jdaw1]

After the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, DRT asked that there be extra paper between tasters’ sets. He then suggested that this could be my placename page. So JDAW placename, JDAW glasses, JDAW TNs, then the next person’s same.

My thinking is as follows.

• I could add an extra page, marked with my name, with no other function. The wastage rankles.

• Or it could be the placename, as DRT suggested. But RAYC prints the placenames to card, so having them non-consecutive would complicate his printing.

• Or alternate sets (alternate people, so to speak) could be rotated by 180°. But would that be sufficiently different for the task at hand?

What do others think?

[jdaw1]

For the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, RAYC made several similar versions of the placemats, and then overlapped the printouts to simulate the following A3 arrangement.

Of course this overlapping of multiple copies is unacceptable.

Currently the array parameter PermittedPackingStyles may contain any of (and must contain at least one of) /PseudoHexagonal, /SquareGrid, /RectangularDislocation, /RectangularDislocationV, /TwoRowsOrTwoColumns, /GaiaElegant, /Gaia, or /Irregular or one of its variants. None of these do quite what RAYC required.

The proposal is to allow PermittedPackingStyles to contain an array, at least as long as the number of glasses on the page. That array would contain sub-arrays of locations, [ x y ]. My code would then choose the radius and separately scale the x and y directions such that things fit as snugly as possible, obviously subject to the other upper bounds on the radius. That gives the technical user a lot of control over the rare complicated cases, whilst the usual name parameters still cope with the vast majority of arrangements that could be wanted.

In the particular case of the GC+SW+QH tasting, the element of PermittedPackingStyles could have been [ [0 2] [2 2] [4 2] [6 2] [0 1] [3 1] [6 1] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ]. Observe that this example assumes that positive y points north. This echoes the usual PostScript convention; but conflicts with the usual page arrangements in which glasses with a small WithinPage are at the top.

Thoughts? Comments? Views on which direction positive y should be? Bottle of Taylor 1977?

(This post the last on this page. Please could the first to reply to it quote it, except this line.)

[DRT]

After the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, DRT asked that there be extra paper between tasters’ sets. He then suggested that this could be my placename page. So JDAW placename, JDAW glasses, JDAW TNs, then the next person’s same.

My thinking is as follows.

• I could add an extra page, marked with my name, with no other function. The wastage rankles.

• Or it could be the placename, as DRT suggested. But RAYC prints the placenames to card, so having them non-consecutive would complicate his printing.

• Or alternate sets (alternate people, so to speak) could be rotated by 180°. But would that be sufficiently different for the task at hand?

What do others think?

I think the wastage caused by the first option is no more environmentally wasteful than RAYC's unnecessary use of card and the third option doesn't solve the problem.

I now prefer my first suggestion of having a simple separator between the placemat and tasting note set of each attendee. The placename sheets can then be placed together so that they can be printed on card or not.

[jdaw1]

I think the wastage caused by the first option is no more environmentally wasteful than RAYC's unnecessary use of card

The wastage is additional, not substitutional.

the third option doesn't solve the problem.

Does it lessen the problem?

[RAYC]

After the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, DRT asked that there be extra paper between tasters’ sets. He then suggested that this could be my placename page. So JDAW placename, JDAW glasses, JDAW TNs, then the next person’s same.

My thinking is as follows.

• I could add an extra page, marked with my name, with no other function. The wastage rankles.

• Or it could be the placename, as DRT suggested. But RAYC prints the placenames to card, so having them non-consecutive would complicate his printing.

• Or alternate sets (alternate people, so to speak) could be rotated by 180°. But would that be sufficiently different for the task at hand?

What do others think?

I think the wastage caused by the first option is no more environmentally wasteful than RAYC's unnecessary use of card and the third option doesn't solve the problem.

For what percentage of tastings do we include the placenames? 10%-20%....? Including them in the placemat set for every tasting regardless of need could be argued as wasteful (more so than DRT's argument re: use of card), though i am not going to get too excited about a few sheets of A4 paper once in a while. If people are that concerned about waste, i should start off by acquiring recycled paper to print on. Or using laminated placemats with numbered circles that can be re-used at multiple tastings. Or eating less cheese/meat etc. etc. etc.

But overall i don't think this is a problem that requires changes to the code. Presumably the easy answer is for the printer to simply insert a post-it note or sticky tab in-between each person's set of placemats, rather than try to control this in the printing? It would take but a minute. My printer also has the option to insert a blank sheet of coloured A4 paper in between printed sheets at set intervals, so this is another option where i am printing. If required, the coloured A4 paper could be collected for re-use by whoever is concerned by their wastage!

[jdaw1]

Or eating less cheese/meat

Steady on, old chap. This is meant to be a civilised discussion about a PostScript program.

[DRT]

Or eating less cheese/meat

Steady on, old chap. This is meant to be a civilised discussion about a PostScript program.

Hear, hear!!! {grumble, grumble, grumble, vegetarian eco-warrior nonsense, grumble, grumble...)

What about: CollateAndSeparate /def no {set to yes if required} ?

[jdaw1]

What about: CollateAndSeparate /def no {set to yes if required} ?

Collation is conceptually separate and already done.

The wastage still rankles, and it also gives the appearance of pre-planned wastage. Do we really want, camped outside our tastings, bearded eco-warrior feminist types with organic-linen banners bearing Hutcheson scrawls? Do we really?

The 180° thing is easy, so will be done, even if it is only a small improvement.

[DRT]

The wastage still rankles, and it also gives the appearance of pre-planned wastage. Do we really want, camped outside our tastings, bearded eco-warrior feminist types with organic-linen banners bearing Hutcheson scrawls? Do we really?

No, we don't want that. I am not against feminism as such, but not when combined with beards.

The 180° thing is easy, so will be done, even if it is only a small improvement.

90° would solve the problem entirely.

[jdaw1]

90° would solve the problem entirely.

Are you being helpful?

Edit: let me take the suggestion seriously. Some printers do have an ‘A4R’ tray, for A4 rotated by that so-useful 90°. But some (most?) such printers will output to a different output tray. Further for transport to the venue some (most?) people would need to align all the pages both to shrink the size and to prevent pages moving and ceasing to be flat.

[jdaw1]

The 180° thing is easy, so will be done, even if it is only a small improvement.

Rotate180AlternateNames is done. E.g.:

• Placemats with default settings;
• 15 Dec 2011, The Bell;
• 2 Mar 2012, Horizontal of 1980;
• 25 July 2012, Olympic Years.

Comment welcomed.

[jdaw1]

Done.

[PhilW]

• I could add an extra page, marked with my name, with no other function. The wastage rankles.

• Or it could be the placename, as DRT suggested. But RAYC prints the placenames to card, so having them non-consecutive would complicate his printing.

• Or alternate sets (alternate people, so to speak) could be rotated by 180°. But would that be sufficiently different for the task at hand?

What do others think?

I agree that the "this page left intentionally blank" equivalent is a waste. While considering the requested solution (additional blank page between each set of sheets), perhaps it is worth clarifying the requirement in order to determine the options and best solution; Would I be right in thinking that the requirement/issue here is to clarify the start of each person's set of sheets? If so, a simple marker in one corner which only appears on the first of each set of sheets might address this without using additional sheets, for example (another option could be to use double-sided printing and have alternate people sheets on opposite sides, though that would only work for double-sided capable printers).

For the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, RAYC made several similar versions of the placemats, and then overlapped the printouts to simulate the following A3 arrangement.

Of course this overlapping of multiple copies is unacceptable.

Currently the array parameter PermittedPackingStyles may contain any of (and must contain at least one of) /PseudoHexagonal, /SquareGrid, /RectangularDislocation, /RectangularDislocationV, /TwoRowsOrTwoColumns, /GaiaElegant, /Gaia, or /Irregular or one of its variants. None of these do quite what RAYC required.

The proposal is to allow PermittedPackingStyles to contain an array, at least as long as the number of glasses on the page. That array would contain sub-arrays of locations, [ x y ]. My code would then choose the radius and separately scale the x and y directions such that things fit as snugly as possible, obviously subject to the other upper bounds on the radius. That gives the technical user a lot of control over the rare complicated cases, whilst the usual name parameters still cope with the vast majority of arrangements that could be wanted.

In the particular case of the GC+SW+QH tasting, the element of PermittedPackingStyles could have been [ [0 2] [2 2] [4 2] [6 2] [0 1] [3 1] [6 1] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ]. Observe that this example assumes that positive y points north. This echoes the usual PostScript convention; but conflicts with the usual page arrangements in which glasses with a small WithinPage are at the top.

Thoughts? Comments?

I'd suggest that the [x y] scales should be of the same proportion (which they are either not, above, or you have additional column gaps which I don't believe you don't intend if they are). So for the example you are creating, with proportionate scales the elements would be [ [0 4] [2 4] [4 4] [6 4] [0 2] [3 2] [6 2] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ].

Views on which direction positive y should be?

As you have it in the example.

Bottle of Taylor 1977?

Yes please, shall we order some steak too?

[RAYC]

Or eating less cheese/meat

Steady on, old chap. This is meant to be a civilised discussion about a PostScript program.

Hear, hear!!! {grumble, grumble, grumble, vegetarian eco-warrior nonsense, grumble, grumble...)

I think you have both misunderstood the point i was making!

Anyway, i will re-pose my initial question: would sticky-tabs/post-it notes that are inserted after printing not be an easier way of separating tasting sets at the tasting set-up?

[RAYC]

(another option could be to use double-sided printing and have alternate people sheets on opposite sides, though that would only work for double-sided capable printers).

To elaborate on this suggestion, which i think is a good one (by comparison to 180 degree rotation):

Imagine a tasting of 12 ports and jdaw1, DRT and PhilW in attendance. The tasting set might come off the printer in the following order:

jdaw1 placemat1
jdaw1 placemat2
jdaw1 tastingnote1
jdaw1 tastingnote2
DRT placemat1
DRT placemat2
DRT tastingnote1
DRT tastingnote2
PhilW placemat1
PhilW placemat2
PhilW tastingnote1
PhilW tastingnote2

If, instead, blank sheets were inserted in the following configuration, printing the placemats double-sided would result in alternate-facing tasting sets:

jdaw1 placemat1
blank
jdaw1 placemat2
blank
jdaw1 tastingnote1
blank
jdaw1 tastingnote2
blank
blank
DRT placemat1
blank
DRT placemat2
blank
DRT tastingnote1
blank
DRT tastingnote2
PhilW placemat1
blank
PhilW placemat2
blank
PhilW tastingnote1
blank
PhilW tastingnote2

[PhilW]

Should I mention my suggestion that the cork display sheet should include origami folding lines to allow the base sheet to be manipulated into a number of rectangular areas with dividers, to prevent the corks from being able to roll out of their areas...? (and I thought the "cork display sheet", while fastidiously and fabulously implemented [of course!], was itself a tongue in cheek suggestion...)

[PhilW]

Imagine a tasting of 12 ports and jdaw1, DRT and PhilW in attendance.

.... followed by imagining the three of us in A&E I think!

[DRT]

I would like to challenge the notion that inserting a named sheet between each person's placemat set is wasteful.

The full set for a large tasting now comprises many different elements. Each of those elements has a particular temporary purpose:

>> placemat sheets are useful for the duration of setting up and executing the tasting
>> tasting note sheets are useful while tasting and (unless lost) up to the point where the TNs are typed
>> decanting sheets are each useful during decanting of a single bottle
>> pouring sheets are useful during the pouring of each bottle
>> decanter label sheets are rarely used
>> place name sheets are useful until everyone sit down
>> cork sheets are useful up until the point when people start stealing corks
>> placemat separator sheets would be useful whilst setting up the table

I agree that all of the above have varying degrees and durations of usefulness, but all of them eventually become redundant. Some are redundant in a few minutes, some in a few hours, but all are helpful during the period they are used.

Imagine a tasting of 12 ports and jdaw1, DRT and PhilW in attendance.

.... followed by imagining the three of us in A&E I think!

Agreed. We might die of thirst unless there are 15 bottles.

[jdaw1]

In practice the duplex idea is unlikely to be robust. Students of the code will recall

Code: Select all

		<< /ImagingBBox null  /Duplex false  /PageSize [PageWidth OuterMarginL OuterMarginR add add  PageHeight OuterMarginB OuterMarginT add add]  >> setpagedevice

yet printers seem quite willing to ignore the /Duplex false.

Derek’s list of sheets is somewhat unfair. Not all of these are always useful. But those known to be redundant aren’t generated. There is at least the intention that all produced sheets are useful. And even if the wastage of 13 sheets of paper is small relative to the general consumption, how well would it fix the problem?

Indeed, please state exactly what the problem is.

Edit: I would be willing to try the Jog and OutputFaceUp flags, described on page 418 of the PostScript Language Reference Manual 3.

[jdaw1]

I'd suggest that the [x y] scales should be of the same proportion (which they are either not, above, or you have additional column gaps which I don't believe you don't intend if they are). So for the example you are creating, with proportionate scales the elements would be [ [0 4] [2 4] [4 4] [6 4] [0 2] [3 2] [6 2] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ].

In most other layout designs I have adopted the general principle of using the whole page. For example, in the placemats for the Star Quality tasting, observe the small gap between the columns the constraint on circle size was y not x. If this code scaled the two directions the same, then typically there would two large gaps, either left and right, or top and bottom.

Or have I misunderstood what you are advocating?

[RAYC]

Indeed, please state exactly what the problem is.

The process of separating the tasting mats/note sheets at the last tasting set-up was felt to be rather too slow and an easier/quicker way was sought.

I'm not sure i saw it as a problem, or at least i'm not sure i saw it as a problem that should be solved through the code rather than sticky tabs.

[jdaw1]

That code fragment has been updated to

Code: Select all

		<<
			/OutputFaceUp DefaultOutputFaceUp 4 index {not} if  /Duplex false
			/ImagingBBox null  /PageSize [PageWidth OuterMarginL OuterMarginR add add  PageHeight OuterMarginB OuterMarginT add add]
		>> setpagedevice

this starting with two things on the stack, the lower of which is the rotation boolean.

[DRT]

Indeed, please state exactly what the problem is.

The process of separating the tasting mats/note sheets at the last tasting set-up was felt to be rather too slow and an easier/quicker way was sought.

I'm not sure i saw it as a problem, or at least i'm not sure i saw it as a problem that should be solved through the code rather than sticky tabs.

We have all missed the obvious solution. The problem, however small, was caused by the fact that the last sheet of one person's placemat is not obviously different to the first sheet of the next set when flicking through the pile of sheets. Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

[jdaw1]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

[DRT]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

Perhaps that is why I perceived the set provided for this tasting to be a problem.

[jdaw1]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

Perhaps that is why I perceived the set provided for this tasting to be a problem.

That would be these placemats, exhibiting exactly the same default behaviour, would it? Unless Rob’s faffing caused the problem.

[DRT]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

Perhaps that is why I perceived the set provided for this tasting to be a problem.

That would be these placemats, exhibiting exactly the same default behaviour, would it? Unless Rob’s faffing caused the problem.

User error.