Software that makes placemats

[Roy Hersh]

Daniel,

I do an occasional tasting of Port and/or Madeira and my format never changes. As I am a techno-failure, Glenn typically helps me to organize and print out the placemats using the brilliant software that has been designed and upgraded by Julian.

I prefer and always do, have the line of wine at the front of the tasting sheet, go from left to right and that L-R theme continues back in each row. I never vary this, even when doing less formal tastings on my own. and all judgings I take part in, lineup their flights in this manner as well.

I hope that helps!


Best regards,

Roy

[jdaw1]

I prefer and always do, have the line of wine at the front of the tasting sheet, go from left to right and that L-R theme continues back in each row. I never vary this, even when doing less formal tastings on my own. and all judgings I take part in, lineup their flights in this manner as well.

Roy: please help persuade others by saying why you prefer this.

[Glenn E.]

I prefer for my placemats to go from front left to back right in row major order, but for my TN sheets (at least in theory) to go top to bottom.

Reasoning:

1. As for AHB, writing top to bottom seems obvious. Otherwise one could smudge previously written notes.

2. As I progress through a tasting, I tend to get... tipsy. Or worse. It is best if, as the evening progresses, I do not have to reach over full glasses in order to pick up the next glass to drink. Catastrophes can happen. Best that they not involve full glasses of Port.

3. When pouring prior to starting the tasting, we generally pour youngest to oldest but reverse that for drinking (oldest to youngest). It therefore makes sense to fill the placemat from the back while it is empty and there are no glasses in the way. Then #2 kicks in for the tasting of the Port.

Note that our placemats tend to be more crowded than yours. I will put 20 glasses on USL2 (11" x 17") or 10 glasses on USL (8.5" x 11") in order to leave as much room as possible on the table for other things.

[djewesbury]

I was with you until this bit:

When pouring prior to starting the tasting, we generally pour youngest to oldest but reverse that for drinking (oldest to youngest). It therefore makes sense to fill the placemat from the back while it is empty and there are no glasses in the way. Then #2 kicks in for the tasting of the Port..

You drink oldest to youngest? You drink the most mature and more delicate stuff first? I must admit to always having done it the other way around – saving the best to last… but now you've put the idea into my head I can see that tasting a delicate, ethereal, fully mature wine after some blousy tannic blockbuster may make little sense.

Does this sensational revelation from Glenn change anyone's already stated opinion?

[Glenn E.]

You drink oldest to youngest? You drink the most mature and more delicate stuff first?

Yes, of course.

It isn't as true now as it once was, but think back to 2005. The monsters that were the 2003s have just been released. You're about to do a vertical of Noval. Do you really want to ruin your palate - and everyone else's - by tasting the 2003 Noval first?

Always drink VP oldest to youngest. Enjoy the delicate nuances of the old wines first, then let the gradually increasing power of the younger wines slowly take precedence.

Also - drink the fabulous old wines first before you are drunk and can't tell the difference.

[jdaw1]

You drink oldest to youngest? You drink the most mature and more delicate stuff first?

Yes, of course.

Certainly I taste the oldest first. Sometimes, and less often than I should, I save a little of the oldest to drink late evening. But the tasting starts with the oldest.

Though “oldest” can mean oldest-looking, at which AHB hinted.

on many occasions I will pick glasses out based on something other than the order in which they are placed on the sheet - apparent evolutionary age, for example.

[jdaw1]

By way of example, assume there are twelve ports: Oldest, 2, 3, …, 10, 11, Youngest. If arranged in a rectangle, there are eight obvious ways to order these.

1. Favoured by JDAW (most occasions), DRT, AHB, PhilW. And, after the re-think below, Flash.


2. Favoured by Roy Hersh, Glenn E., and perhaps Daniel J.


3. Favoured by JDAW for a big vertical, because it is easier to set out the glasses (the reaching is slightly-around rather than over). MiD by PhilW.


Not liked.

[djewesbury]

This is a very instructive and useful thread. I am reconsidering and will update to Glenn's / Roy's pattern.

Perhaps a parameter should be added, a little like /Lefthanders (could be called /Americans ?) that allows different users to have their mat arranged as they prefer it?

[jdaw1]

Perhaps a parameter should be added, a little like /Lefthanders (could be called /Americans ?) that allows different users to have their mat arranged as they prefer it?

Currently everybody has the same layout. Changing that to be by-person would have lots of awkward consequences. It would be a lot of unsatisfactory work.

That’s a refusal.

[djewesbury]

*sigh*

[flash_uk]

This analysis has me reconsidering. My preference is to start at the top of tasting notes, and drink oldest first. I think the primary factor for the layout is to minimise the potential for knocking things over which is more likely at the end of 12 glasses than at the start, and considering it is more likely (I think) that things nearest to the front of the placemat are knocked over, it seems that it might be a better idea to go for option 1 above. The choice between option 1 and option 2 being (assuming I like tasting old first):
1: knock over a probably fuller glass of something younger
2: knock over a slightly less full glass of something older

However, option 1 is preferred, because after 8 glasses, I am on the "front" row and therefore not lifting/placing glasses over the top of others for glasses 9-12. With option 2 after 8 glasses, I am heading for the "back" row. Uh Oh. If it's a horizontal, then I would still prefer the order of option 1 even though there is no older/younger, for the "front row after 8 glasses" benefit already described.

This may be what someone else has already concluded and explained above, but I'm only just getting it!

[flash_uk]

Currently everybody has the same layout. Changing that to be by-person would have lots of awkward consequences. It would be a lot of unsatisfactory work.

That’s a refusal.

Having recently looked at the software to attempt my first placemat, I can fully understand why adapting it to have by-person layouts would add an almighty amount of complexity!

[djewesbury]

He's done much more complex things. I don't know, you offer a constructive suggestion…

[Roy Hersh]

Having consumed wines during judging competitions and at trade and personal events for more than 3 decades now; old habits die hard.

Glenn has learned well, in a fairly short period of years

With VP and in any vertical of wines, I've always preferred oldest to youngest for numerous reasons.

[jdaw1]

Currently everybody has the same layout. Changing that to be by-person would have lots of awkward consequences. It would be a lot of unsatisfactory work.

He's done much more complex things. I don't know, you offer a constructive suggestion…

An example difficulty, using an example glasses page on which /CrossHatchingTitles true def.


There is also a pre-pour sheet (shown smaller).


Daniel wants a re-ordered version of this glasses page. If that is done by moving circles and not changing the cross-hatching, it would look weirdly disjointed. No. If it is done with changing the cross-hatching, circles on the American glasses page wouldn’t match the pre-pour page. No.

Plus, the parameter controlling this would be very cryptic (and there really are enough of those already). Plus plus, it would be a lot of unsatisfactory work.

No.

[jdaw1]

Having consumed wines during judging competitions and at trade and personal events for more than 3 decades now; old habits die hard.

So Roy’s preference, adopted by his near-neighbour Glenn, is attributed to habit. For the youngsters amongst us (looks around — everybody just pretend) who are still choosing what habits to adopt, that reasoning seems insufficient.

[djewesbury]

I have updated the placemats, but since this is a small tasting I have clung to my 'American' glass-order. I put this forward as an experiment and will report the company's feelings towards it.

[Glenn E.]

Having consumed wines during judging competitions and at trade and personal events for more than 3 decades now; old habits die hard.

So Roy’s preference, adopted by his near-neighbour Glenn, is attributed to habit.

This doesn't seem possible. As he has already admitted, Roy isn't a techno-whiz. For me to have adopted his habit, I would have had to have seen and/or used placemats that he created. I don't believe that such a unicorn exists.

It is more likely that I learned my habit from someone other than Roy, but the list of possibilities is rather short. It could have been G-man or SushiNorth, but since we meet only once per year and I've been the instigator of those meetings, that doesn't seem likely. (It is noteworthy, however, that both G-man and SushiNorth use the same arrangement that Roy and I use.)

That leaves only... jdaw1. But the first placemats that I ever used were these, and as you can see they use jdaw1's current preference. Which makes sense because he made them.

Which means that I developed my habit organically on my own, as I was introduced to placemats via jdaw1's preference and could not have been indoctrinated by observing placemats produced by Roy. It remains possible that I was indoctrinated by G-man or SushiNorth, but I find that difficult to believe based on timing.

[djewesbury]

So who's indoctrinated me??

[DRT]

So who's indoctrinated me??

Whoever had most influence on your life until the age of seven.

[djewesbury]

My mum? I'm pretty certain she'd have gone for the nearest glass too.

[jdaw1]

Which means that I developed my habit organically on my own, as I was introduced to placemats via jdaw1's preference and could not have been indoctrinated by observing placemats produced by Roy. It remains possible that I was indoctrinated by G-man or SushiNorth, but I find that difficult to believe based on timing.

The first version of the /BottomToTop feature was added to the code on 19^th October 2008, shortly after making for RAH the placemats used on 18^th October 2008. (And my oh my, that was a tip-top event.) Also, I vaguely recall a conversation with Roy at this time about this desideratum. So RAH was the cause of that piece of functionality.

Which might or might not help ascertain the origin of GEE’s preference.

[Roy Hersh]

I was not intimating that Glenn learned from me, just that he's picked this stuff up in a rather short period of years, overall.

As to reasons, since it seems that Julian is all about learning the "why" ... here are three of many good reason to explain my point above.

a. the winemaker/journalist group that initially brought me into and taught me proper dynamics of wine judging, always instilled in me to drink wines from oldest to youngest. So this would fall under, "learned behavior."
b. Old wines have more subtleties and therefore should be experienced early in a given tasting, because these nuances are best experienced when the palate is at its freshest during a tasting with more than a couple of wines in it. Try having a 2003 side-by-side with a 1945 or older Vintage Port. Try the oldest first and then the younger one second. Now reverse this order during a 2nd pass. Which do you find allows you to best discern the organoleptic qualities of the pairing? For me, there's no question which direction works best. Tried and true for my palate. YMMV.
c. Younger wines have bolder flavors and by far, more prominent tannins and if they precede old wines in a vertical, or just random tasting, their characteristics will often overshadow the refined distinctivenss of well-aged wines/Ports.

Just a few examples of why going from oldest to youngest makes more sense to me.

[jdaw1]

Just a few examples of why going from oldest to youngest makes more sense to me.

Completely agree; not controversial.

But why from bottom of page to top? One could put the oldest at the top, or at the bottom. My default is to put oldest at top, and start there. Why do you want the oldest at the bottom of the page?

[Roy Hersh]

Because I don't view a piece of paper lying on a table with circles on it as having a "top and bottom" as you do. For me, the top is where the glasses are placed, the bottom faces down to the table cloth.

For me, I call what you consider the bottom of the page, "the front" and what you consider the top of the page, "the back". Semantics of course, but you are the expert there Mr. Wiseman. I like to have my older wines in the front and not the back. That being said, I typically will pour the back row first as it can stand up to more air time. By the time the front row is poured from a decanter or if really old, the bottle itself, it is typically ready to drink.

[jdaw1]

So there are two schools of thought about how to arrange glasses on the page: either prioritise set-up, with youngest wines furthest away; or prioritise drinking, with oldest wines furthest away. Neither preference is unreasonable.

[Glenn E.]

Which means that I developed my habit organically on my own, as I was introduced to placemats via jdaw1's preference and could not have been indoctrinated by observing placemats produced by Roy. It remains possible that I was indoctrinated by G-man or SushiNorth, but I find that difficult to believe based on timing.

The first version of the /BottomToTop feature was added to the code on 19^th October 2008, shortly after making for RAH the placemats used on 18^th October 2008. (And my oh my, that was a tip-top event.) Also, I vaguely recall a conversation with Roy at this time about this desideratum. So RAH was the cause of that piece of functionality.

Which might or might not help ascertain the origin of GEE’s preference.

Interesting. I was not aware of that feature of the software back then - when I made placemats in the style that I prefer, I would manually order the Ports in the circle arrays so that they would show up as I wanted them on the placemat. It took trial and error to do, because I didn't yet understand the software and so often couldn't figure out ahead of time how many rows of glasses there would be, or which rows would be the longer ones if there were varying row lengths.

It wasn't until last year at about this time that I knew of the row ordering feature. (Relevant discussion starts on page 20 of this thread. Roughly post 490. I don't actually chime in on the subject until page 21, post 517.)

[djewesbury]

Neither preference is unreasonable.

I didn't expect to find woolly, relativistic liberalism on the Port Forum!

[Glenn E.]

So there are two schools of thought about how to arrange glasses on the page: either prioritise set-up, with youngest wines furthest away; or prioritise drinking, with oldest wines furthest away. Neither preference is unreasonable.

Or you can prioritize both at once if you prefer to drink the oldest wines first from the front of the placemat.

Luckily the software allows for all combinations. Except for Daniel's desire for each taster at a tasting to have their own custom ordering.

[PhilW]

Luckily the software allows for all combinations. Except for Daniel's desire for each taster at a tasting to have their own custom ordering.

Thank goodness - you can imagine how well that might work out during the pre-pouring.

[djewesbury]

Luckily the software allows for all combinations. Except for Daniel's desire for each taster at a tasting to have their own custom ordering.

Thank goodness - you can imagine how well that might work out during the pre-pouring.

That all depends on how many pre-pre-pouring quality control samples the pre-pourers have had.

[jdaw1]

Or you can prioritize both at once if you prefer to drink the oldest wines first from the front of the placemat.

I meant in the sense that AHB elaborated.

But when I follow the order in which the glasses are placed, I prefer to work from the top left to top right and then down the page. I find this tends to minimise my chances of spilling, knocking over or trying to return glasses to spaces which are occupied. I am at my most sober when trying to get glasses from furthest away and at my least sober when dealing with the glasses that are closest to me.

[jdaw1]

Relevant discussion starts on page 20 of this thread. Roughly post 490.

In setting up the recent Taylor vertical, AHB was pouring and DRT and I were distributing. Naturally enough, the young vintages were pre-poured first, and soon enough the front rows were filled with glasses. Then the older glasses had to be lifted awkwardly behind the already-full first row. It was fiddly.

This problem could be solved by reversing the order of rows of on the sheet. AHB remarked that having the older vintages nearer would help his smelling of them.

There is already a parameter, very rarely changed, PackingDirectionVertical, which can take values /TopToBottom or /BottomToTop. So the change isn’t tricky.

However, doing this by default would rather conflict with my sense of natural order. Vintage lists start old, and have the new at the end, allowing the list to be extended with the passage of time. My sense of old-to-new / top-to-bottom natural order is quite strong is that just me?

Though the parametrisation has changed, my preference hasn’t.

[Glenn E.]

Though the parametrisation has changed, my preference hasn’t.

I didn't mean to imply that it had. I mentioned that post as reference to when I first learned about this capability within the software. Prior to seeing that post, I manually arranged the bottles within the circle arrays, etc, so that they would display in the order I desired.

[flash_uk]

Great fun at the 60 vs 63 tasting, and a at the time I thought there were a few learnings for the software. On reflection, maybe it is just a case of creating a few more scoring sheets. The format was tasting of 60 and 63 vintages side by side from various shippers. The only known was that pairs were from the same shipper. We scored and guessed a number of things:

• pairs compared, with 6 points distributed between the two, 6.0 5.1 4.2 or whatever;
• guess the year, where the first of each pair was guessed as either 60 or 63;
• guess the shipper;
• WOTN with 6 points available to be distributed at will.

We faffed about a little to begin with, being unsure what to guess when, and what to reveal when. We settled on scoring each pair as we went, then at the end we declared our guesses on year and shipper, and scores for WTON. Once the shipper and year was revealed for all the bottles, the pair scores were summed by year to give a view on which year was preferred.

Tom and Rob can comment better, but I suspect that one additional scoring sheet would have been useful.

[jdaw1]

All of that can be done by the software, but only if I think of doing it or somebody else asks. Be that somebody!

[jdaw1]

- The sheet worked well, and totalling points was not an arduous task. I had slight difficulty when drunk with recording votes in the correct columns...though this is not a criticism of the sheet itself!

It wasn’t meant that way, but it is a criticism. A good user interface, which applies as much to paper as to electronic media, can be used by a drunk. Please ponder how it could be bettered. For instance, would it have helped if every fourth vertical line were thicker? Would it be worth repeating the names at the bottom of the page?

I was reminded of this by my mistake on Tuesday (picture showing THRA’s vote in EDN’s column, then scribbled out), and it has now been fixed: if there are ≥6 names then every third vertical line is thicker. An example can be seen in the draft placemats for the 2011 horizontal on Sunday 23^rd April 2051:


(RAYC’s original comment was about the tasting of Port from the Nineteen Nineties held on Monday 8^th August 2011.)

[jdaw1]

DB78 — though on the placemats, erroneously, as “D78” …

The placemat error has resulted in a new feature to the code, GlassesAnnotations.

[jdaw1]

Wednesday 14^th May 2014, requested at short notice by Oscar Quevedo (placemats).

…

• The longest name was so long that a problem was revealed, though rather too late to be resolved here. Detail of page 97:

To be fixed, at least eventually. Pro tem, use names shorter than this.

Edit: even though fixed too late for these placemats, it has been fixed (software version ≥ 22:00 Wednesday 14th May 2014): Names that would be too big are now automatically resized.

[jdaw1]

FlightSeparationLines is fiddly, and if one wine is added or taken away, will need to be completely reworked. Hence it is recommended that division into flights be saved until late in the planning.

In illustration of which, behold. We start with the planning for the 1997 Horizontal on Monday 16^th June 2014, as of the morning of Friday 23^rd May.


Then an extra circle was added, necessitating a substantial re-arrangement. Changing what needed to be changed except FlightSeparationLines made a mess.

Ick!

This was then fixed.


Subsequently there were further changes.

[jdaw1]

A minor note, the names at the bottom of each of the glasses pages seem to be being impinged on slightly by something; see the B in AHB for example, or the top of IDJ; as if some white space is *just* over-drawing the top of the name.

Strange. There is no white painted near there, neither in front nor behind. Nor is that text subject to an aggressive clipping box (my clipping boxes always have a little slack in them, and this is clipped to the whole page).

And I don’t see the problem.

Viewed in Preview 7.0, zoomed to 8×; screen dumped.


Opened in GraphicConverter 9.2.1 at a resolution of 768; detail saved.

[jdaw1]

‟Pretentious? Qui, moi?” was not a criticism. But, for my taste, ‟/Lintel” is currently winning. Maybe it should be /PostsAndLintel, but brevity is desired.

Alternative: /Goalposts

The variant /Architrave, or /PostsAndArchitrave, has been suggested. I think it not worth the bother of the change.

[jdaw1]

Flash has requested some extra functionality, that I propose to implement as flags for the /SquareGrid variant in PermittedPackingStyles.

The proposal is to add two optional flags to /SquareGrid:
• /VerticalAlignment, with value being one of /Top, /Bottom /Middle (the default) and /Justify.
• /HorizontalAlignment, with value being one of /Left, /Right, /Centre, and /Justify (but which should be the default?).

Does anybody else care?

Edited to fix error.

[djewesbury]

Yes. Do it. 10,000 people behind me on the Brandenburg Gate waving Germany shirts agree (I've made this bit up, I'm not there and they're not either. It's just scene-setting.)

[flash_uk]

The proposal is to add two optional flags to /SquareGrid:
• /VerticalAlignment, with value being one of /Top, /Bottom /Middle (the default) and /Justify.
• /HorizontalAlignment, with value being one of /Left, /Right, /Centre, and /Justify (but which should be the default?).

Thx for making this enhancement. I'd make Middle and Centre the default as that will look OK in general, and anything different can then be specified.

[jdaw1]

Code and manual updated. The following example includes the last line of the explanatory comments.

Code: Select all

% /SquareGrid only, /HorizontalAlignment is followed by one of /Left /Right /Centre /Justify; and /VerticalAlignment by one of /Top /Bottom /Middle /Justify.
/PermittedPackingStyles [
	[ /SquareGrid  /HorizontalAlignment /Justify  /VerticalAlignment /Top ]
] def  % /PermittedPackingStyles

[jdaw1]

I’m considering adding two more parameters:
• CopyrightOfPlacematsText
• CopyrightOfPlacematsLink
with default values
• (This work by Julian D. A. Wiseman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Licence.)
• (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- ... deed.en_GB) (here clickable)

Are there any objections, particularly to the choice of default values? (And if anybody knows how to use pdfmark to add a machine-readable CC licence to a PDF, please reveal. [Edit: question asked])

FYI, the default licence embedded in the placemat software has been changed, from Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported to Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. That’s a version update, 3.0→4.0, and also removal of the ‘NonCommercial’. If you passionately object, say so, giving reasons.

[jdaw1]

Do any programmers know whether there would be sufficient advantages in moving my code to SourceForge.net? My prior is ‘no’, but I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.

[PhilW]

Do any programmers know whether there would be sufficient advantages in moving my code to SourceForge.net? My prior is ‘no’, but I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I can't see a significant advantage. The primary benefits of using Sourceforge are to be able to share your code in an online public repository, facilitating multi-user development and version control. Given that your code is a single file, you already have a web server where you make the file public, and you probably want to maintain control of changes, this would seem to offer minimal benefit at this time.

[Glenn E.]

Do any programmers know whether there would be sufficient advantages in moving my code to SourceForge.net? My prior is ‘no’, but I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I can't see a significant advantage. The primary benefits of using Sourceforge are to be able to share your code in an online public repository, facilitating multi-user development and version control. Given that your code is a single file, you already have a web server where you make the file public, and you probably want to maintain control of changes, this would seem to offer minimal benefit at this time.

+1