ThePortForum.com

winesecretary wrote: ↑20:55 Tue 07 Sep 2021 No comments on the software but, without one of the hand raised pork pies from Leeson's of Oakham, the pork pie tasting was simply incomplete.

No comments on the software, but I did three summers and two Christmas holidays working in a pork pie factory if anyone would like to discuss.

I am fairly sure we don't want to know...

winesecretary wrote: ↑20:55 Tue 07 Sep 2021No comments on the software but, without one of the hand raised pork pies from Leeson's of Oakham, the pork pie tasting was simply incomplete.

Reprimand accepted. When the weather is cooler a Leeson Hand Raised Melton Mowbray Pork Pie will be ordered.

At a recent tasting the TN sheets looked terrible. Various possibilities need to be tested on multiple printers, as requested in issue 155. If you are willing to use your printer, please read and heed.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:51 Tue 07 Sep 2021

winesecretary wrote: ↑20:55 Tue 07 Sep 2021No comments on the software but, without one of the hand raised pork pies from Leeson's of Oakham, the pork pie tasting was simply incomplete.

Reprimand accepted. When the weather is cooler a Leeson Hand Raised Melton Mowbray Pork Pie will be ordered.

Excellent indeed.

I have started drafting a page containing links to other placemats: other software, other instances of placemats. The page is not yet live — this post has the only link to it.

Please let me know of other content that could be added to that draft.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑15:08 Sat 10 Dec 2022Please critique or approve.

Tentative approval. A suggestion; when folded, I would expect we will fold at mid of long side first, then the other, such that the created A6-book has the fold at spine, not bottom. Having done this, with the current arrangement we would have 1,2,3 on left, and 5,6,7 on right; 1,2,3 on left and 4,5,6 on right would be preferred.
In other words, on the A4, could we fill in four quarter order, rather than two column? i.e. four quarters with N per quarter filled in order of
1st q, 2nd q
3rd q, 4th q

i.e. for N=3
1 4
2 5
3 6

7 10
8 11
9 12

I wanted to fold vertically first, for which parameter TastingNotes_NumVerticalSections needed. Then people can fold horizontally as many or as few times as are need for table space. So, for the 2022 Peculiar Shipper tasting, could fold once horizontally (A6), or thrice (≈ A7).

Please explain the flaws in this intention.

No flaw in your intention, just a difference of preference. Mine is for A6 book (=A5 open as two-page with centre vertical fold, or A6 folded). Yours provides capability for sub-A6, but at the cost of less optimal A6 book.

For the current version of the paperwork of the 2022 Peculiar Shipper tasting, my ordering on the first page is:

1 5
2 6
3 7
4 8

What ordering do you prefer?

jdaw1 wrote:What ordering do you prefer?

1 3
2 4
5 7
6 8

I'm considering it as A6 book, and then parameter tastingNotesPerA6Page, in this case =2. Previous example was =3.

Ouch! How does that generalise?

Generalisation would be easy if you had said:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8

with which I’d be totally happy.

Generalisation must be over arbitrary numbers of columns and of rows.

Generalised form:
Page is divided into CxR "cells" with T tasting notes per cell. i.e.
C = Number of columns per sheet
R = Number of rows per sheet (n.b. rows of cells, not tasting note rows)
T = Number of tasting notes per cell

For 8 tasting notes per page, your preference is 2,1,4; mine is 2,2,2
For 12 tasting notes per page, your preference is 2,1,6; mine is 2,2,3
For 16 tasting notes per page, your preference might be 2,1,8; mine is 2,2,4

Essentially I'm doing a matrix of sub-pages within the page, if you prefer to think of it that way. You're define two tall sub-pages, I'm defining four A6 ones.

So you want a three-level hierarchy of directions (down then across then down), by dividing into pairs of rows. I think a two-level hierarchy would be more intuitive for most users.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑18:45 Mon 12 Dec 2022 So you want a three-level hierarchy of directions (down then across then down), by dividing into pairs of rows. I think a two-level hierarchy would be more intuitive for most users.

I think most people would understand "four A6 pages on an A4 sheet" which is all I was looking for; you're right they might less well understand the generic form of CxR pages per sheet, perhaps, especially in non-standard forms. I did avoid asking for the bottom two pages to be 180 rotated so they would be the right way up after folding

Why not just rely on the printer's ability to print in booklet format? Even my very basic inkjet printer can print in A5 booklet format if I am prepared to feed pages back into it.

Alex Bridgeman wrote: ↑12:05 Wed 14 Dec 2022Why not just rely on the printer's ability to print in booklet format? Even my very basic inkjet printer can print in A5 booklet format if I am prepared to feed pages back into it.

I will.

The paper is A4, folded in half. So each apparent page is A5. Should the PDF have A4, or A5? Pls look at manual.

Can your printers work with this test?

jdaw1 wrote: ↑19:56 Tue 20 Dec 2022 Can your printers work with this test?

Will try when back in the office - probably 5th Jan.

In a post by George, jdaw1 wrote: ↑13:14 Mon 25 Nov 2024Current draft of the placemats.

flash_uk wrote: ↑23:10 Tue 04 Feb 2025

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:56 Tue 04 Feb 2025Current draft of the placemats has been updated to reflect latest knowledge.

Splendid placemats - thanks you!

winesecretary wrote: ↑08:29 Wed 05 Feb 2025That is indeed a magnificent set of place mats. Thank you Julian.

mcoulson wrote: ↑18:11 Wed 05 Feb 2025placemats look fab

Placemats are rarely noticed, so it is interesting that this set seems to have attracted favourable attention. It would help to know what people like. Please, what?

20 ports

But also, there is a sparseness to them that is very pleasing. A bit like the sonnet form, there is a compression from the strict requirements of getting 20 in that strips them to the essentials.

Possibly also the 00 / 2000 backdrop. Just feels right.

It's very clear for some reason ... Makes it easy to see what is where .... Of course 20 ports in a sitting is always going to be a winner but that makes the general visibility even more important

winesecretary wrote: ↑20:55 Wed 05 Feb 2025sparseness

Choose whether you prefer that InlineTitlesMaxNumberContours be 1 or 2, perhaps with comment and explanation:

1 ... It's just clearer ....

2… I can see it …

Personally, I think that I prefer 1 but that it could be improved by making the line thicker.

2 is starting to become... busy? I like that it provides more weight to the "SW" but the fact that it is 2 lines instead of a single, thicker line makes it too busy for my eye.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:33 Wed 05 Feb 2025 Personally, I think that I prefer 1 but that it could be improved by making the line thicker.

Good call ...

jdaw1 wrote: ↑21:29 Wed 05 Feb 2025

winesecretary wrote: ↑20:55 Wed 05 Feb 2025sparseness

Choose whether you prefer that InlineTitlesMaxNumberContours be 1 or 2, perhaps with comment and explanation:

I think 2 is much more elegant, but 1 is slightly clearer.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:33 Wed 05 Feb 2025it could be improved by making the line thicker.

mcoulson wrote: ↑23:23 Wed 05 Feb 2025

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:33 Wed 05 Feb 2025Personally, I think that I prefer 1 but that it could be improved by making the line thicker.

Good call ...

InlineTitlesBlackWidth = 1.44; 2.16; 2.88; 4.32:

2.88

2 disliked - introduces rounded corners on the internal line which detracts from original crispness of the figure.

And 2.16 preferred for the same reason - line is thicker and easier to read, while roundness on inside of line is not yet too pronounced.

I saw the praise for the placemats in the 2000 tasting thread, so looked at them, and didn't get it. Sure, the placemats are generally excellent, but I was expecting a new pattern had been used, or something, but no. I assumed it was simply enthusiasm for the tasting they heralded.

Regarding the examples above, with single vs double lines, and line thickness, it seems to me to be a question of how much emphasis you prefer. The standard single line does not provide any (beyond size), while double-line provides some, as does thicker lines (equivalent of "bold"). Personally I prefer the more subtle emphasis of 2.16 over both the double-line and the thicker variations - the latter of which I suspect might look fine on screen with single circle, but could be too incoherent on full sheet.

Prefer 1 line, thickness 2.16. It has a good balance.

1 (2.16)

2.16 for me. It seems that it only took a little bit to make it dramatically better for me.

2.88 is okay, but starting to get too bold. 4.32 is right out.

It seems that I want the line for "SW" to be no thicker than the line for "2000", and if my eye is not fooling me I think 2.16 is slightly less thick?

So 2.16 setlinewidth seems to be favoured.

But people don’t like the interval curves, hence setlinejoin (PLRM3, pp673–4):

1 setlinejoin (default behaviour, and as above)


0 setlinejoin


2 setlinejoin


(These are not achievable with the current parameterisation — but easily fixed.)

0 setlinejoin for me, but 1 is acceptable. I do not like 2.

I have to say I quite like 1 - defiantly not 2 tho

Default changed to 2.16 setlinewidth 0 setlinejoin, and now used by the placemats for the ’00 tasting on Mon 10th Feb 2025.

mcoulson wrote: ↑20:24 Thu 06 Feb 2025I have to say I quite like 1 - defiantly not 2 tho

Too slow: 0 it is.

For my taste, 2.16 is too heavy a InlineTitlesBlackWidth. Perhaps, on Monday, people could express an opinion about the actual printout.

What was the original width? 1.00 or the 1.44 that you posted as an option?

Could there be an option between 1.44 and 2.16?

jdaw1 wrote: ↑23:30 Wed 05 Feb 2025

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:33 Wed 05 Feb 2025it could be improved by making the line thicker.

InlineTitlesBlackWidth = 1.44; 2.16; 2.88; 4.32

Glenn E. wrote: ↑23:52 Sat 08 Feb 2025Could there be an option between 1.44 and 2.16?

InlineTitlesBlackWidth is numeric: was 1.44, by request changed to 2.16. I think that further change shouldn’t happen until after tomorrow’s judgement.

(On a 300 dots-per-inch printer, one dot is 72/300 points = 0.24pt. Most printers use a multiple of 300d.p.i., so my size defaults are generally a multiple of 0.24pt.)

People liked [t]2.16[/tt]. I thought it slightly too heavy, so might lighten the default to 1.92.

At the same tasting LukePebody made a different suggestion, transcribed into issue #169 — Grey edge to Glasses sheets.

I’m making placemats for somebody whose first language is Portuguese. There are, scattered thoughout the default settings of the placemats, words and phrases in English. Please could somebody fluent in Portuguese translate for me? The words and phrases needing translating, next to the PlacematParameter holding them are at github.com/jdaw1/placemat/blob/main/Documentation/translations.md. Please?!

Perhaps post here, or in a new GitHub issue.

Thank you.

I'll start working through these as I have a few moments. Others can contribute as well!

Wine Of The Night?
Vinho da Noite

What is it?
O que é?

Times (i.e., time at which wine decanted)
literal: vezes
hours of the day in Portuguese are usually plural, though so...
hour: hora becomes horas and is used like this: "o vinho foi decantado às doze horas" meaning the wine was decanted at 12 hours (i.e. 12 o'clock)

Eye
literal: olhar
appearance: aparência

Nose
literal: nariz
smell/odor: cheiro (noun) or cheira verb

Mouth
literal: boca
taste: gosto

Score
literal: partitura which I do not recognize
grade: nota

VoteRecorderTopTexts:
Wine Of The Night? = Vinho da Noite
What is it? = Qual é?

VoteRecorderInstruction:
Record points, not rank. = Registar os pontos, não a posição

TastingNotesColumnHeadings:
Times (i.e., time at which wine decanted) = Horas
Eye = Visual
Nose = Nariz
Mouth = Boca
Score = Pontuação

TastingNotesPageNumCompoundString:
Page = Página

DecantingNotesTopText:
Decanting Notes = Notas sobre a decantação

DecantingNotesColumnHeadingTimes:
Decant Time = Duração da decantação (assuming "decant time" means "amount of time the wine spent on the decanter")

DecantingNotesColumnHeadingNotes:
Cork condition, branding, etc = Condição da rolha, marcas, etc

AccountsColumnGroupHeadings, AccountsSubColumnHeadings:
Bestowals = Ofertas
Already paid = Pago
Wines = Vinhos
Share of costs = Parte dos custos
Wines = Vinhos
Food etc = Comida, etc
Settlement = Contas finais
Owes = Deve
Is owed = Tem a receber
Paid? = Pago?

CorkDisplayTopText:
The Corks = As rolhas

DecanterLabelsTopText:
Decanter labels: cut; paste to business cards; allow to dry; punch holes; hang on clean decanters; fill decanters; wait; pour; drink; enjoy. Also drink plenty of water. = Etiquetas para decanter: cortar; colar em cartões de negócios; deixar secar; fazer buracos; pendurar em decanters limpos; encher os decanters; esperar; servir; beber; aproveitar. Beber também muita água.



I think this is it. Let me know if this is not what you need.

MigSU wrote: ↑12:00 Tue 09 Sep 2025 Eye = Visual
Nose = Nariz
Mouth = Boca

I was having a debate with Julian about these. My feeling was that you wouldn't translate directly but would instead go:
o aspeto
o cheiro
o sabor

What would you expect to see if you were looking at wine reviews in a copy of, say, Revista dos Vinhos?

Alex Bridgeman wrote: ↑14:42 Tue 09 Sep 2025

MigSU wrote: ↑12:00 Tue 09 Sep 2025 Eye = Visual
Nose = Nariz
Mouth = Boca

I was having a debate with Julian about these. My feeling was that you wouldn't translate directly but would instead go:
o aspeto
o cheiro
o sabor

What would you expect to see if you were looking at wine reviews in a copy of, say, Revista dos Vinhos?

In wine terms we use "nariz" and "boca" (nose and mouth) in Portuguese all the time. "Nariz fresco" = fresh nose. Quite common.