I've created a wiki page to summarize everything we've talked about over the last several weeks:
https://github.com/istopwg/ippsample/wiki/IPP-Print-Quality-Discussion
The wiki page also includes some potential member attributes of the proposed "print-quality-col" attribute.
....
All this said, while I can clearly see the benefit of providing a way to expand print-quality beyond the current 3 levels (which is why I had proposed a percentage), the vendor quality modes don't offer the same clear choices/benefits for me.
What I'd like to see it a focus on qualitative intent for the user ("I want the best output from the printer") vs. vendor process ("Use vendor mode XYZ") since the former is something that a generic print Client can support and present to the End User in an unambiguous way while the vendor print options tend to be, um, a bit more esoteric in their implementation and usage. (I'm trying hard not to offend anyone!)
When there is a vendor print mode ("Vivid Color", "Eco Draft"), that would seem to be better served by a "job-presets" collection combined with vendor Job Template attributes and/or keyword values - doing this as a print quality mode doesn't seem to be a good fit.
When there is a choice in processing algorithms (quick/fast vs. slow/precise) for things like scaling and sampling of images, color transforms, color gamut, etc. then the End User should be able to pick them as "advanced settings". But IMHO most users want to pick a relative quality and have the printer/driver make those choices for them.
> On Mar 27, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Ira McDonald via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
>> Hi Smith,
>> I prefer Option 3 "print-quality-col". Lots of precedent in tricky
> bits of IPP and still extensible. I agree that any single simple
> new attribute (such as "print-quality-percent") won't be a good
> solution.
>> To respond to Paul's comment about 3D Printing, I think that
> the "print-quality-col" solution would be the only acceptable
> one.
>> Question. Would we encourage implementors to support
> *both* "print-quality" and "print-quality-col" (simultaneously
> present)? Because there's a huge legacy of "print-quality"
> implementation.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com> (permanent) PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
> (to 30 April 2020) 203 W Oak St Ellettsville, IN 47429 812-876-9970
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 8:57 AM Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
> Greetings,
>> In the last review of IPP Driverless Printing Extensions v2.0, concerns were once again raised about extending the set of enum values for "print-quality" to solve the "Manufacturer-Deployed Print Quality Mode" and "Administrator-Deployed Print Quality Mode" use cases (3.2.20 and 3.2.21 in the 20200204 published draft). I want to see if we can hash this out via email in between meetings.
>> Before we dive into the implementation choices, I want to focus on the use cases and the user experience(s) we want to support. The use cases I have articulated are important to HP, and I have to believe that they are also important to other printer vendors.
>> The "print-quality" attribute as defined originally in IPP/1.0 (RFC 2566) has remained unchanged for over 20 years:
>> 4.2.13 print-quality (type2 enum)
>>> This attribute specifies the print quality that the Printer uses for
> the Job.
>> The standard enum values are:
>> Value Symbolic Name and Description
>> '3' 'draft': lowest quality available on the printer
> '4' 'normal': normal or intermediate quality on the printer
> '5' 'high': highest quality available on the printer
>>> Since semantically there is a linear progression from "draft" to "normal" to "high", a "Print Quality" UI selection control could be presented as a slider, or more generically as a radio button group or a pop-up or table list, where only one option can be chosen. The ordering of the three choices is clear and common sense dictates that they should be presented in order rather than out-of-order.
>> Unfortunately, though, this long-standing definition doesn't provide for the possibility that the Printer supports more than 3 quality levels. Nor does it provide space for vendor-defined or site-defined levels, which have existed for quite some time, but always been described in terms of vendor-unique attributes or via legacy (non-IPP) mechanisms. I strongly believe that we need to find a way to allow printers to express their additional print quality options in a way that allows simpler UIs to maintain their simplicity but still allows access to these printer-provided non-standard print quality levels.
>> So, my questions are these:
>> 1. Are there any specific objections to these use cases? I believe these are important to all printer manufacturers, not just HP, as a way of expressing an important vector of product differentiation without having to adopt vendor-unique or site-unique attributes, which many universal clients ignore. This undermines efforts to move away from model-specific drivers.
>>> 2. Assuming agreement with the use cases, if we had a green field / blank sheet of paper, how to support the use cases in IPP?
>> Option 1: Extend "print-quality" as per the current proposal
>>> Option 2: "print-quality-percent" as per Mike's proposal, which I don't think adequately addresses the use cases
>>> Option 3: Define a new "print-quality-col", which could contain a "print-quality-percent" but could also have printer-provided localized labels and tooltips.
>>> Option 4: ???
>>> Please share your thoughts and feedback!
>>> Smith
>> /**
> Smith Kennedy
> HP Inc.
> */
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
________________________
Michael Sweet