> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 10:40 AM
> To: Paul Moore
> Cc: 'ipp@pwg.org'
> Subject: Re: IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI
>
> Paul,
>
> > (Actually I quite like 'printto:' - what do others think).
>
> Glad you brought this up. If the final resolution of this whole
> scheme issue results in something *other* than "http:", then
> I'd prefer Keith's suggestion of "print:" as a scheme as opposed
> to your "printto:", since the "to" suffix is both unnecessary
> and counter-intuitive (given that the PDU can very well contain
> requests that are not job submissions).
>
>
> > Saying that IPP lets me know that its a printer is an excuse for bad
> design.
> > Any UI that expects people to differentiate by hovering over the link
> and
> > looking at the status bar is broken.
>
> Perhaps you're right that the UI should *not* expect this
> "hovering" behavior, but nonetheless it is quite prevalent
> from what I've experienced. That is, I don't think we should
> discount the frequency and value of hovering as part of a
> positive user experience.
>
>
> > Nobody is going to put printer URLs on their business cards.
>
> Do you really believe this? I mean, an aweful lot of IPP
> proponents (in the PWG) clearly believe that one of the greatest
> values of IPP is its use as a fax-alike mechanism. I honestly
> don't think such a capability is nearly as powerful a potential
> as some of these people seem to believe, but there will be some
> who actually implement this, IMHO.
>
> ...jay
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
> -- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
> -- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
> -- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------