Re: size of xcam (was Re: Compiling on OS/2)

From: Henning Meier-Geinitz (
Date: Wed Jun 06 2001 - 11:09:11 PDT

  • Next message: Henning Meier-Geinitz: "Re: Compiling on OS/2"


    On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 10:56:43PM +0200, Franz Bakan wrote:
    > >The length of xcam is dependent on the number of options that your
    > >scanner provides. As xcam is a pretty simple program, no such nice
    > >things as sliders are implemented.
    > But this means it is only usable on > 20" screens.

    Maybe for your scanner. I have enough room on my 17" display with
    1024x768. But this depends on the backend and the font size, I
    suppose. But in principle you are right.

    > I think the _initial_ size should be smaller than at least
    > 1024x768 on all platforms independent of the number of
    > parameters.

    That's ok, but to achieve this, the interface must be changed (add box
    with sliders) or add separated windows like in xscanimage.

    > Or the 'play' button should be in the top-region of the window.

    That would be just a workaround.

    > I use 'WindowMaker' as windowmanager and so never have a
    > chance to reach the resize buttons :-(

    The resize button won't help, because there is a minimim size and xcam
    starts with this minimum size. However, you should be able to move the
    whole window to go to the buttons. With enlightenment this would be
    done by pressing ALT-left mouse button and moving the whole window.

    xcam lacks quite some features (see TODO list). As I don't use it, I
    won't add any new features, just fix bugs. So go ahead and include
    everything you like. We can include it into SANE in 1.0.6 (because now
    it's feature freeze for 1.0.5).


    Source code, list archive, and docs:
    To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 06 2001 - 11:27:36 PDT