m.hearn at signal.qinetiq.com
Thu Nov 21 02:29:03 CST 2002
d'oh! I forgot about the resolution thing.
No matter, I can retake the ones I did at 800x600 easily enough. Are
there any that aren't really worth bothering with Brian, or should I
retake them all at the new res? I assume apart from that they were
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 17:25, Brian Vincent wrote:
> I've been meaning to put something together for a few days here..
> > shots to Brian isn't the best way to go about it as nobody knows who has
> > sent what. Have you actually got any yet Brian?
> First, take a look at:
> Quite a few folks have sent stuff in. Now, after looking at so
> many screenshots and trying to evaluate them for content I've
> realized a few things..
> 1) We're absolutely going to have to insist on 800x600 resolution.
> Thanks for all the ones so far, but really the only usable ones
> are the 800x600. (There are exceptions, such as Mike's Quicktime
> one that can be resized nicely.)
> 2) Screenshots of an application doing something are the way to
> go. For instance, the one Mike just sent me showing Adobe's SVG
> plug-in in IE is WAY cool. Unfortunately it's not usable because
> of the resolution. Even a pull-down menu being pulled down is enough.
> 3) Cluttered desktops suck. You don't need to have 3 terminal
> windows, Mozilla, and everything else in the background. For the most
> part I think the screenshots have followed that rule closely.
> Okay, here's the deal.. Thomas Wickline volunteered to do screenshots
> of these apps:
> Office 2000 and everything in it
> lotus notes
> Quick Books
> Carlos Lozano did shots for the "gold" list apps. I'm going to ask
> him for some more here in the future.. (unbeknowst to him)
> The following would be nice to see:
> any game
> the exact same screenshot Mike Hearn sent of IE/SVG except at 800x600
> Adobe Photoshop
> Anything else is fair game. I'll put screenshots on that URL above,
> so check there before doing any.
Mike Hearn <m.hearn at signal.qinetiq.com>
More information about the wine-devel