Recently, Jacqueline Landman Gay wrote:
> Where does one draw the line? I vote for syntax in common terminology
> which the majority of people can understand. Avoidance of technical
> jargon is important in an xtalk language. "Blend" is technical jargon
> apparently familiar to graphic designers.
But is "blend" really so technical? I want to "blend" this image with
whatever is behind it. This doesn't sound like technical jargon to me.
I think you have a stronger case against: srcCopy, notSrcAnd, noop,
notSrcXor, etc etc.
> "Transparency" (or even
> "opacity") is self-explanatory to anyone. The same jargon occurs with
> "alphaData" -- undoubtedly familiar to graphics programmers, but not so
> familiar to us.
I agree, but I think you might concur that alphaData is more approachable
than the above terms.
Whenever I see the term "notSrcBic", for a split second I think: "A Bic
lighter should not be used to ignite this object".
Regards,
Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.tactilemedia.com
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
