Quote - >> " What windows are popping?

Tiny icons blowing up to big mages? Isnt that why Flash Player is needed? Isnt that why the old library is not an option?

>> maybe you don't want any options.

Well, the option I want isnt an option, BB. What's that say? And please note: I asked for it as an option, not a requirement.

>> "nor did I say that you were parochial, but rather that your list of requirements was"

Hmm. That seems to belie: "You're making a gross mistake by associating the decisions with your parochial view of the requirements."

>> I'm using it in the correct original sense, which is "concerned with ones own Parish", or in other words, only aware of your own needs, not that of the world as a whole.

Well, thanks for putting me in my world place. So what about that ability to remove textures when they're no longe needed? Can I do that now?

Sean, I'm trying to be helpful.  I have to ask you again what exactly do you want, both in the larger sense, and specifically. In the larger sense, do you want to influence the design process or not? Because if you do, the way you're going about it doesn't serve you very well.

The ability to dynamically scale images is a technology issue, but there are many technologies besides Flex that can do that. That isn't the reason it is built in Flex. Choosing to make them tiny or medium is a usability decision, not a technology decision. I already said I made them medium (original Poser) sized and fixed in size, and the new version will be tested. I can make options for all sorts of sizing schemes, but more options means more coding and more testing. I've said all these things already. Is there a reason you're ignoring things I've said in your responses?

If the growable thumbnail is really what you meant by windows popping all over the place, I have to conclude that you're really looking for an argument, instead of looking for a way to communicate with the design team to deliver feedback to get a solution that works for you.

My question about what options you wanted was sincere. I can influence what is chosen, and I can build things. I can assure you that if you just keep sniping, instead of offering specifics, and using inaccurate inflammatory phrases like "windows popping all over the place" then you're not going to make progress towards your own needs.

You're still wrapped around the word parochial. I said I it was not a pejorative, but your response again seems to be emotionally charged.

Look again. Nothing is belied. I said it is a mistake to associate the decisions with your parochial views. Since you continue to misunderstand me, and that's my fault, I conclude I cannot be succinct.

Let me be more explicit then:

You have certain views about requirements.

Others have certain views about requirements.

Collectively, all these requirements are the "world" view. In contrast, the requirements stated by any individual represent a "parochial" view. The word means narrowed in scope. It does not mean "stupid", "ignorant", or "misguided".

You have evaluated SM's decisions, and come to the conclusion SM made one or more mistakes.

I have tried to point out that SM's decisions were based on a requirements document that captured the predominant world view, not any single parochial view.

You do not have access to the world view requirements. You have no data, no requirements documents, nothing that was used to make the decisions.

When you ask "what were they thinking", the answer is they were thinking about the world view.

But your evaluation and condemnation is based on the incorrect assumption that the world view is identical to your parochial view.

I hope this is clear now.

If you want changes, speak of the changes. You may or may not get specific features in, but I can assure you that you will NOT be able to convince SM that your requirements are the only ones that should be addressed.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)