[cups.general] Why not "recommend" PPDs in the NickName?

[Michael Sweet]

Johannes Meixner wrote:
> ...
> For example DeskJet printers before and after HPIJS:
> Before HPIJS the Ghostscript PCL3 drivers (like cdj*)
> may have beed considered to be 100% but since HPIJS
> they should be downgraded to e.g. 80%. but downgrading
> is problematic so that upgrade HPIJS to 120% would be easier.
> This applies both for quality and for speed because
> as far as I remember the Ghostscript cdj* drivers neither
> support the built-in dithering nor the draft mode in certain
> DeskJet printers.

Again, the driver rating isn't a measure of quality.

I'm not going to comment on comparing ancient and current
drivers, other than to say that you, as the distributor, get
to choose which drivers you list.  Don't list obsolete drivers.


>> WE ARE NOT MEASURING QUALITY!
>>
>> Quality is subjective and can change over time.  Instead, we
>> want to recommend a driver that a) supports the most features/
>> capabilities of a printer and b) provides the fastest printing
>> for a particular use case.
> 
> Then the rating is not very useful for many users because
> the printout quality is also very important for many users.

Realistically quality is no longer a big concern for ordinary users.
Power users might quibble over dithering algorithms, configuration
options, and color management, but those things are just "noise" for
ordinary users that just want to know "which driver is best when I
am printing text files".

It is more useful to know when a driver isn't optimized/written
for a particular use case.  This can be reflected in the speed
attribute which will influence the driver recommendation to the
user.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products           mike at easysw dot com
Internet Printing and Document Software          http://www.easysw.com