[Subsurface-divelog/subsurface] PATCH: Update the single-dive per page print template (#839)

[Willem Ferguson]

On 19/11/2017 19:22, Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote:
>
> @willemferguson <https://github.com/willemferguson> @dirkhh 
> <https://github.com/dirkhh>
>
> we've discussed that we should not touch the old template which also 
> implies renaming it.
> the solution is to create a new template with a different name.
>
> questions:
>
>   * how is this template an improvement over the current one dive
>     template?
>   * how should we name it? using |Old| / |New| is kind of bad and has
>     no meaning.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <https://github.com/Subsurface-divelog/subsurface/pull/839#issuecomment-345533625>, 
> or mute the thread 
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE1-sj6Ap2_BhSbBc07SvgWQoIRjtk7wks5s4GO-gaJpZM4QjaYb>.
>
The agreement was that the original template should be kept. It was not 
that that it should be kept with the same template name.

Look at the attached image, comparing the two templates (new template on 
the left, old template on the right).

1) The old layout cannot gracefully handle table entries with more than 
one line, resulting in a ragged bottom edge to the table. The new 
template does not have the problem. Because of this the old template is 
inefficient and wastes space on the page.

2) The new template gives almost 20% greater vertical increase in image 
size of the profile, using similar or or even less total vertical page 
space than the old template. The old template is wasteful of vertical 
space in almost all elements of the layout if you start looking 
carefully at it. Look at the heights of the rows in the table. Look at 
white space between sections of the page.

3) The old template is inefficient with profile at the top. The 
*important* information is in fact not the profile but the dive 
information below the profile in the old template. I think I understand 
why the table is underneath in the old template, because of problems 
with the alignment of the table containing the dive data. From a layout 
point of view the important information should be at the top. This is an 
important layout problem. The new template puts the important 
information at the top.

4) Ridiculous information like air temperature, which a dive computer 
cannot measure accurately (believe me, I am an environmental scientist 
that routinely works with weather stations) is replaced with more 
meaningful information (in this case cylinder and gas information.)

Any one of the four above criteria on its own is sufficient grounds for 
making the new template the default. Are you sure you wish to keep the 
old template as the default? Do you have a compelling reason for keeping 
the old template at all?

My proposal is to rename the old template as in the patch.

Kind regards,

willem



-- 
This message and attachments are subject to a disclaimer.
Please refer to 
http://upnet.up.ac.za/services/it/documentation/docs/004167.pdf for full 
details.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20171119/0ca4b9f2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OneDive.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 85866 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20171119/0ca4b9f2/attachment-0001.jpg>