search

iho-ohi / S-102-Product-Specification

It is opened to develop S-102 Bathymetric Surface Product Specification. The contents of this repository are not offical publication in force, therefore please check the final version on the IHO website.
Other
28 stars 11 forks source link

Proposal to Change Convention for Referring to Transparency #63

Closed hasel001 closed 10 months ago

hasel001 commented 11 months ago

Nikolaï Chagoubatov (Naudeq) sent us the following observation/proposal. I neglected to post it until now, and I apologize for the extended delay. Nevertheless, here it is:

In IHO Publication S-102, Bathymetric Surface Product Specification, Edition 2.2.0 – April 2023, at clause 9.2.3. Transparency says: S-102 dataset transparency display settings are identified in Table 3. The level of opaqueness is represented by the value alpha. A value of 1 represents zero transparency. A value of 0 represents 100% transparency.

When working with transparency, we think that the input value should be exactly the level of transparency, and not opaqueness. Playing with the antonym can be confusing with the input value and the expected result. By our opinion, it seems more logical to indicate the value of transparency. When the transparency is equals to ZERO, it implies the absence of any transparency, full opacity. We would like to pay your attention to this item. We propose to fix it as follows:

… The level of opaqueness transparency is represented by the value alpha. A value of 0 represents zero transparency. A value of 1 represents 100% transparency.

Accordingly, amend Table 3.

hasel001 commented 11 months ago

I made the previous edit to restore the strikethrough I had erroneously nullified.

The text as proposed should now be correct. I apologize for any confusion.

hasel001 commented 10 months ago

PT15 saw a decision to (1) review the spec to determine how many mentions of transparency (or opacity) exist in the current version of the document and (2) to adopt this proposal for any mentions that exist. Upon reviewing draft-dev Ed. 2.3.0 (from today's merged PR), I see that we have already removed all occurrences of transparency; therefore, this issue is moot. However, should we introduce any mentions of transparency/opacity in this spec or any associated documents, we will follow the convention stated in the proposal. lhh