[Gzz-commits] gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu irregu.tex

[Tuomas J. Lukka]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    gzz
Changes by:     Tuomas J. Lukka <address@hidden>        02/12/01 21:08:14

Modified files:
        Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu: irregu.tex 

Log message:
        Vegai's comments

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex.diff?tr1=1.132&tr2=1.133&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex
diff -u gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex:1.132 
gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex:1.133
--- gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex:1.132       Sun Dec  1 
20:12:01 2002
+++ gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex     Sun Dec  1 21:08:14 2002
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@
 a separate underlying canvas.
 
 
-Non-rectangular window shapes technically possible\cite{XSHAPEEXT}
+Non-rectangular window shapes {\em are} technically possible\cite{XSHAPEEXT}
 but not
 used except for some special effects such as a
 round clock, 
@@ -219,11 +219,11 @@
 
 The recent work on non-photorealistic rendering has been concentrated
 more on rendering polygonal 3D models in ways which resemble 
-paitings or drawings of real-world objects by human artists.
+paintings or drawings of real-world objects by human artists.
 However, we must point out that
 windowing systems are also 
 usually non-photorealistic. Of course, this is not originally
-an UI design but a {\em technical} decision: lines were easier
+a UI design but a {\em technical} decision: lines were easier
 to draw than shaded surfaces.
 
 % However, in retrospect this seems like a 
@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@
 a)\includegraphics[width=5cm]{paradigm2.ps}\\
 b)\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{paradigm.ps}
 \caption{\label{figparadigm}
-The different metaphors: a) conventional viewports
+The metaphors: a) conventional viewports
 and b) torn viewports.
 }
 \end{figure}
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@
 One thing that we hope to achieve is that instead of having to perceive
 two objects, the ``hole'' of the viewport and the the canvas behind,
 the user would have to perceive only the torn piece, as in 
Fig.~\ref{figparadigm}.
-However, whether this can is achieved remains the subject of further study.
+Whether this can is achieved remains the subject of further study.
 
 Additionally, the motion of the uneven edge can be used to give the
 user a cue about the motion of the viewport, and
@@ -350,11 +350,11 @@
 
 % Focus+context
 
-Now, from a purely physical viewpoint the tearout is not really
+Now, from a purely physical perspective the tearout is not really
 a good metaphor\cite{kuhn91formalization}:
 a real torn piece of paper cannot change the place from where it is torn, with 
the edges rippling etc.
 However, the idea of break lines in technical drawings is well
-established and therefore this idea should be comprehensible.
+established and therefore the motion should be comprehensible.
 
 % However, similar jagged edges have been used in technical drawings for quite 
some
 % time to indicate that the depicted object extends beyond the part drawn in 
the diagram.
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@
 \end{figure}
 
 As to the graphical appearance of the torn viewports, 
-there are two main reasons to go for nonphotorealistic rendering:
+there are two main reasons to go for non-photorealistic rendering:
 firstly, to imply to the user that the viewport does not behave
 exactly like a real paper; to make the overall view clearer.
 Drawing only the silhouette edge\cite{saito90comprehensible} of the
@@ -1060,7 +1060,8 @@
 
 \section{Acknowledgments}
 
-The authors would like to thank \censor{XXX Canny!!,  Benja Fallenstein and
+The authors would like to thank \censor{XXX Canny!!,  Benja Fallenstein and 
vegai
+and 
 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho} for discussions.
 
 % References contain hard-to-typeset parts -- help TeX out a bit