[duxhelp] Re: Problem with 4X4 pro (continued)

  • From: "Yves DUNAND" <ydunand@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <duxhelp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:42:32 +0100

Hi David and all,

Unfortunately, I haven't got access to a 4X4 PRO embosser today and will be
leaving for a week's vacation this evening, so I hope others will be able to
respond to your request for testing with non-folio formats. If I may make a
suggestion, it would be, for the format named "A4, 21 X 29,7 cm", to revert
to the parameters we had in 10.5, that is :
either Form "12_n" = 85 x 120 ; SinglePage ; 34 x 30 ; 32 x 28
  or Form "12_w" = 115 x 120 ; SinglePage ; 42 x 30 ; 40 x 28

  Of course I am by no means a technician, but what I can say is that
embossing with 4X4 was working fine with those parameters in 10.5 whereas
the new ones in 10.6 are far below what is expected with paper that size.

  On the other hand, I'd like to insist on the second point I made
concerning the error message we get when the name of the targetted embosser
is not exactly the same as the one written in the template. Ideally, DBT
should be able to detect that the document's parameters are the same as the
embossers', in spite of the different name. If it can't do that, at least
the user should not be mislead into thinking that there is definitely
something wrong with his or her document, but rather prompted to check those
parameters if in doubt.

  Best regards

  ----- Message d'origine ----- 
  De : David Holladay
  À : duxhelp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Envoyé : vendredi 16 février 2007 15:53
  Objet : [duxhelp] Re: Problem with 4X4 pro (continued)

  Yes, there have been issues with the Index 4x4.

  I made many assumptions about the Index 4x4 in the past. I visited Sighted
Electronics in NJ (USA) September 2005 to learn more about it. Based on that
visit, I made radical changes to how the Index 4x4 has been supported in
DBT. These changes abandoned non-folio output and focused on folio output

  When we tried to support non-folio output, we had problems. I have some
e-mails into Index in Sweden and hope to better support the Index 4x4 for
all of its modes.

  If you can tell me if you have had success with DBT and non-folio output,
that might help me quite a bit.

  -- David Holladay

  At 06:43 AM 2/16/2007, you wrote:

    Hello all,

    I went through a series of e-mails concerning problems with 4X4 pro
embossers and I understand that David Holaday is about to make some changes
in the emb.elt file to fix them. Hoping this will help, heres my feedback on
what we have observed since installing 10.6.

    Whilst we had no problem embossing with 10.5 using 12_n for A4 paper,
with 30 characters per line AND 27 lines per page, we have observed that the
corresponding 12_n form no longer exists in the new emb.elt file. Instead,
we have to use

    Form "A4_folio", where the parameters don't appear to be correct. They

    Form "A4_folio" = 83 x 117; DoublePage ; 22 x 20 ; 20 x 20

    instead of what we had with 10.5 which was

    Form "12_n" = 85 x 120 ; SinglePage ; 34 x 30 ; 32 x 28


    Form "12_w" = 115 x 120 ; SinglePage ; 42 x 30 ; 40 x 28

    Could the 12_n (and maybe the 12_w also) form be restored with the right
parameters in order to ensure compatibility with 10.5 ? Or could the
parameters for "A4_folio" be corrected to get back to what we had with the
equivalent paper size ?

    Besides, I don't know if there is any connexion between the two
problems, but with 10.6, when we use the same template based on a format of
30 characters and 27 lines on all our computers, we systematically get a
message saying :

    Ce document formaté pour papier de taille " 12_n ", sur une embosseuse
non définie (" Embosseuse par défaut ").

    Corriger ceci dans la boîte de dialogue " configuration de l'embosseuse
" du menu " Document " ; vous devez choisir une embosseuse et une taille de
papier d'au moins 27 lignes et 30 caractère pour éviter le reformatage du

    (see screenshot in attachment). this mesage is misleading because it
suggests that the document is ill-formated, which is not correct, so it
should be either removed or modified as a warning rather than an error

    Best regards


Other related posts: