Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> I think "Years on Display" is simple and conveys some comparative information, even if not very complete.  

Yup, I bought into that argument for many years myself, until the light fade ratings started to routinely climb into the 100+ year range, and testing error bars needed to be put on the data. The public takes the scores way too literally, fully believing that a product rated at 96 years is worse than one rated at 101 years when in fact those scores would be statistically insignificant.  Moreover, as a comparative benchmark only, the liberal fade criteria used to achieve those scores allow much non linearity in fading to occur.  So a print process that fades quickly and noticeably but doesn't quite trigger the "easily noticeable" endpoints of the test can get a much better rating than a print process which shows little or no noticeable fade much longer in test, but then reaches endpoint while the system with early fading signs still passes.  I guess a reasonable analogy is: would you rather own a car that breaks down once a year for five years in a row, or 5 times in the fifth year. With a simple scoring algorithm, they would get the same 5 year reliability rating. I guess, all things being equal, I'd take the car that gives me 4.9 trouble free years. But then again, in the fifth year of driving, I might sorely be tempted to change my mind!  All in all, what I'm saying is that discerning consumers will want to know more than just a simple marketing benchmark  in order to make an informed decision about what products are best for their needs.

cheers,

Mark