I have a navigation bar in place that I have borrowed from the internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ1EJJZBHyE
When a navigation button is clicked instead of navigating to a different page, I would instead like to have the gray area populated with its own View. I would also like each of these to have its own corresponding ViewModel as well.
I would prefer to roll this on my own, without another third-party library (Currently using the simple MVVMLight). However, if the solution is really involved a third-party library is fine - i'm not trying to reinvent the wheel.
I assume I would use something similar to a UserControl in WinForms, but i'm not sure how to handle the varying size when the left navpanel is expanded or retracted.
Here is a screen shot of the relevant code:
The answer with the most votes here very clearly illustrates a solution to what I was after, and fleshes out some of the details of the comments left here by the good gentleman assisting me.
Related
I'm using AngularJS 1 with angular-material and ui-router.
Does anyone know what the best practice is for providing a UI for some "new foobar" type thing? In other words, let’s say I have a ui.route putting me at /app/#/foobars/ which shows a list of all the foobars. At the bottom right is a FAB with a big plus sign, which will bring up a new UI something to allow the user to specify how they want their foobar. What is the best practices for this "UI something" that comes up, using Angular?
Should I use an angular-material dialog? (That’s my first inclination, but it seems old-fashioned.)
Do I create a route to /app/#/new-foobar/ and just bring up another UI? (This seems heavy-handed; I don’t want to change the URI, plus I probably want to get back to where I came from after creating the foobar.)
I think that ui-router allows nested states; is this something I would use? But I don't want the new view/component to be embedded in the current view --- I would expect a card or something to somehow "overlay" whatever view is showing.
I wouldn't use nested states for this, as they are intended for things such a master/detail navigation.
The answer to your question is "it depends", as many situations in programming there're always some tradeoffs you must consider. Depending if you're targeting a desktop or a mobile app you'll have more or less space to put these options on the screen. If there're a lot of configuration options you should define a completly different state on wich you layout them and apply this configuration when you come back to the list. If there are not too much of them or you want to keep them visible at the same time as the list, you can go with a SideNav panel that can be locked open depending on the resolution. An alternative I've used sometimes is using a subheader to show some controls, as you can make it "stick" below the header or let it go if you scroll the list. As I told you before is a matter of choices and tradeoffs, and some sense of usability and simplicity towards the final user. There's no silver bullet nor best practice, just follow your intuition. Good luck!
You know, like in CCleaner app where main activity is on the left side of the app and the right side area is changeable fragment.
http://cache.filehippo.com/img/ex/3049__ccleaner1.png
How to do it? I imagine I could do it by putting all fragments in the same place and just change their visibility to show just 1 at the moment, but that would make the code a whole lot of mess.
I've done this in the past by using UserControls. It's worked nicely for things like choosing payment methods (cash, cc, cheque...).
There are a couple of options for changing the display, either have all the UserControls present on the form and hide or show them as required or have an empty placeholder panel and use a factory to construct the appropriate UserControl as needed. I've done both and it really depends on the complexity (and expected longevity and users) of the project as to which is appropriate.
Using a Model-View-Presenter pattern helped with managing all of this.
What you don't want to end up with is a massive switch statement that changes the visibility of dozens of manually positioned controls individually. I've seen it and that way lies madness.
I've got a massive UI that I'm designing. The way that my employer wants it, there are at least 100 labels. Now, I've always thought that in cases like this, breaking up the UI into smaller custom controls was the ideal way to go. However, someone recently told me that custom controls are really only for code re-use. What is the actual suggested practice for this?
EDIT
The finished form will look like this:
Now, I'm using WPF for the UI, and I'm thinking of breaking this down into smaller bits.
Based on your image i see some repetitions, each of this repetitions could be a custom UserControl
But it depends on the usability is it easier to write a custom UserControl so do it but if it would reduce the readability of your code and it also adds additional complexity don't do it
here are an example of what could be separate UserControl's
the green ones are possible useful encapsulations of logic
the orange ones maybe need some not market stuff (don't know enough about your software)
the red ones are the maybe's based on the intern use (from the visual part they are repetitions so the should custom UserControl)
Since your UI is read-only, I'd suggest using a grid.
Are you new to WPF? To break the View into bits WPF offers you CustomControls and UserControls. They are two very similar things yet completely different from each other. CustomControls are Buttons, Labels, TextBoxes, DataGrids...etc. They are basically simple stand-alone controls. UserControls are groups of stand-alone controls serving a purpose such as example a Button and a ComboBox next to each other so user can select something in ComboBox and confirm that by clicking the Button.
If you wish to display data from database I suggest you DataGrid which will give you a table-alike look with rows and columns and all that. If you wish to place few buttons next to DataGrid on which the user may click to insert a new row or to edit a certain cell then I suggest you to wrap all that with a UserControl which you can reuse in other places where you have to display and change data from database too.
You should be using a datagrid and can customize its template to render individual cells as Textblock (lighter version of Label) from a rendering perspective. The main difference between Textblock and Label is very minor things such as access keys and disabled state behavior. But from a WPF object hierarchy - Textblocks are much lighter. But besides that point - from your employer perspective - once you have customized the grid template and render them (so as they look as textblocks/labels) - your employer should have no problems.
Also as somebody suggested above - if you want to logically break sections of the UI since they maybe coming from a different table in db - then User controls is the way to go (for maintainability of code)
Let me know if you are looking for more technical details or need help further technically.
There is nothing wrong in making and using custom controls or user controls or defining some data templates which will be reused depending on how your data is organized.
For sure the UI looks pretty messy and some sort of grid should be used with templates for example where there is similar data. I also have the suggestion and first think about the data and the functionality before starting and let the UI be driven by that. For sure you will the reuse controls/templates. If you think in front on the model and behavior the UI can afterwards more easily changed.
Create your viewmodel correctly, implement the functionality in commands, use bindings, after that the UI will come naturally, reuse controls, use several grids, make the UI more user friendly using several regions, tabs, windows or anything that makes the user more comfortable.
I have several Wpf pages in my project, these pages have different forms and ui control indide theme. The image below shows the mainWindow and there are two button.
I want to show a specific page when I click on + or Edit button using the Frame control which is highlighted.
apparenatly this woks:
Page1 me = new Page1();
mainFrame.Content = me;
But it has an IE navigation sound and a toolbar appears after going to page2.
any better way to show diffrent pages and not using a frame?
You may want to convert the Page into a UserControl. You can then put that control inside some other container, such as a Grid. You'll have to manually swap out the pages in the container when navigating, but it looks like you're doing that anyway.
The purpose of the Frame control is to allow navigation. If you don't want navigation, then don't use Frame. You can turn off the navigation toolbar, but that won't actually disable navigation - there are mouse buttons and keyboard shortcuts for navigating back.
If you just want to host a UI element without navigation, use something simpler, like a Border element - put the content in its Child property. You can change the Child as many times as you like at runtime.
I was able to set the frame control's NavigationUIVisibility to Hidden. This solved the problem for me. I am using Visual Studio 2010 though so it might not be applicable to older VS versions.
Ian Griffiths, what you suggest increases the workload on the developer substantially. And you are stepping outside of the underlying paradigm of XAML.
In my case I'm developing a game application and have chosen WPF as the UI platform as much as possible. For me that means a intro screen, character select, etc. The purpose of Pages is to encapsulate the navigational need of such an application.
I suspect your downvote is due to your statement "If you don't want navigation...". Upon re-reading the original posters question I see he does want navigation, he just wants it on his own terms. I would have voted you down too. YotaXP's solution neglects the issues with using a User Control, particularly if it may contain other User Controls. It looks like Chris Calvert came up with an actual solution to the poster's issue within the parameters of the problem.
I would be curios if I could override the navigation hotkeys and such within the existing paragimn but that's properly in its own thread.
I am currently loading the default file, page.xaml, but in that page, I am loading the content from another xaml file. With each "page" change, I just load the content from a different xaml file, and on and on.
Example: this.Content = new StartPage();
I'm running into some syntax issues, however, because of the way I am changing my content, and was wondering if there is a definitive answer on how to accomplish this?
For example, when trying to capture user's keystrokes, I would normally do:
this.Keydown += new KeyEventHandler(this_KeyDown);
but that event handler doesn't even fire in my situation. So, I'm looking for a new approach to my content-switching approach before revisiting the keystroke problem.
Have you looked at using Silverlight 3. It has a new Page Navigation functionality.Silverlight 3 Navigation
As far as content switching goes, I've always done what you propose in the question. Normally I create a MainPage.xaml which has has the frame of the application (usually a Grid for me). One of the cells in the Grid is considered the content area of the app. When the user takes an action that I would consider to be navigation, I create a new instance of a Page, which for me is a file like MyUserControl.xaml, and then add it to the appropriate content cell in the Grid. MainPage stays around for the life of the application and assists with navigation.
If you want something fancier, and want to take advantage of browser based back/forward buttons, you could look into the SL3 navigation like Correl suggested.
A Big problem with what your're doing is that journalization doesnt take place automatically when you swap out framework elements by creating them and plugging them in the codebehind. This means that you lose the back and forward functionality of the browser. You can manually journalize stuff when you swap out pages, but this is simply a hack to get your navigation approach working.
Take a look at Prism at www.compositewpf.codeplex.com/, specifically the MVVM method of GUI design, it'll save you alot of time later on. And remember, you dont need to go hardcore when you look at MVVM, u could always cut out alot of "dynamic" functionality if you're a one man band
Also swap to silverlight 3 and use the navigation application. If you cant, take a look at helix 0.3, it'll provide a more asp oriented approach to navigation. the link provides a really really good starting point, its a three part article, i suggest you read all three and download the sample application and understand it.
A book could have been written on your question, this has to suffice for now.