I am envisioning a Google Glass knitting app to help my sister. Many knitters, including her, like to work from knitting charts, which are big grids with special symbols to indicate the type of stitch. You work your way down the chart, one row at a time, knitting the indicated stitches, and voila! you have a fancy sweater or whatever. She often knits while sitting on the bus, or even while walking, and having the chart on Glass would leave her hands free to do what's important.
Let me describe the ideal, but apparently unsupported, interface, and then you can tell me if there's any good substitute. Ideally, there would be a bundle containing 100 numbered rows of knitting symbols (or however long the chart is). The user sees the current row across the middle of the screen, with the rows above and below displayed more dimly. Swiping back and forward would move up and down the chart, vertically scrolling by one row and highlighting the current row. Because there are so many rows, the user needs a way to skip to a particular row, if they are picking up where they left off. I imagine them tapping to bring up a menu that allows them to speak the desired row number.
It appears that this is completely impossible at the moment. Vertical scrolling is not supported; instead, I would need to create a bundle of horizontally scrolling images of sets of three rows, with the one in the middle highlighted to be the "current" one. OK, that's an acceptable substitute. But then how does the user select a particular row? Do I need to give each card a menu allowing them to somehow request a particular row, which then gets sent over the network to the server, which then sends back a new version of the bundle with the desired row toward the beginning? That sounds wasteful, slow and fragile. Does the Glass UI provide any way to handle this kind of data? If not, is it possible that it will handle it in the future?
I can imagine plenty of applications (teleprompter, karaoke, etc.) that involve vertically scrolling through significant numbers of rows, so I'm sure I'm not the only requester of this, which makes me think that maybe, if it's not currently supported, it might be in the future. Thanks.
It sounds like you are interested in filing a feature request with the Glass team. You can do so here by clicking the New Issue button in the top left. In your request, it will be helpful to the Glass team to summarize the use case that you have described in this question.
Related
I'm working on a form that shows many our company's products in a FlowLayout, but on some categories that hold many products, performance in scrolling is noticeably affected. I switched to a List so I could leverage the performance benefits of using a renderer, but now I'm not happy with the layout since there's a lot of wasted space, especially if the device is in landscape mode.
My next thought was to use a Table, which I believe also uses renderers to optimize the display of its data; but to mimic a FlowLayout, I'd need to get the preferred width of some placeholder component, then divide the container's width by that to get the number of columns, and then fill the model with that number of columns in mind. I'd also need to change all that if the device changes orientation.
Before I go down that rabbit hole, I'm wondering if I'm making things unnecessarily complicated for myself and if there's already something that I can use to achieve that goal. So to summarize, what would be the most efficient way to display data (that would be shown as buttons) sequentially from left to right, and top to bottom?
I wouldn't use FlowLayout for anything serious although I doubt its the reason for your performance issues, those probably relate to something else. There is a performance how do I video which is a bit old but mostly still relevant: http://www.codenameone.com/how-do-i---improve-application-performance-or-track-down-performance-issues.html
In design terms flow layout is hugely problematic since the elements are not aligned properly thus producing a UI that doesn't look good when spanning multiple rows. I suggest using a grid layout which has a mode called auto fit. By using setAutoFit(true) on a grid of even 1x1 all the elements will take up all available space uniformly based on screen size and adapt with orientation changes.
I'm creating a bundle using timeline.html as my cover page and providing other sub-pages using the timeline.htmlPages attribute. I want to have different menu items for the cover page as well as for each of the sub-pages. Currently I dont' see any way to have a menuItem for each htmlPage and/or the cover page. Am I missing something ?
I have a work around for this which I did during Glass Foundry : I created a random bundle id, then i looped over all my html pages and using the same bundle id inserted a timeline item, with the same cover page and a single htmlPages with whatever menuItems i want for that index. This works as I want, however since this results in N insert() calls, it takes a lot of time for the glass to receive the bundle [also eats into my api quota as a side effect]
You can only have one menu for a given timeline card, even if it has many pages.
timelineItem.html and timelineItem.htmlPages are intended to be used for a single logical piece of content that just happens to exceed the space available on the screen. For this reason, they all share the same menu and the same timelineItem.id.
If you require a different menu for each page, you probably have content that's logically separate. This warrants a distinct timeline card for each piece of content, and this allows you to specify a different menu. Bundling by timelineItem.bundleId allows you to group similar distinct cards, just as you describe.
The total amount of data transmitted is roughly the same, so total latency shouldn't be too much of an issue. If the gradual insert is noticeable, consider only setting timelineItem.notification on the last item to be inserted.
In my WPF app I have a control representing a pack of 20 cards (each about 150x80 px) that fan out in an arc, so they're all slightly overlapping in the centre of the arc. When the control is added there's an animation to fan them out.
After that, the fan/control can be moved around, and when the user hovers over a card it expands and then goes back to normal size when they move off it.
This all works fine, but has a noticeable effect on performance- everything is very jerky, presumably because when other things move all the overlapping stuff and transforms in the control are being constantly recalculated/redrawn.
Any suggestions for how I can improve performance while still keeping individual cards in the fan responsive?
To find the source of the slowdown you need to profile.
Try to find out whether or not WPF is switching back to software rendering or not.
After that try to run on a different computer with other (better) hardware/graphics card.
If it doesn't get any better there might be errors in your app.
I'm currently designing a web application which may be viewed by people in all kinds of resolutions 1024..1920 or even larger resolutions.
I've opted for a fixed-width design (as many other popular websites are, e.g. StackOverflow, CNN, Mint, WSJ, BofA etc.) with the lowest common denominator fitting in, meaning 1024.
Now a problem is that on some pages in my application I have to display grid-based data. I think I'm really going to anger people with large screens if I restrict them to 1024 width compacted grid data while keeping most of their screen empty.
I thought about making different style sheets and so forth for different resolutions but that will increase much of the maintenance work, graphics work etc. above of what I can manage.
Do you have any ideas how to solve this is a graceful manner (I'm just thinking maybe I have a 'creative block' here right now :) ) without having to go fully to a fluid design, which brings a bunch of problems in itself?
1) Multiple hard-coded views of the same data: Brief, Detailed, Verbose
Quick links, or tabs to allow the user to view different numbers of columns. If they need more details, they can choose the view that has more detail. They want to know, and will not be annoyed by having to scroll vertically.
2) User-Controlled columns
Allow the users to control what they see, and what columns are included in their view. You can even store and remember the views they select. The default should be the view you think most people would want to see.
3) Combination of the previous two
Allow them to choose a default, and then customize columns on a one-by-one basis. This is how MS Project works with its views, and it's very nice to work with.
Size the columns so that a reasonable number fit onto 1024, and use a horizontal scrollbar for the rest. Since your app doesn't use the extra real estate on other pages, you might decide to just stop there.
Otherwise, let the elements resize to fill the full width of the page if there is extra room (either use a table, or use min-width on the divs and 100% on the parent.
I'm designing some dialog boxes, and I'm having a hard time to fit everything. (and it has to fit on a single dialog box by design, so please don't tell me I should make two dialogs instead of one:))
I'm wondering what's the max size a dialog can have before being annoying for the end user. Of course it should't be bigger than his resolution, but are there any other boundaries to consider?
I'm trying to limit at 800x580 (so that it can display fine on a 800x600 screen without hiding the taskbar), but I expect my users to be on 1024x768 or better screen resolutions.
Is a 800x580 dialog box ok, or is it too big?
Have you considered using a tabbed layout?
Also, I believe the smallest main-stream screen resolution is 1024x600.
I'd say anything over that is too big. I try to stick below 1000x500.
I'm writing this on a netbook (ASUS) with resolution 1024 x 600. I've also noticed this is a defacto standard for most other netbooks too.
Another option: you could create a dialog that resizes itself automatically to fill the current desktop (except for the task bar).
It could also enforce a "flow" style layout for it's child controls. This would ensure the best use of the available space is made.
To get "flowing" in Windows forms you can use either the flow layout control or (for a richer interface) the WebBrowser control.
By the way, modal dialogs seem to be less popular as a way of user interaction these days. Especially large dialogs containing a lot of information/controls. This article has some good alternatives.
I think that if the user NEEDS to see all data on screen at the same time... and you can fit everything in 800x580... I think that it's a fine size.
If you know all users have bigger resolutions so don't struggle... that size is OK.
However... a way of showing lots of information and being able to edit it... could be a PropertyGrid control (an example here)... may be that could shrink a bit the form if you don't feel confortable with it being so big. Don't know if it a possibility given the needs of your client/user.
Just hope that no-one ever tries using your app on a media center running through a standard definition display. That's 640x480 for NTSC. I've suffered this problem with quite a few apps.
Whatever your pixel by pixel size, if it takes more than a few seconds for skilled users to complete the use of your window, then it shouldn’t be a dialog. Anything longer is annoying. You’d be asking your users to do too much work that is too easy to lose (e.g., by hitting Cancel accidentally) and too hard to re-entered (e.g., between sessions). If you have so many controls that the dialog needs to be 800 by anything, then it’s too many controls. 200,000 square pixels and 40 controls is the very most you should consider for a dialog. And tabs are nature’s way of saying your dialog is too complex.
Dialogs are for entering parameters to execute a single command on one or more data objects visible in the primary window for the dialog, which is why dialogs need to be small and simple. I suspect that’s not what you’re doing. Instead, you’re using a “dialog” to represent the main data objects and carry out a major task, not a single command.
What you want is a primary window, not a dialog, with all the support necessary for the complicated task you’ve set up for the user. That includes providing a means for users to save, retrieve, and copy their work. That means a menu bar and toolbar with all the standard commands, including help. The window should absolutely be modeless, and be resizable, maximizable, and minimizable.
Primary windows should be designed to work best at the size of most (over half) of your users’ screens. 1024x768 is generally fine for today’s laptop/desktop screens, not that you should use that much space if you don’t have to. If the user’s screen is smaller, or the user for any reason resizes your window below the design size, then scrollbars should appear to allow full access to all controls and content in the form –just like any primary window. The experience on the web indicates that scrolling is not a showstopper for forms.
Beyond that, tabs may be used in a primary window to increase the number of controls on it. You said you don’t want to hear about multiple windows, but multiple windows should be used instead of tabs if the user will be comparing data across tabs/windows. You can also fit more in a given primary window size by using a compact presentation (I describe this at http://www.zuschlogin.com/?p=42), but test such an approach on your users before committing to it.