|
I thought about that, but I don't have to allow removal/adding of a layer. The number of layers possible is 1 to 6, and the number of layer panels will refelct the available layers (if there are only 5 layer images, only 5 layer panels will be displayed.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4037183/Design-Quandary-v2.aspx[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, just got back from lunch. Anyway, what you have got there seems a reasonable compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
If I am understanding your question correctly...
You could try emulating the "standard" layer UI from most photo editing software (i.e. photoshop or PSP). Each layer is an item in your list and each layer can access the same set of properties and attributes.
[edit] This UI style for layers hasn't really changed because it uses very little real estate. IMO, your current app, is using way to much space up on the left for the configuration controls.
[edit 2] I just noticed that your Blur setting is not a slider control. A slider control is better for image apps because it allows the user to visualize the change difference better then entering in numbers only.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
modified 28-Sep-11 6:44am.
|
|
|
|
|
Great minds, and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
Back at you. Didn't see your post till after I submitted mine. 
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: This UI style for layers hasn't really changed because it uses very little
real estate. IMO, your current app, is using way to much space up on the left
for the configuration controls.
I agree that it takes up a lot of room. That's why I asked this qeustion.
Slacker007 wrote: I just noticed that your Blur setting is not a slider control. A slider
control is better for image apps because it allows the user to visualize the
change difference better then entering in numbers only.
I was thinking about an up/down control, but yeah, I agree.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: up/down control,
That would work as well.
Can't wait to see the full app when you have finished.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4037183/Design-Quandary-v2.aspx[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
First thing that springs to mind is that you are repeating the same collection of controls multiple times.
I would have a listbox of layers and have the colour/visibility/blur property controls only once, populated depending on the layer selection in the listbox.
This would also allow multi selection of layers or operations such as mirroring
Pedis ex oris
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4037183/Design-Quandary-v2.aspx[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
As with Pete and Slacker, separate the selection of the layer from the action and no action is available unless a layer is selected.
I also wonder if you can visually show the blur with the colour in the layer selection, maybe dither out the border based on the blur?
Does the blur need a checkbox AND a value, shirley if it's blank / zero there is no blur?
Using a Pete UI:
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Hide a Gun v [] x |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Layer: ----+ |Weapon v| |Pattern v| |
| 0. Blue | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | |
| *1. Red | | | |
| 2. White | | | |
| 3. --- | | | |
| 4. --- | | | |
| 5. --- | | ,--------------, | |
| 6. --- | | L.,------, ,--' | |
| -----------+ | ______/(______( (________,------==========. | |
| | (###========\_________--===-----=======================| | |
| Visible x | ,',""""\ ,-+-_ __,___,____,____,____,___| | |
| Blur 17 | |=| \ \ )_) ( )__,____,____,____,____| | |
| | |=| \ \ | | )====) `:__ | | |
| | |__\ \ \_) | /====/ \ | | |
| | `----' /====/ \[JW]| | |
| | Flip | | `-._/ :____| | |
| | Mirror | | | |
| | Restore | | | |
| | | |
| +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | Reset | | Cancel | | Okay | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
ASCII Art is a paint, ain't it?
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4037183/Design-Quandary-v2.aspx[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
My first thought ... before reading the other responses to this message ... was that the end-user should add "layers" via a menu, or other UI element, until the limit is reached. Which might leave more room for UI ?
But, if it is important to you that all six possible layers be presented, then an alternative to going the route of emulating "layers" in PhotoShop, or whatever, might be to use an "Outlook" style "TaskBar" control, where one, selected, layer ui expands full-size, and the others are in their "collapsed state."
This type of control is so easy to simulate in WinForms, just using contained panels inside a panel, docking, and a mousedown event for all contained panels that adjusts their vertical sizes.
It seems to me that having a series of checkboxes that control only whether the "layer" has the possible transformations (Flip, Mirror) applied to it is kind of "counter-intuitive." I think I'd either move those checkboxes inside the layer UI's, and title them 'Allow Transform' or come up with ?
Having a 'Restore' button next to the graphic transform buttons also doesn't feel quite right to me; what about putting that next to the 'Save' button ? I should disclaim this suggestion by saying I don't really know if 'Restore' applies only to 'undoing' the last transform, or more 'global' application state.
best, Bill
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." Miss Piggy"
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4037183/Design-Quandary-v2.aspx[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
We are studying the implications of upgraing our software for use on Windows 7. We currently support XP only. We provide bespoke software that acts as cash register for a certain industry. None of our customers has their cashregister connected to the internet, a situation that will not change much in the forseable future. We distribute all our software by CD. Say we register a certificate suitable for signing, and sign our binaries. How does Windows 7 check the certificate, and whether or not it is revoked without an internet connection.
Is there another way of avoiding the anoying warning boxes.
Regards,
Bram van Kampen.
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
There are so many books/standards on how to document architecture. But I am not aware of any book/standard on how to document (detailed) design.
Example:
The architect creates on documentation for "OurServerComponent" with all the high-level views according to any standard ( e.g. IEEE1471).
But where and how do I have to document the low-level-design of my own 5 classes?
modified 24-Sep-11 13:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Studio class diagram, Rational Rose, UML diagramming tool...not sure if that is what you are after
CodingYoshi
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Human Stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Yosh,
no this is not what I'm looking for.
I'm looking for some guidance(or standard) on how structure design-documentation in the best way.
For architecture there are clear rules available now (IEEE-Standard or beyond-view from SEI).
But how and where do I organize/structure the UML diagrams for my 500 classes? My diagrams were intended to be used not by me but by my audience. My colleages put them automatically in the trash, because nobody can see the complete picture from all of my details
|
|
|
|
|
What CodingYoshi says is right. UML is the standard. You may wish to preface your class diagrams with a component diagram. Then break the classes up accordingly. If you have 500 classes in a single library, this will be a valuable exercise and ask questions about the current design.
There are books re documentation. I teach this subject and wrestled with the same question. The answer is there are guides but no standard. Each project is unique, there audiences vary. Documentation needs to be tailored to the project and audience.
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, UML is the standard for modelling/diagramming. But it says nothing to the "strategy for documentation-structuring".
Hard to explain what I want, let's try with an example:
I have written my architectural documentation Ieee1471-compliant, with all the viewpoint, views and the like. But now I have to document 500 classes/lower-level-components. It should not be part of the architecture-document (clearly kept out by ieee-guidance). But where else should I do it? Should I create a document "MyProjectsSwDesign.doc"? And which content/structure does it have. I have so many books on design, but all of them explain how to do single diagrams in the best way, nothing else.
A similar topic, but at another area, requirements-engineering/management, is the SRS. Also here -the SRS templates from Ieee -is an international standard/method
modified 26-Sep-11 13:10pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a thought, maybe you could use a tool like Sand Castle[^]
That way the code is documented at the same time. Unless IEEE compliance is a requirement, I wouldn't worry to much.
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
seems all have the same lack of info as me
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't even know about the spec that you originally mentioned.
I have always rolled my own process docs.
|
|
|
|
|
for detailed design, I also roll my own docs
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
