I'm updating some legacy code, because of my unfamiliarity to it, Its very difficult to find structures, especially if I step away for a week for other projects.
To alleviate this problem I've gone back to my old-school roots and started adding ascii text-art as comments above sections of code, using this tool:
http://patorjk.com/software/taag/#p=display&h=3&v=1&f=Big%20Money-ne&t=Reveal%0ACheck
This allows me to see via my MiniMap the titles of functions or sections of code I might need to come back to
The Thought then occured.. well surely someone else has this problem, and since VSCode seems to be written by the community, maybe someone has already written a plugin that would search the code for function titles (like Javadocs?) and display the title in a readable size?
If not, would it be easily coded? i.e. is the minimap just a very shrunk down copy(not easy) or is it structured and can be parsed and tweaked?
As long as your language plugin supports it, you can use cmd + shift + o to go to function definition.
All functions should also be listed in the Side Bar under "Outline"
Does Xcode have a way to show the caller function of a method? I want to know all of the calling functions of a method in a class. A solution would be to find the method in the project, but sometimes different classes have methods with the same name - That could find us a method we're not looking for..
Many other IDEs have this capability, such as Visual C++ 2003/2005/2008,Eclipse ...
Can you do this in XCode?
Xcode 4.4 intrudced this functionality:
New Features in Xcode 4.4 (Scroll down to 'Find and Search Additions')
Move your cursor on top of the function you are interested in
Open the Assistant editor(⌃ +⌘+Enter)
On the top of the assistant editor, Select 'Callers'
You will see a list of all the function that's calling your function
Not the as effective as other IDEs, but does the job.
Yes. Set a breakpoint inside your method, then when it breaks, there are two spots to see a stack. First is in Xcode's "console" area (usually the bottom middle), there is a top-bar which may not immediately appear to be navigable, but it is a select-style UI control which has the entire stack in it. Selecting a different level shows you that scope's variables, etc. and pops your editor to that exact file (where you can mouse-over variables to see their in-memory real-time values). Second is in the left-hand area (where you normally browse files). There is another tab there (besides the file browser) for exactly this purpose. There is a slider at the bottom which controls how many "steps" in the stack you see; clicking on one has a similar affect.
For simple refactoring such as method re-naming, you can use the contextual-menu when you right-click a selected method-name, and Xcode will replace all identical selectors in your project. However, this does not address what you mentioned about different classes having methods with the same signature. It does, however, give you a very nice interface for reviewing the changes in-context and easily accepting or rejecting them one at a time.
It might be noted, however, that changing method signatures often may be a sign of poor design, and particularly if you have to do it with methods which have the same signature on different classes (which are not "siblings" and therefore should both get the rename)
I'm working on a project where they essentially used TPanel for the only purpose of displaying a bevel (And maybe the design time convenience Panel have over Bevels).
Ok, I know TPanel is heavier than TBevel. Amongs other things, each TPanel create a user objects, which is a limited resource.
What I would like to know, beyond user objects, what's the overhead of TPanel? Is it next to non-existent (Especially on modern day machines).
If you were working on such a system, would you suggest :
Going back and changing all TPanel to TBevel.
Say "Ok it was bad. Lets not do it again in the future"
or
it's too small a concern and the design time convenience is well
worth it.
I wouldn't know if this design is intentional but, there's a slight navigational behavior difference when controls are grouped together in a window. If the focus is changed by arrow keys, after the one having the last tab order the first control will be focused (down/right), or vice-versa (up/left). IOW the focus will be wrapped in the parent. That's of course if any of the controls do not need the arrow keys.
Regarding the question, as it is already stated in the comments, apart from using up a count in an object pool, there're other resources associated with a window. It will also waste a few CPU cycles. There'll be one more level in the clipping chain or the messaging or keeping one more z-order list etc.. MSDN puts it as (I guess navigational aspect is being referred rather than visual partitioning):
For best performance, an application that needs to logically divide its main window should do so in the window procedure of the main window rather than by using child windows.
Nevertheless, as again already stated in the comments, most probably, no one will be able to tell the performance or resource difference caused by a few panels..
The correct answer is choice #3, so if that's the project's design approach, don't change it.
Babylon dictionary and a couple of other dictionaries allow to click on any word in any windows program
and automatically recognize the word under the cursor, and at once open the dictionary window while searching for that word in installed dictionaries.
You can on the other hand open your dictionary, type in your word and press Enter, the result will be the same.
There's a Delphi form, containing a text label, for example with the word "Automaton".
My question is:
How to send a word from my Delphi application right into the dictionary window, as if you typed it manually and pressed Enter?
The best solution is to send some message through the Windows mechanism, but if it is too complicated, there's another solution, and so the second answer: as I described, we need to model a [Ctrl+left mouse] click on a form where this word is displayed on a form [ a visual label on the screen of my Delphi application], to be exact, on some central pixel of this label.
Could you kindly give an advice how to do one thing or another in Delphi ?
** edit:
The problem with AppActivate is this: Babylon dict has a daemon part that seats in the tray.
In the task manager a real window where the text should be input also is named 'Babylon'.
So AppActivate('Babylon') tries to bring to front the non-visual part of the application.
Do you have any suggestion how to determine the windows handle or something of a real visual part of the application? In the task manager, I repeat both visual and non-visual parts are named 'Babylon'.
I cannot offer an answer so much as some insight and advice...
There are certain applications which "intercept" keyboard and mouse instructions, and essentially "nullify" them if they are being immitated by software. Generally-speaking, you'd only see this in proper AntiVirus software such as Kaspersky by design... however:
The way some (not many, but some) programs hook keyboard and mouse inputs, as a side-effect, behave the same way. If you have attempted all of the advice given as comments above, and cannot get Babylon to trigger an action as a result, it is likely Babylon behaves as I have described.
If what I suspect is true, then the method you are attempting is simply not possible (at least, not using any simple Pascal code on its own... ASM might be able to do it but that's beyond my knowledge).
A better solution may be to do a little research to see if any of the following options are available to you:
1) Does Babylon have a Pipeline or API you can use to interface your application(s) with it?
2) Is the particular functionality you require of Babylon accessible through one (or more) DLL files distributed as part of Babylon?
3) Is there an alternative to using Babylon for your needs?
I know it's not an answer as such (certainly not one you'd want to hear), but it may point you in a better direction.
Often times convention is one of the most important design consideration for user interface. Usually the advice goes to do it like Microsoft does.
This is for three reasons:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If your users expect to click on a floppy disk icon to save, don't change the icon (even though some of them may have never seen an actual floppy disk).
Users don't want to re-learn the interface (and hot keys, etc.) with each different application they use.
At the same time Emmerson said "*A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.*" So when does maintaining a consistent user interface cross the line from a good idea to stagnated innovation?
Microsoft shook up the good old WIMP GUI with the introduction of the tool bar, and then again with the Ribbon control (which is the natural evolution of the tool bar, like it or not.) Now we are seeing ribbons everywhere.
So my question is, what are some user interface paradigms that are accepted and consistent across multiple applications, but have stayed past their prime and are starting to reek? Are there some important changes that would benefit from a grass roots push by developers to innovate and improve the user interface experience for our users?
One thought that came to mind for me is the modal pop-up dialog. You know the ones that say: "Are you sure you want to . . .. - [Yes] [No] [Cancel] [Maybe]" and its evil twin "Successfully completed what you wanted to do! [OK]." We are seeing a movement away from these with the "info panel" in browsers. I think they need to be adopted in windows application development as well.
If possible please list a solution for each stale UI item.
And please don't list clippy. We all know he was a bad idea.
NOTE: This is specifically Windows client user interface paradigms, but I am certainly open to drawing inspiration from the web, the Mac, etc.
You mentioned popup modal dialogs , and I'd argue that non-modal ones are just as bad. Any dialog box remove focus from the program, they could end up behind the program and make it hard to find it, they might not even appear on the same virtual screen.
I'd like to see an end to all dialog boxes. If you need to stop someone from using the UI because of some non-normal circumstance, then remove the relevant parts of the UI from the window, and replace it with what the dialog would contain. Bring back the UI once the problem has been handled.
Clicking things on touch interfaces
It's incredibly difficult to click on things on a touch interface, because you don't know when you have pressed the screen hard enough. And if you add an animation to the button you are clicking, you most likely wont see it, because your finger is in the way. Adding other reactions, like vibrating the phone or painting waves on the screen might work, but there is usually a delay which is too large, much larger than the tactile sense of a button being pressed. So until they invent a screen with buttons that can be pressed, all touch devices should move towards dragging user interfaces (DUIs) instead.
Counter intuitively it is easier to press an object on the screen, drag it, and then release it than it is to just press and release it. It's probably because you can see the object moving when you start dragging, and you can adjust the pressure while dragging it. Dragging also has a lot more options, because you now have a direction, not just a point that you clicked. You can do different things if the user drags the object in different directions. Speed might also be used, as well as the point where the user releases the object. The release point is the real strength of DUIs, because it is very easy to release something, even with pixel precession.
Some designs have started to use DUIs, like (here we go) the iPhone, palm pre and android phones. But only part of their design is DUI, the rest is clicking. One area they all have in common is the keyboard. Instead of clicking on a key the user presses any key, then drags their finger towards the key they really wanted to click. Unlocking these phones also uses dragging.
Other easily implemented DUI features would be things like mouse gestures, where dragging in different directions, or drawing different shapes does different things. There are also alternate keyboards being researched which puts a bigger emphasis on dragging. All buttons can be changed into switches, so have to drag them down a bit to click them. With a well designed graphics, this should be intuitive to the user as well.
The Apple Human Interface Guidelines are a good read on this topic. They discuss this from a very broad point of view and the guidelines apply to any platform, not only Mac.
The file system. I want to save a file.. >OOOPs I need to think of a file name first. Well.... how about ... blah.doc.
6 months later...
Where the %#*(%& * did I save that %()#*()*ing file?
The solution is build a versioning system into the application, or better, the OS. Make files findable by their content, with a search engine, instead of forcing the user to come up with a memorable name, when all they want is for their file to not get lost.
Eliminate the save step. Type something in to the application, and it's just there, and there's no risk of losing it by some misstep, like forgetting to save. If you want an older version, you can just pick a date and see what the document looked like back then.
To build on the search engine idea: It's a pain having to navigate some arbitrary tree structure to find your stuff. Searching is much easier. However, you might still want to have something like a "folder" to group multiple files together. Well, you can build a richer metadata system, and have a "category" or "project" field, and setup the search engine to show items by project, or by category. Or group by those, or whatever new UI discovery we make next.
This question is a bit too open-ended, IMHO.
However, my main approach when designing anything is:
Fits in to wherever it is. If it's a windows app, I copy MS as much as a possible
It's simple.
It provides options
Buttons have a nice description of what the result of clicking will be, as opposed to 'yes or 'no'
Harder to answer the rest of your post without spending hours typing out an arguably useless (and repeated) set of guidelines.
In my mind, the one thing that really stands out is that USERS need more and easier control over the application's user interface appearance and organization.
So many interfaces can not be modified by the user so that the most used/favorite functions can be grouped together. This ability would make your favorite software even easier for you to get things done.
Error messages need a "Just do it!" button.
Seriously, I really don't care about your stupid error message, just DO WHAT I TOLD YOU TO DO!!!
I think the entire Document model of the web needs to change. It's not a user interface, but it leads to many, many bad user interfaces.
The document model was a good idea to connect a bunch of documents, but now the web is also a collection of applications. Today, I think the Page/document model corrupts our thinking. We end up lumping things together that aren't related, modularizing our code wrong, and in the end confusing users with our monolithic control board type websites.
Find dialogs that sit over the widget in which you are doing the search are terrible. Loads of apps do that. The find bar in Firefox works much better.
Many applications have multiple panes within the UI - eg in Outlook there's the preview pane and the inbox pane (amongst others). In these applications typically cursor key presses apply to the currently focussed pane. But there's very poor hinting to show the user which pane has focus and there are seldom keyboard shortcuts to move the focus between panes.
The focussed pane should be highlighted somehow.
Something like alt+cursor keys should move the focus around.
Ctrl-Tab and Ctrl-Shift-Tab cycle left and right through tabs instead of MRU behavior, even though in most cases the same behavior is duplicated with Ctrl-PageUp and Ctrl-PageDown.
There are a lot but here's an idea for a couple of them:
Remove some clicks like in "add another" or "search item" and the like.
This is well done with interfaces like ajax which have autocompletes ( and auto search ) but is slowly being adopted for platform UI's ( and in some cases they were originated in platform UI's. )
This is how StackOverflow does it for some scenarios.
But of course, we all know that already don't we? No need for "Seach tag" or "Add another tag" buttons, they just happen
Dialogs as you described.
Guys at Humanized proposed Transparent messages which actually are used in their product Enso and some other places.
Mac uses them for notifications ( like in Growl ) use them very well, or Ubuntu new notification system.
alt text http://blogs.sun.com/plamere/resource/NowPlayingGrowl.png
Firefox replaces the traditional "Search" dialog box with a search bar at the bottom.
Although not everyone likes the placement for next/previous as in this screenshot
And even SO ( again ) :) replace the notification with the yellow bar.
Finally:
File managers
I really like ( sometimes ) the simplicity of regular file managers, but some times I would like to work faster/better with them.
If you compare IE 4 with IE 8 you can tell the advance ( even better compare IE 4 with Google Chrome )
But if you compare Windows 95 Explorer with Win XP they are almost the same!! ( Win Vista/7 is a step forward )
But I wonder: Why haven't file managers improved as much as webbrowsers?
That's one reason I like stuff like QuickSilver but it is just a step. Much work is needed to create something like a "Perfect program launcher" or (FileManager/DesktopSearcher etc as you wish )
QuickSilver featuring "move to" action