I have a book app for the mac , the image sizes for each page are 1024x768. My problem is trying to figure out the display each page.
Should I make it a full screen app - but then might get some horrible
scaling on large monitors.
I could leave it fixed at 1024*768 - this could also be frustrating on really large/small monitors
I've never done this before so have no idea where to start.
Thanks for your time.
It depends on the book format the will be compatible with your app:
If it will use images based books, the fullscreen mode is a bad idea (because of the scalling problem)
If it's structured data books (epub, xml,...), the scalling won't be a problem!
Related
Okay the Title can be misleading.
But it´s like this.
I have made an application that constantly sends Images from Client A to Client B.
When Client B receives the image, it will replace the last image.
I currently use Picturebox or Panel, so pretty much:
panel1.BackgroundImage = Image.FromStream((MemoryStream)NetSerializer.Serializer.Deserialize(tt1.GetStream()));
It looks weird though, but as you can se, it will just change the image, when it´s there.
This all goes well up to about 800x600, then it will bottleneck.
I don´t know the update frequency, but i am guessing it´s around 60fps, as i am taking screenshots from my desktop or particular windows.
The bandwidth is not the problem here as long as i don´t use .bmp at 800x600+ of course.
Anyway, my question is, what can i use to replace this way of showing images?
I am guessing something with Directx/OpenGL or something?
Sadly i haven´t found a way to even display an image with that, though then again, i have a hard time understanding it.
I am open for suggestions and examples.
EDIT:
I am thinking, maybe to use WPF to just show the image.
But i don´t know if i can change the background image from a winform, so if it´s possible then i am all ear.
Thanks
I tried to sign up, but I was unable; perhaps a problem from my side. Hopefully I'll get an answer as anonymous.
I apologize for the grammar/syntax, but English isn't my native language.
Recently I lost my job, so I have enough spare time to try something fun. I decided to create a simple text RPG game for me and some friends. It will very close to the board games like Talisman, Dungeon Run, and HeroQuest, using dice and a simple attribute/skill system. So no 3d graphics. The only 2d element, if I decide to include it, will be a map
that will allow the hero to move between locations. Currently I'm using Windows XP SP3, for the game I use wxDev-C++, and although cross platform would be cool, I don't really care.
I have some experience in C++ (currently using wxDev-C++), but I'm far from being called an expert or even a great programmer. I was about to start writing parts of the code, but I decided to check if creating a GUI for the game is possible. In some forums, many suggested I use Qt, CEGUI or wxWidgets, but most examples I saw are grey boxes that are
indifferent at best, when I want something that fits better in a fantasy setting. I don't claim I would do better, but I want a GUI that is more fantasy related.
What I want from the GUI:
1. A "cool" Gui with decent graphics. I could even create an image to serve as a mask in Photoshop, but the GUI builder will have to support imported images.
2. A relatively large textbox in the middle (with a scrollbar) that will display die rolls, damage and options.
3. The ability to display dynamically values (like the change in the health after each action without requiring to refresh manually)
4. Display an icon or a small image of the character in the area where I display stats/abilities.
5. Open new windows created with tha same GUI builder to allocate points, buy/sell things and open a map.
About the map in the game: I decided to create a map in photoshop. When the hero decides to move to another location, a new window will open showing the map. I thought of 2 possible ways to move between locations: 1) Create hotspots on the image and select one by clicking on the name of the location.(I dare not think about the complexity of this so we
move to idea #2) and 2) Have the image as a backgroung to a grid with vertical and horizontal coordinates. When the hero selects a new area to visit, he clicks on the area, but what he really does is click on the grid, which returns the two values (x,y) of the location and informs the game about the area the hero wants to visit.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's too much, so what I'm most interested in are the 1-3. I know that even if they are possible, it will propably take forever, but as I said I have spare time, and I like learning new things. I apologize for the size of the post, but I decided to post as many info as possible so you know what I want.
If any of you has used Qt, CEGUI or wxWidgets could you tell which covers most of my criteria? I saw some great stuff build with CEGUI, but I don't know if it is too hard to learn?
Thank in advance.
I know my answer comes pretty late, I only recently started using stackoverflow fairly recently, but maybe this response will help anybody.
CEGUI fully supports skinning widgets using XML. Our CEED editor (WYSIWYG) fully supports layout editing, but the skinning editor (LNF editor) is not finished as of now (11.11.2014), the development version supports exchanging images however and changing sizes and proportions, but more advanced adjustments have to be done in XML.
CEGUI has an imageset editor, fully supported by the CEED editor. Creating imagesets (sets of named subimages, with position and dimension inside a big texture atlas) is supported there. Additionally there is a way to create imagesets from just a bunch of jpg/png/... files using a tool. You would have to ask for specifics in the forum though because it is not integrated into CEED yet.
So basically with CEGUI you are free to make whatever fantasy GUI you want. Skinning simple elements like buttons and progress bars isn't much work in XML anyways. Without the finished editor, some more advanced widgets are more work to skin, but many skins have already been created done this way and some of them are even publically available in the forum and in the CEGUI stock files.
StaticText widgets supports what you want, you can even use images in there or change fonts and colours in the text if you want. Scrollbars are supported too.
I am not sure what you mean by this. You have to specify this.
A simple "Generic/Image" widget is available in CEGUI for this purpose. You can use precreated images or even RTT textures.
You can create and destroy windows in CEGUI without issues.
Regarding the map: I m not sure what you mean, but getting the position of a click in respect to an image (representing the map) is possible in CEGUI.
CEGUI is not particularly hard to learn. There is always the forums and the chat if you got questions. For an Open Source project it is quite well documented so if you read all of the API docu, and look at the supplied samples in the sample browser, you should already get quite far. And for everything additional there is the forum (search), the IRC chat and a community wiki (mind the targeted versions of an article there though)
For a project like yours, CEGUI seems perfectly suited (this is what it was created for in the first place). Qt is not really optimal for games for numerous reasons. wxWidgets I have never used.
I'm creating a magazine to read on an iPad and am having problems with creating readable pages. What size (DPI and MB) should my files be? And I'm doing an export from InDesign, are there any suggested steps that should be taken here?
The iPad display is at 132 PPI.
The iPad display is 1024 x 768 - I'd recommend making your images that size.
That's right, the image size for iPad is by default 1024x768, but I recommend you to create your file in 1152x1536 px if you want to zoom-in in your image on iPad end keep a good quality of display.
Are you creating a pdf of the entire document or saving the pages as images? You may also want to consider the way users will be accessing the document (online, each page downloaded or as an application) If it is an application you will be able to have larger page sizes. If online, then download size will definitely become a factor in how it looks. If you shrink the quality too much, your rendered text will be the first thing on the page to suffer.
Have you done any research into what you find a comfortable to read text size (i.e., with popular science, wired, or project magazines? Another one to check is digital2.0 or the first of the RAW applications which was put out) These magazine apps use scrolling text regions in a lot of cases, but you can at least see how they use fonts and how comfortable they will be at different sizes.
I'm working on a Cocoa application which will be used for a digital-signage/kiosk style display. I've never done anything like this with Cocoa before, but I'm trying to figure out what the best approach is for building the user interface for it.
My main issue is that I need a way to have the user interface scaled up or down depending on the resolution of the display. When I say scaled, I mean that I want everything including white space to maintain the same sizing ratio. The aspect ratio of the interface needs to remain the same (16x9), but it should always fill the entire width of the display its on.
Sorry if I'm not being descriptive enough.
What are some thoughts?
If I follow you correctly, you want all buttons and views, etc. to get larger, the bigger the screen is (which has nothing to do with the dimensions of your views). If that's the case, there's no automatic way to do this.
With Quartz Debugger (part of Xcode Tools), you can set the scaling factor (see "resolution independence"), but this would need to be manually adjusted per system. What's more is I'm not sure if this tinge is persistent across reboots. I leave that for you to investigate.
As far as I know, though, there's no way to adjust this programmatically as resolution independence is still not an exposed consumer feature of OS X.
If anyone is interested, I seem to have found a solution under this post: http://cocoawithlove.com/2009/02/asteroids-style-game-in-coreanimation.html
I noticed StackOverflow appears to be targeting screen resolution widths of 1024px or more. I also checked Amazon, NBC, MSN, & AOL which target more lay users, and they all appear to be targeting the same width.
Is 1024px the current recommended width for web apps targeting the largest cross-section of users who use default monitor resolution/browser size?
Use liquid layout. Then you can easily accommodate everyone from ~800 to ~1600 width, and with a bit more work and care even lower-resolution devices too. This also gives users #1024 some leeway to zoom the page if they find the text too small.
Remember there'll be things like netbooks which don't have the big screens we expect today. You can get away with a horizontal scrollbar, but if you have to scroll the page just to get the main body of text in, you're lost.
Before sounding so condescending, you may want to read up on the modern user base. Netbooks. PDAs. Smartphones. Smartbooks (you do know what those are, being very sophisticated, right?). Programmers who have their screen in portrait orientaton. People who stack their windows side by side. Kiosks.
UPDATE As per conversation with John, I edited the question to change the tenor a bit to reflect his original intent. However, the original paragraph that I wrote is still true- I haven't seen the latest statistics but the days of "90% of users have AxB resultion/window size on their browser" are probably forever gone, what with wide screen laptops and mobile devices. Makes life more exciting for UI designers :)
Having said that, to develop a really usable web site, you need to couple flowing layout with, ideally, ability to use portlets and portal framework (think My Yahoo), so people can choose the page layout most comfortable for them.
make a good use of 960.gs and you will set everything that you need to start a good web site :)
(source: balexandre.com)
The 960 Grid System is an effort to streamline web development workflow by providing commonly used dimensions, based on a width of 960 pixels. There are two variants: 12 and 16 columns, which can be used separately or in tandem.
960 GS it's a lovely start, doing web or images, they have a complete template for almost any good design program (Photoshop, Ilustrator, Fireworks, InDesign, etc) as well a CSS generator and a Grid Overlay to help you with the website.
I use it and it's fantastic! check out the demo
Nettuts has a tutorial and video. WooThemes wrote a post entitled “Why we love 960.gs” and use it as a starting point for their WordPress themes. Spanish speakers can also check out tutorials by Jepser Bernardino and Miguel Angel Alvarez.
Unsophisticated? I think that's a bit of a rude way to describe the unwashed masses. I suppose every one and their dog has a 1024px width monitor now thanks to the likes of dell and others...
The maximum I would consider targeting as my "base" is 1280x1024, but I would be much more likely to go 1024x768.
That said, in my current projects I try to do a liquid layout with a min-width of 800 to accomidate netbooks and usually a max-width of around 1000px (970 usually). Of course, I also have the luxury of designing for myself, so I have the privilege of telling IE6 users that they should upgrade, which makes the liquid layouts much easier to design.
Summary:
Design with your browser's inner dimensions set to 1250x668 to satisfy 92.7% of users.
I like being stats-driven. To this end, W3Schools has a nice Browser Display Statistics page, which they update periodically with new statistics on how common each screen resolution is.
As of January 2015, 92.7% of browsers visiting W3Schools pages were attached to displays larger than 1024x768, though 39.3% of all displays were limited to 768 pixels in height (or lower), mostly due to the 33% of them having 1366x768 displays.
Unfortunately, W3Schools measured screen resolution rather than the inner dimensions used for rendering web page content. It'd be real nice to get stats on users' window.innerWidth and window.innerHeight instead.
Because we don't have these, we have to reserve room for window decorations that may be larger than our own, as well as browser widgets that may further take away from the space dedicated to rendering a web site. Additionally, not all users browse the web in a maximized web browser, though I think we can ignore that if we assume lower-resolution displays will have maximized browsers.
Windows 7 seems the biggest offender at eating up screen real estate, with what I'm measuring as 30-40px for the task bar (I had to search for a screen shot, as I don't run Windows). Firefox with titlebar, menubar, bookmarks toolbar, and status bar eats another 159px while the slimmer modern FF only consumes 64px. Let's use the slim version and assume around 100px of vertical space will be lost. Maximized browsers don't appear to consume any extra horizontal space, so you really only need to account for the scroll bar, but I'd reserve a few pixels for window edges just in case, bringing us up to 30px.
A few years ago (when I did more web design than I do today), I'd size my own browser to an inner size of 800x550 and made sure that most pages would not have scroll bars. Nowadays, it looks like that can be expanded to around an inner size of 1250x668.
You can check your inner size by putting this in your location bar:
javascript:alert(window.innerWidth + "x" + window.innerHeight)
Those values are read-only; you used to be able to run something like this to resize your inner dimensions, but (thanks to abusive advertisers) it no longer works:
javascript:window.resizeTo(window.outerWidth-window.innerWidth+1250,window.outerHeight-window.innerHeight+668)
One parting note: Just because you're assuming a certain size doesn't mean you shouldn't ensure that your site still works at smaller resolutions. The page can be ugly, but it must be functional!