I am working on Adobe AIR project targeting on mobile devices.
I have a toggle sliding menu that has a hundred items and scrolling feature.
When menu opens on empty screen it's working realy smooth. But the menu behind has an object or vector shapes then fps is slowing down and scroll animation lagging.
There is a sample draw here:
Is there a solution for that?
Don't use any vector on mobile devices. At the minimum, don't display vector and instead draw them into a bitmapdata and display that instead. vector graphics require heavy CPU work and on mobile devices you will reach the CPU limit very fast. So all your displayed graphics have to be at least bitmapdata.
If it's not enough you could also mix with a Stage3D framework like Starling to take care of your background graphics and save even more CPU power.
I am developing a small game for Windows Phone which is based on silverlight animation.
Some animations are using silverlight animation framework like Trandforms API and some animations are frame based. What I am doing is, I am running a Storyboard having very small duration and when it;s completed event fires, I am changing image frame there. So images get replaced every time completed event get fired. But I think it is causing memory leakage in my game and memory footprint is increasing with time.
I want to ask is it a right way to do frame base animations or is there any better way to do this in silverlight???
What I can do to reduce memory consumption so that it does not increase with time.
As a general rule, beware animating anything which can't be GPU accelerated or bitmap cached. You haven't given enough information to tell if this is your issue but start by monitoring the frame rate counters, redraw regions and cache visualisation.
You can detect memory leaks with the built in profiling tools.
See DEBUG > Start Windows Phone Application Analysis
I like Windows Phone 7's interface experience. I find it very innovative compared to other interfaces (be it mobile, desktop or web). Yet it's still no less usable. All in all a very good shift from the usual in the right direction.
Some of the effects could be used in web interfaces to enhance the experience without sacrificing usability and intuitiveness.
Effects I'm talking about:
perspective animation when you click on a particular hub on the home screen)
elements executing animation in different times (hub being clicked moves last)
horizontal slide with different slide amounts (titles and background images move less than screen width which gives it a feeling of depth dimension)
etc.
2 questions
Do you know of any public website that uses at least one of the aforementioned effects and does that without the use of plugins (like Flash or Silverlight)?
Is there any JavaScript library that would provide such effects (at least the different delay and different amount sliding technique)?
Extremely simplified example
I've taken some time to put up a simplified example of transition effect that could be adopted on mobile devices and simulates at least a bit of the fine Windows Phone 7.x transitions.
Just click on any tile and see others zoom out and slide to left.
Let me know what you think about this example.
Something came out just these days
Take a look at this HTML demo written by Microsoft (or one of its partners). Blew my mind away as being the closest to WP7 experience! Amazing!
The delay and sliding should be easily handled by jQuery, but I am not aware of someone who has alredy bundled up something to directly emulate the WP7 interface. Sounds like a fun project.
When using the TransitioningContentControl and a Panorama, I cannot seem to get any good performance when I am navigating from one page to another.
I have been implementing a basic Flip animation, where the current content gets flipped out and the new one is flipped in, but the apps FPS drops to less than 20FPS which means you never get to see the first half of the animation, which is a real pain...
How can I ensure that the animations runs so that the phone can handle the transition?
I dont think its my panorama, its not that full of stuff...
Is this on the emulator or on an actual device? From what i've heard, depending on your hardware, the CPU performance is better on the emulator, but the graphics performance can be much better on an actual device.
Are you transitioning to to the panorama or from the panorama? If you're transitioning to it, can you "delay load" the content of the panorama items' lists?
I m, on a daily basis creating web pages. My preferred development screen resolution is: 1600x1200 but what is yours?
And do you use any other plug-ins?
I use window re sizer 1.0 for Firefox. But are there better options?
In my opinion, if you're using a window resizer, you're already on top of the game. I try to aim for pages that work well on a 1024x768 screen, accounting for scrollbars and toolbars and whatnot. It may be worth resizing your screen to 1024x768 (or whatever the minimum is that you support) every once in a while just to fully understand that user experience, but in general the window resizer keeps you aware enough.
I disagree - fixed size layouts are just fine. In fact, Stackoverflow.com uses a fixed size layout, as do a great many professional sites out there. The reason? Predictability.
A few things:
Never have horizontal scroll bars
Try to avoid vertical scroll bars when it's reasonable to do so
Remember, AJAX and other newer technologies can help you save space on your page with popups and other niceties.
My 2 cents,
-Doug
It shouldn't matter - design your web pages to be flexible and fluid such that they degrade gracefully on any reasonable screen resolution. Cater for mobile devices with very minimal screen space and massive displays.
I develop with a 2x1440x900 setup, but I leave Firefox as a window at 1024x768 using Web Developer Toolbar.
The dual monitor setup is really useful when you have the code on one screen and Firefox on the other.
I wouldn't go over 800x600. However, ideally your layout is not fixed to a screen size, and can resize and still look right.
I stick with 1024x768. It's usually big enough for what you need to display, and not everyone is quite to 1600x1200 yet. Maybe in a few years. I'd stick with a smaller display...that way it may force you to be more design conscience.
Two screens are invaluable regardless of screen size. One screen to run your editor, and one screen to run your browser. It's amazing how much smoother development becomes.
With my stats showing 1024x768 as my users' dominant resolution, I certainly wouldn't go below that. Beyond that, I agree with, apparently, everyone else here that fixed size layouts are just a bad idea, and your design should adapt to render context.
For the love of Pete don't use pixel sized fonts. Use em or pt sizing instead.
It all really depends on what kind of page you are designing. I would try to design with the ability for the page to scale in mind. There is nothing I hate more than having to zoom in a page that was designed for 800x600 on a 1920x1200 display.
I think the best advice given here is just to try it at different resolutions instead of your native one, and try to make it look good at a variety of sizes.