Through experience I have found that the native windows forms/components don’t like to be changed. I know using Delphi or Visual Studio you are given native windows components to populate a form or window with and then you attach code on events that these components may do (onClick for example).
However, how do all of these programs like Word or google’s Chrome browser alter the standard windows’ window? I thought it was somehow protected?
Chrome seems to have tabs actually on the window’s frame?
I know you can also get toolkits like Swing and QT that have their own controls/components to populate a form. How do these work? (How does the operating system/computer know what a non-native button should act like? For example; Chrome's back and forward buttons, they're not native components?).
I can understand how OpenGL/DirectX window would work because you’re telling the computer exactly what to draw with polygons/quads.
I hope this question is clear!
Windows does not protect GUI elements. Windows and controls can be subclassed to handle various drawing operations in a custom way. For example, windows may override and reimplement the handling of the WM_NCPAINT message to draw a custom titlebar and frame:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd145212(VS.85).aspx
Some Windows controls have an "owner-draw" mode. If you use this, you get to draw the control (or at least vital parts of the control), while Windows takes care of responding to user input in the standard way.
Swing ant QT draw their own widgets at a low level using basic primitives, but they also have theme engines which can mimic the native controls.
Qt moved to native controls a while back. As for how swing does it, it gets a basic window from the OS. Then much like Opengl\Directx it does all of the drawing with in that window. As for where to position things that is what the layout managers do. Each manager has a layout style horizontal, vertical, grid, components it has to draw and a section of window it is expected to fill. From there it does some pretty easy math to allocate its space to its controls.
There's no magic: non native controls are simply drawn on a blank window. Or, instead of being drawn they may be represented as one of several bitmaps based on state (ie: a button may be represented as a .png for the normal state, another .png for the pressed state, etc)
Related
How to get notified for mouse wheel interaction for MacCatalyst and windows at MAUI platform.
Answer 1: Scrolling.
What do you want to do based on mouse wheel interaction? If you simply want to scroll, or know when scrolling has occurred, then you can rely on ScrollView, and other views that handle scrolling themselves. E.g. ScrollView.Scrolled event.
Answer 2: General use of mouse scroll wheel.
Input functionality for mouse or keyboard has not yet been implemented in MAUI. Nor has a specification been finalized.
Here is one mouse proposal.
You could add a comment to that proposal requesting that mouse wheel support be included.
However, this might not be in the first release of MAUI, as the current emphasis is on stabilizing the functionality that is needed on all platforms (including mobile), some of which don't have mice.
In case anyone is wondering "shouldn't this be specified in .net 6?" (And then MAUI would simply use it.)
There are interactions between what is happening on the display (views or windows) and how mouse/keyboard input should be handled - it makes sense to put that input in the same code base that is displaying to the screen - therefore MAUI is a good place for it.
Especially given that touch is part of MAUI.
Until then, the solution is to make a DependencyService on each platform, to refer to the platform's APIs that you need.
Surprisingly, I'm not finding one that anyone has done for mouse on Windows and Mac.
Other than "implicitly", since a mouse can be used similar to a touch device. And text can be typed on a keyboard. The point is that there is no API specific to functionality that only makes sense if you have a physical mouse (scroll wheel) or a physical keyboard (global keyboard hooks).
TBD I'll look into this further.
Basic approach would be to look at what WinUI 3 uses as input APIs.
On Windows Desktop app, forward to those input APIs. Write an adapter on other platforms (Mac, Linux).
I'll see if Uno Platform or Avalonia have taken this approach.
I'm trying to implement simple metro style window using WinAPI (basicly like Visual Studio 2012 style) to run on Windows 7 and Windows 8, I know it a hard work and at begin, I have those problems:
1. Create a squared window
I can achieve this by create a borderless window (mean no border, no titlebar, only client area) but by this way, I can't resize this window and titlebar was lost of course. Are these any ways to create a squared corner window and still keep titlebar (including close, max, min, ... buttons)?
2. Owner draw close, maximize, minimize buttons
I can owner draw whole titlebar by catching WM_NCPAINT event but this way I see these buttons (close, maximize, minimize) go to the hell. How can I show these button in my way (I mean draw it by my ideas)?
3. Create shadow
You can see that if Visual Studio 2012's window do not maximized, it show a shadow, it look great and I want apply that effect to my simple window. How can I do that?
You need to write your own code that draws basic window elements, and handle mouse events by hand to make them interactive. (hooking WM_NCHITTEST may help for interactivity)
To make a shadow, make your window layered, then set a background image with an alpha-transparent shadow.
In addition to what SLaks said, which will work but is a lot of effort and will take time, you may want to consider whether you can use a framework in developing your program. If you can, then you may be able to use a framework toolkit to implement the "window chrome" leaving you free to work on the the important part of your application: the logic.
If you can use MFC, then I would recommend CodeJock's Toolkit Pro 2013; I am not affiliated with them in any way, but have used their product in the past and it's quite good.
I'm sure that there are other toolkits, some of which might target different frameworks, but I have no experience with them and no basis to recommend them.
I am new to GUI programming in Windows.
The Windows Resource Monitor (perfmon.exe /res) has four bars (CPU/Disk/Network/Memory) that have gradient backgrounds, as well as charts on the right for displaying recent CPU/Disk/Network/Memory usage.
I am wondering what kind of controls were used in this application. Are they readily available in C++ or in C#?
They are custom controls that are not available for external use, sorry.
You can use the Spy++ window finder tool (Spy++ is included with DevStudio) to find the window class names (and window boundaries).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa266028(v=vs.60).aspx
It shows that the overall window is a DirectUIHWND, the graphs are windows but the bars labelled CPU/Disk/Network, etc are not windows at all, the appear to be drawn directly in the resource monitors client area.
The implementation is not public for these controls, but I'm pretty sure they are incorporated using Windowless Controls.
Those bars remind me of Outlook bars. One old implementation is described in Code Project, and that one also has no windows on its own. Everything is painted inside.
Edit: That Code Project article was C# port. For C++ original go to Code Guru.
I'm from a Windows programming background when writing tools, but have been programming using Carbon and Cocoa for the past year. I have introduced myself to Mac by, I admit it, hiding from UI programming. I've been basically wapping my OpenGL code in a view, then staying in my comfort zone using my platform agnostic OpenGL C++ code as usual.
However, now I want to start porting one of my more sophisticated applications to Mac OS.
Typically I use the standard Visual Studio dockable MDI approach, which is excellent, but very Windows-like. From using a Mac primarily now for a while, I don't tend to see this sort of method used for Mac UIs. Even Xcode doesn't support the idea of drag and drop/dockable views, unfortunately. I see docked views with splitter panels, but that's about it.
The closest thing I've seen to the Visual Studio approach is Photoshop CS4, which is pretty nice.
So what is the general consensus on this? Is there are more Mac-like way of achieving the same thing that I haven't seen? If not, I'm happy to write a window manager in Cocoa myself, so that I can finally delve in an learn what looks like an excellent API.
Note, I don't want to use QT or any other cross-platform libraries. The whole point is that I want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app, leave the Windows app looking like a Windows app. I always find the cross-platform libraries tend to lose this effect, and when I see a native Mac UI, with fancy Cocoa transitions and animations, I always smile. It's also a good excuse for me to learn Cocoa.
That being said, if there is an Open Source Cocoa library to do this, I'd love to know about it! I'd love to see how someone else achieves this, and would help smooth the Cocoa learning curve.
Cheers,
Shane
UPDATE: I forgot to mention a critical point. I support plugins, which can have their own UI to display various plugin specific information. I don't know which plugins will be loaded and I don't know where their UI will live, if I don't support docking. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, specifically: How do I support a plugin view architecture, if the UI can't change? Where do I put the plugin views?
Coming from a Windows background, you feel the need to have docking windows, but is it really essential to the app? Apple's philosophy (in my opinion) is that the designer knows better than the user how things should look and work. For example, iTunes is a pretty sophisticated app, but it doesn't let you change the UI around, change the skin, etc., because Apple wants to keep it consistent. They offer the full view, the mini player, and a handful of different viewing options, but they don't let you pull the source list off into a separate window, or dock it in other positions. They think it should be on the left, so there it stays...
You said you "want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app", and as you pointed out, Mac apps don't tend to have docking windows. Therefore, implementing your own docking windows is probably a step in the wrong direction ;)
+1 to Ken's answer.
From a user perspective unless its integral to the app like it is in Adobe CS or Eclipse i want everything as concise as possible and all the different options and displays out of my way so i can focus on the document.
I think you will find with mac users that those who have the "user skill" to make use of rearranging panels will in most cases opt for hot key bindings instead, and those who dont have that level of "skill" youre just going to confuse.
I would recommend keeping it as simple as possible.
One thing that's common among many Mac apps is the ability to hide all the chrome and focus on your content. That's the point behind the "tic tac" toolbar control in the top right corner of many windows. A serious weakness of many docking UIs is that they expect you to have the window take up most of the screen, because the docked panels can obscure content. Even if docked panels are collapsable, the space left by them is often just wasted and filled with white space. So, if you build a docking panel into your interface, you should expect it to be visible most of the time. For example, iTunes' source list is clearly designed to be visible all the time, but you can double-click a playlist to open it in a new window.
To get used to the range of Mac controls, I'd suggest you try doing some serious work with some apps that don't have a cross-platform UI; for example, the iWork apps, Interface Builder or Preview. Take note of where controls appear and why—in toolbars, in bottom bars, in inspectors, in source lists/sidebars, in panels such as IB's Library or the Font and Color panels, in contextual HUDs. Don't forget the menu bar either. Get an idea of the feel of controls—their responsiveness, modality, sizing, grouping and consistency. Try to develop some taste—not everything is perfect; just try iCal if you want to have something to make fun of.
Note that there's no "one size fits all" for controls, which can be an issue with docking UIs. It's important to think about workflow: how commonly used the control would be, whether you can replace it with direct manipulation, whether a visible indication of its state is necessary, whether it's operable from the keyboard and mouse where appropriate, and so forth. Figure out how the control's placement and behavior lets the user work more efficiently.
As a simple example of example of a good versus bad control placement and behavior in otherwise-decent applications, compare image masking in OmniGraffle and Keynote. In OmniGraffle, this uses the Image inspector where you have to first click on an unlabeled button ("Natural size") in order to enable the appropriate controls, then adjust size and position away in a low-fidelity fashion with an image thumbnail or by typing percentages into fields. Trying to resize the frame directly behaves in a bizarre and counterintuitive fashion.
In Keynote, masking starts with a sensibly named menu item or toolbar item, uses a HUD which pops up the instant you click on a masked image and allows for direct manipulation including a sensible display of the extent of the image you're masking. While you're dragging a masked image around, it even follows the guides. Advanced users can ignore the HUD entirely, just double-clicking the image to toggle mask editing and using the handles for sizing. It should be easy to see, with a few caveats (e.g. the state of "Edit Mask" mode should be visible in the HUD rather than just from the image; the outer border of the image you're masking should be more effectively used) Keynote is substantially better at this, in part because it doesn't use an inspector.
That said, if you do have a huge number of options and the standard tabbed inspector layout doesn't work for you, check out the Omni Group's OmniInspector framework. Try to use it for good, and hopefully you'll figure out how to obsess over UI as much as you do over graphics now :-)
(running in slow motion, reaching out in panic) Nnnnnoooooooo!!!!!
:-) Seriously, as I mentioned in reply to Ken's excellent answer, trying to force a "Windowsism" on an OS X UI is definitely a bad idea. In my opinion, the biggest problem with Windows UI is third-party developers inventing new and inconsistent ways of presenting UI, rather than being consistent and following established conventions. To a Mac user, that's the sign of a terrible application. It's that way for a reason.
I encourage you to rethink your UI app's implementation from the ground up with the Mac OS in mind. If you've done your job well, the architecture and model (sans platform-specific implementation) should clearly translate to any platform.
In terms of UI, you've been using a Mac for a year, so you should have a pretty good idea of "the norm". If you have doubts, it's best to post a question specifically detailing what you need to present and your thoughts on how you might do it (or asking how if you have no idea).
Just don't whack your app with the ugly stick by forcing it to behave as if it were running in Windows when it's clearly not. That's the kiss of death for an app to Mac users.
I have a custom control: it's managed code, which subclasses System.Windows.Forms.Control.
I want to add things like edit boxes, selection lists, combo boxes, radio buttons and so on to places on this control. An easy way to do this is to simply add instances of these classes to the Controls collection, so that they become child controls.
Adding them as child controls might create some subtle problems, for example:
IE 6 select controls(Combo Box) over menu
I have scrollbars on my control which appear to scroll the contents of the control (the contents are bigger than the control itself); when a child control is near the edge of the screen then I'd like to half-display (i.e. clip) that child (i.e. to have half of it located off the edge of the physical screen), but a true child control cannot be located outside the border of its parent.
Are there other potential problems?
When I use IE7 to display http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlselect.php (for example), which contains combo boxes etc., and when I then use Spy++ to spy on IE7 when I'm doing that, I see only a single Window/control instance with no children (whose class name is "Internet Explorer_Server").
I'm guessing this means that in IE7, the functionality to render a combo box is built in to the IE7 control itself, and that IE7 does not use standard controls as child controls.
Questions:
Is it better to reuse standard controls as children of a custom control, or, to reimplement the functionality of standard controls within a custom control itself?
Do you have any caveats (warnings) to share, related to either scenario?
If I wanted to reimplement the functionality of standard controls within a custom control, do you know of any existing code (which implements this functionality) that I could re-use?
If such code already exists, I don't know how to search for it (my searches find, for example, owner-draw combo boxes, and extensions to standard combo boxes): perhaps few people reimplement the standard controls from scratch?
Edit
I found a semi-related question: How to render a control to look like ComboBox with Visual Styles enabled?
Yes, Internet Explorer draws the controls using the Windows theming APIs. You can do this too using the types defined in the System.Windows.Forms.VisualStyles namespace.
The IE team did this to avoid performance problems of having so many controls, each receiving window messages, on screen at once. For example, looking at this StackOverflow.com page, I see 30-40 link label controls, 10 buttons or so, 20+ labels, etc.
It should be noted the Zune software, which is .NET managed code, also uses custom controls; if you try to use Spy++ on any of the controls, you'll see they aren't real Win32 controls. You may use Reflector on the Zune software to see exactly what they're doing. If I recall right, they're using a custom managed UI framework that's included in the Zune software.
As far as rewriting these controls from scratch, I think there's a ton of work to be done. It sounds easier than it really would be.