how to take screenshots of palm emulator
We use HyperSnap 6 for all our screen capture needs. It's quite capable of capturing screen information inside a VMWare guest from the actual host machine and I suspect it would have little trouble with a Palm emulator as well, since it basically operates at the host level.
You can easily capture dynamic ranges (where you use the mouse/keyboard to mark top-left and bottom-right corners) as well as pre-specified ranges like "same range as last time" or "the current window" with simple key combinations (this last one is ideal for our demo and documentation purposes).
One other nice feature is the fact that it's like a mini-paint program (actually, it's a lot better than MSPaint) which allows us to highlight important bits of the image with markers and such, before saving.
Sorry to sound like an advert, but you did ask :-)
you can always take screenshots natively. orange + sym + s i believe (not sure what keys they are in emulator, but those are ones on the phone). you can then send that photo to wherever.
Related
So I have a big 32 inch display with a resolution of 1440p, and I want to set the DPI scaling to 75% instead of 100%. But I can't find any way to do so on multiple monitors.
I currently have:
Display 1 [2560 x 1440] (Main display I want to change)
Display 2 [2560 x 1440] (This one is 27 inches so it's fine as is)
Display 3 [3840 x 2160] (Set to 100%, fine as it is)
This trick (click me) changes DPI scaling via some registry keys (LogPixels & Win8DpiScaling), but when I use that trick it downscales display 3 instead of display 1.
Is there a way to get this to work? I see no reason for Microsoft to limit the scaling in displays.
Note: I have a 2070 super, all the displays are plugged into the GPU via displayport directly, with the latest avalible firmware at the time of writing (september 2021)
The tl;dr:
Technical limitations aside, there are very solid user experience reasons why this probably isn't allowed.
No, Windows will not let you set UI scaling below 100%.
(even if a stable workaround were to be discovered, most users would probably be quite unhappy with the results)
While I would love¹ to be proven incorrect, the implications of scaling at less than 100% are so fraught that this limitation is unlikely to change in the near future.
Background:
This has been the case for ages, likely since Windows first introduced the feature.
Compatibility with current software
The only ~purely technical~ reason I can think of:
The 100% scaling size likely uses the smallest base image (e.g. Explorer and Taskbar icons, mouse and text cursors) resources included in various existing Microsoft and 3rd-party applications.
User experience
Going below the 100% point may cause small UI text and icons, especially in application toolbars and the Taskbar to be blurred to the point of ambiguity.
Those fine lines in the taskbar 'Windows' menu icon? Blurred or gone.
Taken to the extreme, the UI ~might~ become so unreadable that the user is effectively prevented from being able to read the text even in the 'Settings' window and therefore is 'stuck': i.e. not able to navigate through 'Settings' to restore the original '100%' scaling mode.
(Luckily, Windows is never used to run any SCADA software where confusing two icons could theoretically cost money or lives.)
Performance:
Since those carefully-designed graphic assets don't exist, if sub-100% scaling were allowed, it would also likely cause extra CPU/GPU workload - that is why only certain fixed sizes of up-sampling are shown on the normal Display settings screen and why the Advanced scaling settings screen warns that custom scaling between 100-500% is "not recommended".
That might also apply to any fixed scaling option offered below 100%, and absolutely would for custom scaling sizes.
Some people enjoy reading:
Vector-based TrueType/OpenType fonts usually contain a ~lot~ of manual tweaking / hints to enable readable display of very small point sizes.
The marketing department & friends of the C-suite
Could they implement this at a limited range of options? 90%? 75%?
Perhaps - but it's extra testing for a horrible-looking edge case.
The existence of the option, even if only available as a registry hack, might cause some people to actually use it in kiosks and other public-facing displays; this risks the same sort of bad PR as when a BSOD is seen on the 'arrivals' screen at a train station or airport monitor.
Combined with the first example below, even a 90% option could cause trouble in some environments.
Example and tutorial:
Imagine how Windows might look displayed on one of those cheapo '1080p-supported' projectors that actually only contains an imager with a native pixel resolution of, say, 1024x576 (or even 480x234).
Windows thinks it can send 1080p, since that what the HDMI connection advertises, so it does: any text / vector content looks atrocious.
(At least in this case the user could normally² unplug the projector and reconnect to a normal monitor to restore functionality.)
See for yourself... while connected to any monitor (at that monitor's native resolution), with Windows set to 100% scaling:
Open Windows Notepad
Type or paste in any block of text
Now, use the Zoom Out command from the View menu³ five or more times in a row
While not an exact analogue, you may still see how hard it could be to read down-sampled text, even when very high-contrast (the best-case scenario).
¹: As someone currently typing this very answer on a 1080p connection to a 55" 4K television as a second monitor, I came across the question very much hoping this was possible. Sadly, logic intervened and killed my potential joy.
²: Unless the computer is actually stored somewhere locked or inaccessible, such as a NUC-style PC hidden above the false ceiling in a conference room.
³: Alternatively, press <CTRL>-<Minus> five or more times.
Before I get shot down on this one, I realize that the 'how' answer for this question might be slightly debatable, however I'm more interested in the 'what'.
In a nut shell I want to know which methods I can use to interact with a PC video game interface. I want to create a program that can extract data from a video game market interface.
My first initial thought was that I would need to programmatically take screen shots and then use some Optical Character Recognition software to extract the text. Then run whatever operation on the extracted text to derive my incites.
Then I was thinking it might just be easier to have a bunch of mini screen shots that I just use to find matches on certain sections of the screen. When a match is found, I would then know what the text is on the screen, without having to actually 'extract' it.
For those out there whom have done this, can you point me in one direction or the other? Perhaps there is a method that I am completely unaware of.
If its the case that this question is not suitable for this forum. It would be much appreciated if you could direct me elsewhere.
Edit: I should probably add that I'm not looking to spend a fortune on this project... so any free software would be the best. Perhaps that's a tall order.
I'm starting to think Sikuli is the direction I'm going to go. Open Source image recognition software, integrates with Python, Ruby, Java, JDBC, JavaScript and more.
-- Expanding on the question --
There are basically 3 categories of tools:
Recorder while you manually work along your workflow, a recorder tracks your mouse and keyboard actions. After stopping the recording, you might playback (autorun your worflow). The recordings can usually be edited and augmented with additional features.
GUI aware the tool allows to programmatically operate on GUI elements like buttons. This is based on the knowledge of internal structures and names of the GUI elements and their features. Some of these tools also have a recording feature.
Visually the tool “sees” images (usually retangular pixel areas) on the screen and allows to act on these images using mouse and keyboard simulation. There might be some recorder feture as well with such a tool.
SikuliX belongs to the 3rd category and currently does not have a recorder feature.
Answer in progress...
In games with moddable UIs, like many MMOs, you could create a mod that streams data through a series of black and white squares that could be read with optical sensors. From there, a microcontroller could deliver the data back to the PC via USB or wifi.
My approach as a noob. First determine if OCR 100% needed, I think this plays a role in speed.
if possible:
-run game in window (allows for trouble shooting and easy troubleshooting)
-is there a high contrast option for game? Will help Sikuli find things
then you plan out your scenarios:
You have to create different functions for different situations. A lot of gaming is "do you see this?" Then "do this" until that is gone.
Start with small parts you want to automate then build on them. Making sure your parts can scale in case small change need to happen, they will. For instance you want to open the menu if you see an object, lets say a tree.
Assume you have some sort of walking algorithm.
setROI(region1) #focus here for tree
if exists(tRee):
click(loCation) #you could hit the shortcut key to opening the menu
click(iTem) #if the item moves in the menu then you may need to scroll to find it first or you can change the ROI and start seeing if sikuli can differentiate your item from one you dont want to click.
You would get that to loop into other actions and proceed. Goodluck.
At our school district we support about 2,000 Windows 7 PCs. We have created a Windows 7 gadget that sits in the user's top right corner and displays the computer name and IP. This aids us when a user calls so that we can remotely connect to the computer they are on.
The problem is the screen resolution varies quite a bit all over our district. Some use 1024x768 on 17" monitors and others use much larger resolutions if they have 20"+ or multiple screens.
On larger screens the gadget actually appears more towards the center. This is because a GPO adds the gadget to the user's desktop and the gadget's ini file contains the X & Y locations of the gadget.
This is stored in the PrivateSetting_GadgetDropLocationX = XXX and PrivateSetting_GadgetDropLocationY = YYY settings where XXX and YYY are the number of pixels from the top left corner of the screen.
What I woudl love to do is have the Gadget itself find the user's top right corner of the screen by simply finding the screen dimensions and moving itself. This way the gadget would always appear in the top-right no matter how small or large the user's screen was.
Does anyone have an idea on how to do this? I would love it if I could do something like PrivateSetting_GadgetDropLocationX = -1 or something to indicate 1 pixel from the top right.
Is there any way to move the gadget using JavaScript code in the gadget itself?
While this is not a direct answer to your question, its possibly an alternative. Microsoft has a utility called BGInfo http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897557 which will take the info your want displayed and merge it with whatever background is present on the PC. I've used it before on numerous workstations and there's no reason you couldn't deploy it with GP.
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!
Many animation effects are simply gratuitous eye candy -- however, there are situations where animations effectively communicate to the user what's going on.
What are some of your favorite uses for animations, and what specific animation type would you use?
E.g.: Animate items downwards when a new item is inserted into a list
I really like Google Chrome's use when a file is being downloaded. It's hard to describe, but, it's a circle that fills like a pie chart as the download progresses, and the circle is overlaid with the icon for the file you're downloading. Very slick.
One example I can think of is the animation used by operating systems when you minimize a window.
Both Microsoft Windows and Apple OS X animate the window going down to the taskbar (or the Dock in OS X) to show the user where the window went. Otherwise novice users that hit minimize by accident might have trouble getting the window back.
I don't use linux, but I'm pretty sure it does the same. I'm not being discriminative =)
From enjoy3d.com
enjoy3d.com http://worldsware.com/images/mouse.gif
Press your mouse button
and move to look around.
There is a very nice paper by Ben Bederson and Angela Boltman in which they evaluate the impact of animation on user’s ability to build a mental map of the information in the space:
Does Animation Help Users Build Mental Maps
of Spatial Information?
I believe that all visual changes should not be swift. Be it status notification, window maximized/minimized, or data deleted/added. I cannot find a reference, but usually it is recommended that all animations should not be around 1-2 seconds, matching human's response time.
My favorite uses of animation is not in a commercial software (though Apple is good at this) but a research paper called Phosphor which I consider one of the great UI ideas that have not yet implemented into major operating systems.
AJAX loading gifs - you've got to have an indicator that you definitely registered an event and you're doing something about it
Progress bars are nice for things that take more than a moment or two, but only when they are accurate. An inaccurate progress bar is worse than none, in my opinion.