am looking to prototype the UI for an windows application. The app will be deployed on several display devices with different (physical) screen sizes and aspect ratios. Would like to be able to generate scenarios optimized on one display and quickly check if the layout is OK on different screen sizes, orientations. That is, I'd like to prototype one set of scenarios and "automatically" generate the same scenarios on different screens. Have superficial knowledge of MS Sketchflow. Have seen some best practices at http://www.wpftutorial.net/LayoutProperties.html#best . Am wondering if folk can advise on best practices to follow in sketchflow.
Bye
To quickly be able to check how things will look, I have 2 possible suggestions:
Use the states panel to create a state group/states that change the size of the layout container (such as layoutroot) you are working with. Then in the sketchflow player, you can select the state from the navigation menu and see how it looks.
Use a ChangePropertyAction behavior from the asset panel attached to a button. You can set the height or width to the size you want. If you use 2, you can set both the height and width. This would give you the ability to control the layout size and see how it is rendered.
Hope that helps, let me know if you need more info.
Keep a consistent theme between the pages, kind of goes without saying.
Related
I'm analyzing my approach with Gmail's android developer's team approach in order to optimize drawing times and generally create more efficient apps.
My approach:
Below is the hierarchy inside a listview. It's quite straightforward. ExpandableListContentItem extends a Relative layout which has 3 Views:
Gmail app:
The following screenshot is how the listview in Gmail app works (SwipableListView). It's interesting to see that there is only one View (I guess aY extends ConvertationItemView) which in reality is quite more complicated than mine (I see 3 texts, 1 photo, 1 icon/button).
Question:
I would assume that this is a more lightweight approach to get rendered, is it so? Even if it takes me more time to code an optimal single customview per listview item it is worth the performance that it offers?
Finally the only way I know so far is to inflate an existing view inside another which is basically the first approach. I guess now my challenge would be to combine that relativeLayout with the 3 nested views into one. Is that correct?
PS:examples, open source code are welcome.
I would assume that this is a more lightweight approach to get rendered, is it so?
Yes it is. When you consider hierarchy, every parent measures their dimensions and passes it to child views from top to bottom. Reducing layers and having more flat view will save time.
Even if it takes me more time to code an optimal single customview per listview item it is worth the performance that it offers?
Depends on application you are developing. Depends on number of items in a list and how you get them. When you scroll through the list, if you think it is slow you might want to try that approach. I tried it on my previous applications and I could see the difference.
I guess now my challenge would be to combine that relativeLayout with the 3 nested views into one.
I don't know what you mean by combining them but the way Gmail does it that they have their Custom View. You can create your custom view.
Besides that, another thing to consider is overdraw. It is as important as having flat views. If you activate GPU Overdraw from developer tools and look at Gmail app row, you will see 0 overdraw. Make sure your code has no overdraw.
For further reading I would recommend you to check these blogs :
Performance Tuning On Android
Android Performance Case Study
I'm in the concept phase of a Mac application that should let the user easily select and layout images for printing. It's a document-based app and a document can have multiple pages with lots of pictures in different sizes and rotations on it. The UI would kind of be like the UI of Pages.app.
Those pictures can possibly be large hi-res images. The user should also be able to print them in the best quality that the images offer.
I have re-watched some WWDC sessions about Quartz, 2D drawing optimization and NSView.
I know that there are a few different ways of accomplishing what I want to do, namely:
Use a custom view for a "page" and draw the images in drawRect: with Core Graphics/Quartz. Use CG transforms to rotate and scale images.
Also use a custom view for a "page", but use NSImageView-subviews to display the images. Use Core Animation and layer transforms to scale/rotate images.
What is the best practice for this? Drawing with Core Graphics or using NSViews? Why?
Thank you so much!
Johannes
Depends on how interactive these pages should be. If there is a lot of mouse interaction, e.g. dragging, selecting etc. I'd go with views. If you want fluid animations I'd even use plain CALayers with their content set to one image. This would also let you zPosition the images in case they overlap. A view based solution makes z-ordering hard.
The drawRect method should be fastest but you have hard times integrating user interaction and you must z-order manually.
This is a reply I got from opening one of my two Apple Technical Support Incidents:
Hi Johannes,
Thanks for contacting Apple DTS regarding your question about printing
and the different ways to construct your applications general UI (with
views).
There is a trend toward using layer-backed views in OS X (utilizing
Core Animation layers) which is motivated by the ability to easily
animate your application's user interface, with little work, when
needed. However in terms of printing, you would be better off to
implement drawRect for custom views so that the view contents can be
drawn at "full resolution" when rendered into the context for
printing.
If instead you use layer backed views at as those layers to
"renderInContext" the layer contents would be used to render, which
commonly will not be set to the full resolution of your source
documents/images. This is because layer backed views take additional
memory to store those bitmaps (cached layer contents), and because of
that, they are recommended to be sized appropriately for the screen
(which may not necessarily be sized appropriately for the printed
page).
Does this help guide your application architecture? Please let me
know.
So basically this means that using layer-backed views might result in sub-optimal printing quality. I've replied with some follow-up questions ("How setting wantsLayer = NO on the rootView right before printing help?") and will post the answers as soon as I get them.
All three approaches should work. Since you should be using scaled-down representations of large images anyway, I don't think there will be much difference. Do what you feel most comfortable doing.
My guess is just using layer-backed NSViews (one par draggable image) will probably work best for starters. If you find performance lacking, you can always micro-optimize. Note that you may have to make your views a tad larger than the images so you can draw the selection handles outside them.
This is all assuming that you will never want to do a more complex drawing.
I have zero experience with multiple displays & cocoa. Feel free to share any handy links, tutorials. What I need is this : I'm trying to fill all displays with a full screen, transparent window. What I'm afraid for, though, is that all the displays together don't necessarily form a rectangle, but have to touch somewhere.
What are your thoughts about this?
You would set up a window for each display that is not mirrored. The API you are looking for is "Quartz Display Services".
CGGetActiveDisplayList gives you a list of non-sleeping, non-mirrored, drawable displays.
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
What are some best practices on enabling a web application to support multiple resolutions? Specifically resolutions that are wide-screen vs. normal aspect ratio.
It doesn't seem like there is an easy answer - other than simply supporting a few fixed resolutions and using some absolute positioning to get the layout to work correctly.
This of course gets even more difficult to make it cross browser.
Does anyone have any good resources of this problem?
You can always try to use a liquid layout structure where the width of your elements are scaled proportionate to how wide their browser window is.
here is a good article explaining different layouts including liquid layout.
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/liquid/
PS. the above mentioned site (maxdesign.com.au) is using liquid layout itself, so try and change the size of your browser when reading the article.
One fast, simple, fairly robust way is to use a framework like Blueprint or 960gs to lay out the site. They're browser-independent so you don't need to worry about that, and they make most column layouts pretty easy.
They both work on the idea of creating a fixed-size container somewhere between 900 and 1000 pixels wide for your content. Most people run in at least 1024x768 nowadays. If you need more width than that for your content, you're probably doing it wrong.
The one area where ~960px might not work is mobile phones... but that's what mobile stylesheets are for, right?
In Opera and Safari (esp. their mobile versions) you can use CSS3 media queries, which let you declare completely different styles for different screen resolutions.
This can be emulated in other browsers using Javascript – Alistapart: Switchy McLayout
You can use percentages to set width and heights also, but this is also difficult sometimes.
You have two options here:
Fixed Width Layout
Flow Layout
Both have benefits and drawbacks, and in the end, it's a design decision as to which is the best choice.