If you try to close a Microsoft Office application when you've got a ton of its stuff on the clipboard (e.g. a whole word doc), it prompts you to ask if you would like to access that data after the application is closed.
In this day and age, does it really matter if I have say 10MB of stuff on the clipboard?
As I write my image processing app, should I follow the same rule as Office, or just forget about it and leave the data there?
Personally, I favor just forgetting about it and leaving it there. I've always found the MS Word approach more annoying than useful.
The reason word is asking about this is that it uses Delayed Rendering for the clipboard. This allows word to only create the formats that are requested upon a paste operation. However, any formats on the clipboard that were created with delayed rendering will disappear if the program exits without rendering them. In the case of excel, rendering thousands of empty cells in RTF would take megabytes of space, even though the actual data is tiny. Thus it asks whether you want the data rendered to the clipboard or if you're fine with losing it.
For your own application, the question then becomes: should I use delayed rendering? The answer depends on how long it take you to render in the various formats you'd like to support. If you're only supporting one format that renders quickly, odds are there's not going to be an advantage to delayed rendering.
If you're storing things on the clipboard without the user requesting it then you might just annoy a few people :)
Otherwise, yeah, just leave the data there.
How To Erase Windows Clipboard Data and Why.
any one who has access to the computer can easily see the clipboard information.
I'd guess, malware today would also be snooping there.
this question might be more suitable on superuser.
Related
Windows uses some encoding table for non-unicode applications to map characters from unicode table to 1-byte table. There are many predefined character sets, user can choose one in windows settings. I need to create a custom character set. Where can I find some information about that process? I tried to Google it, but didn't have any luck, I guess, few people are doing that.
AFAIK, you can't do that, I don't think there's even a way to write some kernel mode "driver" for it, but, haven't looked into these things for a while, maybe there is some way (now).
In any case, you might be better off using a library you can change/update, such as libiconv.
UPDATE:
Since you don't have the source code, you're in a very unfortunate position.
For all string resources (in EXE or any DLLs or, though unlikely, in some other file(s)), you can "read them out" and figure out what's the code page used in them and change it (and the strings themselves), tweaking it in some way that would achieve your purpose - to have the right glyphs appear (yes, you might actually see different glyphs in Notepad, but, who cares if you application shows the right one(s) - FWIW, for such hacks, it's best to use a hex-editor). Then, of course, "put" the (changed) resources back in (EXE/DLL). But, it's quite possible not all strings are in resources, and that's when the "real" problems start.
There's any number of hacks that could have been done here. Your best option is to use some good debugger (WinDbg or better) and figure out what's going on and how are character sets handled = since you don't have the source code, it's gonna be quite painful. You want to find out:
Are the default charset(s) used (OEM/ANSI), or some specific (via NLS APIs)?
Whatever charset is used, is it a standard one or not? The charset here is the "code" Windows assigns to it. Look at Windows lists of available charsets.
Is the application installing fonts? If it is, use a font tool to examine them - maybe it has a specific (non-standard?) code-page supported in it.
Is the application installing some some drivers. If it is, the only way to gain more insight is to use a kernel debugger (which is very tricky and annoying, but, as already said, you're in an unfortunate situation).
It appears that those tables are located at C:\Windows\system32*.nls. I'm not sure whether there's proper documentation for their structure. There's some information in Russian here. Also you might want to tinker with registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Nls
I am interested in learning windows system internals and how things work. I am inclined towards learning system programming on windows. With that context, I am curious to know few things on how windows clipboard internally functions:
What precisely happens when we select some text, image etc and press
Ctrl + C ?
What precisely happens when we we press Ctrl + V in different application?
Where exactly the copied data resides? Does the copied data go into kernel mode memory - that is shared across all processes?
How the copied data becomes available to a different process?
I want to know the answer to the above questions from the system programmer's perspective.
Also, share any resources that discuss about windows clipboard internals.
I have some good resources on my site: http://www.clipboardextender.com
It talks about clipboard viewer implementation, typical mistakes, do's and dont's.
Basically the clipboard is a shared memory area that you copy data into (aka. "copy", such as in response to the user pressing Ctrl+C) and copy data from (aka "paste").
The data can be simultaneously represented in dozens of common formats, and any number of programmer-defined formats.
It is impossible to completely "backup" the clipboard and restore it like it was, without impacting other programs, and causing a negative user experience. Look into "delayed rendering" to see why, and consider what would happen when an Excel user copies 5000 rows x 255 columns in a spreadsheet, and presses Ctrl+V. Understand that, and you'll understand the magic (and pitfalls) of delayed rendering.
Am trying to write a piece of code which will allows the user to type text into a textbox which then gets saved on the server. When the user types some more text in the textbox, I want only the difference to be sent to the server.
Is there a difference algorithm for JS which I can use to send only information about the difference. So it should be able to tell the difference between two text boxes essentially.
It could also be language agnostic and I can port it.
Thank you for your time.
UPDATE
In simple words. I have a text area which keeps saving the text in the box every X seconds. Now to save bandwidth I only want it to send the difference from the last saved revision (which I can say put in a variable. Initially this will be empty). Now the JS has to check the difference between the last revision and the current state of the textbox and generate a change list to send to the server.
UPDATE 2
Something like www.etherpad.com
Google DiffMatchPatch has a Javascript implementation, I've used it with much success.
http://code.google.com/p/google-diff-match-patch/
The Python difflib module does this and more. It's very flexible but might be challenging to port to Javascript.
Regarding your update, I'm first wondering why you need to worry about bandwidth. Unless your users are typing a lot of text into an edit box (which has its own usability issues) then there just aren't that many bytes to send. Send the whole text box each time you autosave. Users can't type fast enough to really notice the use of bandwidth.
Or, you could meet halfway. Every time you autosave, check to see whether the user has only added new text to the end compared to the last time. If so, send an "append" type update with just the new text. If the user has gone back and edited anything else, then send a "replace" type update where you send the whole text. This takes care of the common append-only case without severely complicating your implementation.
Instead of calculating a diff between 2 texts, which is difficult,
you could always, while people are editting, record the keystrokes and the caret position in the textbox. If you send this over every now and then (and clean the buffer), the server can playback the exact same sequence.
This code-smells of premature optimization. Perhaps you should implement your solution first and then see about optimizing your transfer rates using diffs. How much text are you looking at? Because the request and response packets are going to be more or less the same size with only a few bytes difference for your message, so the savings could be very minimal.
At the very least, complete your solution without optimization and profile your network traffic using tools like Firebug and then test to see how much worse the performance is with what you would consider to be the maximum text block that could be sent.
Finally, you could always use the TypeWatch JQuery plugin to listen for change events in the textbox. You can set a delay so that once the user finishes typing and the delay elapses, the callback function is triggered. This means that the text will only be sent when the user types something, and only when they are finished typing. This will be significantly more efficient than repeatedly polling the server.
Depends on how far you are ready to go.
You would like to check deltav algorithm, it is used by svn in particular: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/notes/svndiff
I'm a software developer who has a background in usability engineering. When I studied usability engineering in grad school, one of the professors had a mantra: "You are not the user". The idea was that we need to base UI design on actual user research rather than our own ideas as to how the UI should work.
Since then I've seen some good examples that seem to prove that I'm not the user.
User trying to use an e-mail template authoring tool, and gets stuck trying to enter the pipe (|) character. Problem turns out to be that the pipe on the keyboard has a space in the middle.
In a web app, user doesn't see content below the fold. Not unusual. We tell her to scroll down. She has no idea what we're talking about and is not familiar with the scroll thumb.
I'm listening in on a tech support call. Rep tells the user to close the browser. In the background I hear the Windows shutdown jingle.
What are some other good examples of this?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm looking for examples where developers make assumptions that turn out to be horribly false about what users will know, understand, etc.
I think one of the biggest examples is that expert users tend to play with an application.
They say, "Okay, I have this tool, what can I do with it?"
Your average user sees the ecosystem of an operating system, filesystem, or application as a big scary place where they are likely to get lost and never return.
For them, everything they want to do on a computer is task-based.
"How do I burn a DVD?"
"How do I upload a photo from my camera to this website."
"How do I send my mom a song?"
They want a starting point, a reproducible work flow, and they want to do that every time they have to perform the task. They don't care about streamlining the process or finding the best way to do it, they just want one reproducible way to do it.
In building web applications, I long since learned to make the start page of my application something separate from the menus with task-based links to the main things the application did in a really big font. For the average user, this increased usability hugely.
So remember this: users don't want to "use your application", they want to get something specific done.
In my mind, the most visible example of "developers are not the user" is the common Confirmation Dialog.
In most any document based application, from the most complex (MS Word, Excel, Visual Studio) through the simplest (Notepad, Crimson Editor, UltraEdit), when you close the appliction with unsaved changes you get a dialog like this:
The text in the Untitled file has changed.
Do you want to save the changes?
[Yes] [No] [Cancel]
Assumption: Users will read the dialog
Reality: With an average reading speed of 2 words per second, this would take 9 seconds. Many users won't read the dialog at all.
Observation: Many developers read much much faster than typical users
Assumption: The available options are all equally likely.
Reality: Most (>99%) of the time users will want their changes saved.
Assumption: Users will consider the consequences before clicking a choice
Reality: The true impact of the choice will occur to users a split second after pressing the button.
Assumption: Users will care about the message being displayed.
Reality: Users are focussed on the next task they need to complete, not on the "care and feeding" of their computer.
Assumption: Users will understand that the dialog contains critical information they need to know.
Reality: Users see the dialog as a speedbump in their way and just want to get rid of it in the fastest way possible.
I definitely agree with the bolded comments in Daniel's response--most real users frequently have a goal they want to get to, and just want to reach that goal as easily and quickly as possible. Speaking from experience, this goes not only for computer novices or non-techie people but also for fairly tech-savvy users who just might not be well-versed in your particular domain or technology stack.
Too frequently I've seen customers faced with a rich set of technologies, tools, utilities, APIs, etc. but no obvious way to accomplish their high-level tasks. Sometimes this could be addressed simply with better documentation (think comprehensive walk-throughs), sometimes with some high-level wizards built on top of command-line scripts/tools, and sometimes only with a fundamental re-prioritization of the software project.
With that said... to throw another concrete example on the pile, there's the Windows start menu (excerpt from an article on The Old New Thing blog):
Back in the early days, the taskbar
didn't have a Start button.
...
But one thing kept getting kicked up
by usability tests: People booted up
the computer and just sat there,
unsure what to do next.
That's when we decided to label the
System button "Start".
It says, "You dummy. Click here." And
it sent our usability numbers through
the roof, because all of a sudden,
people knew what to click when they
wanted to do something.
As mentioned by others here, we techie folks are used to playing around with an environment, clicking on everything that can be clicked on, poking around in all available menus, etc. Family members of mine who are afraid of their computers, however, are even more afraid that they'll click on something that will "erase" their data, so they'd prefer to be given clear directions on where to click.
Many years ago, in a CMS, I stupidly assumed that no one would ever try to create a directory with a leading space in the name .... someone did, and made many other parts of the system very very sad.
On another note, trying to explain to my mother to click the Start button to turn the computer off is just a world of pain.
How about the apocryphal tech support call about the user with the broken "cup holder" (CD/ROM)?
Actually, one that bit me was cut/paste -- I always trim my text inputs now since some of my users cut/paste text from emails, etc. and end up selecting extra whitespace. My tests never considered that people would "type" in extra characters.
Today's GUIs do a pretty good job of hiding the underlying OS. But the idosyncracies still show through.
Why won't the Mac let me create a folder called "Photos: Christmas 08"?
Why do I have to "eject" a mounted disk image?
Can't I convert a JPEG to TIFF just by changing the file extension?
(The last one actually happened to me some years ago. It took forever to figure out why the TIFF wasn't loading correctly! It was at that moment that I understood why Apple used to use embedded file types (as metadata) and to this day I do not understand why they foolishly went back to file extensions. Oh, right; it's because Unix is a superior OS.)
I've seen this plenty of times, it seems to be something that always comes up. I seem to be the kind of person who can pick up on these kind of assumptions (in some circumstances), but I've been blown away by what the user was doing other many times.
As I said, it's something I'm quite familiar with. Some of the software I've worked on is used by the general public (as opposed to specially trained people) so we had to be ready for this kind of thing. Yet I've seen it not be taken into account.
A good example is a web form that needs to be completed. We need this form completed, it's important to the process. The user is no good to us if they don't complete the form, but the more information we get out of them the better. Obviously these are two conflicting demands. If just present the user a screen of 150 fields (random large number) they'll run away scared.
These forms had been revised many times in order to improve things, but users weren't asked what they wanted. Decisions were made based on the assumptions or feelings of various people, but how close those feelings were to actual customers wasn't taken into account.
I'm also going to mention the corollary to Bevan's "The users will read the dialog" assumption. Operating off the "the users don't read anything" assumption makes much more sense. Yet people who argue that the user's don't read anything will often suggest putting bits of long dry explanatory text to help users who are confused by some random poor design decision (like using checkboxes for something that should be radio buttons because you can only select one).
Working any kind of tech support can be very informative on how users do (or do not) think.
pretty much anything at the O/S level in Linux is a good example, from the choice of names ("grep" obviously means "search" to the user!) to the choice of syntax ("rm *" is good for you!)
[i'm not hatin' on linux, it's just chock full of unix-legacy un-usability examples]
How about the desktop and wallpaper metaphors? It's getting better, but 5-10 years ago was the bane of a lot of remote tech support calls.
There's also the backslash vs. slash issue, the myriad names for the various keyboard symbols, and the antiquated print screen button.
Modern operating systems are great because they all support multiple user profiles, so everyone that uses my application on the same workstation can have their own settings and user data. Only, a good portion of the support requests I get are asking how to have multiple data files under the same user account.
Back in my college days, I used to train people on how to use a computer and the internet. I'd go to their house, setup their internet service show them email and everything. Well there was this old couple (late 60's). I spent about three hours showing them how to use their computer, made sure they could connect to the internet and everything. I leave feeling very happy.
That weekend I get a frantic call, about them not being able to check their email. Now I'm in the middle of enjoying my weekend but decide to help them out, and walk through all the things, 30 minutes latter, I ask them if they have two phone lines..."of course we only have one" Needless to say they forgot that they need to connect to the internet first (Yes this was back in the day of modems).
I supposed I should have setup shortcuts like DUN - > Check Email Step 1, Eduora - Check Email Step 2....
What users don't know, they will make up. They often work with an incorrect theory of how an application works.
Especially for data entry, users tend to type much faster than developers which can cause a problem if the program is slow to react.
Story: Once upon a time, before the personal computer, there was timesharing. A timesharing company's customer rep told me that once when he was giving a "how to" class to two or three nice older women, he told them how to stop a program that was running (in case it was started in error or taking to long.) He had one of the students type ^K, and the timesharing terminal responded "Killed!". The lady nearly had a heart attack.
One problem that we have at our company is employees who don't trust the computer. If you computerize a function that they do on paper, they will continue to do it on paper, while entering the results in the computer.
We have an application that has one or more text console windows that all essentially represent serial ports (text input and output, character by character). These windows have turned into a major performance problem in the way they are currently code... we manage to spend a very significant chunk of time in them.
The current code is structured by having the window living its own little life, and the main application thread driving it across "SendMessage()" calls. This message-passing seems to be the cause of incredible overhead. Basically, having a detour through the OS feels to be the wrong thing to do.
Note that we do draw text lines as a whole where appropriate, so that easy optimization is already done.
I am not an expert in Windows coding, so I need to ask the community if there is some other architecture to drive the display of text in a window than sending messages like this? It seems pretty heavyweight.
Note that this is in C++ or plain C, as the main application is a portable C/C++/some other languages program that also runs on Linux and Solaris.
We did some more investigations, seems that half of the overhead is preparing and sending each message using SendMessage, and the other half is the actual screen drawing. The SendMessage is done between functions in the same file...
So I guess all the advice given below is correct:
Look for how much things are redrawn
Draw things directly
Chunk drawing operations in time, to not send every character to the screen, aiming for 10 to 20 Hz update rate of the serial console.
Can you accept ALL answers?
I agree with Will Dean that the drawing in a console window or a text box is a performance bottleneck by itself. You first need to be sure that this isn't your problem. You say that you draw each line as a whole, but even this could be a problem, if the data throughput is too high.
I recommend that you don't use the SendMessage to pass data from the main application to the text window. Instead, use some other means of communication. Are these in the same process? If not, you could use shared memory. Even a file in the disk could do in some circumstances. Have the main application write to this file and the text console read from it. You could send a SendMessage notification to the text console to inform it to update the view. But do not send the message whenever a new line arrives. Define a minimum interval between two subsequent updates.
You should try profiling properly, but in lieu of that I would stop worrying about the SendMessage, which almost certainly not your problem, and think about the redrawing of the window itself.
You describe these are 'text console windows', but then say you have multiple of them - are they actually Windows Consoles? Or are they something your application is drawing?
If the latter, then I would be looking at measuring my paint code, and whether I'm invalidating too much of a window on each update.
Are the output windows part of the same application? It almost sounds like they aren't...
If they are, you should look into the Observer design pattern to get away from SendMessage(). I've used it for the same type of use case, and it worked beautifully for me.
If you can't make a change like that, perhaps you could buffer your output for something like 100ms so that you don't have so many out-going messages per second, but it should also update at a comfortable rate.
Are the output windows part of the
same application? It almost sounds
like they aren't...
Yes they are, all in the same process.
I did not write this code... but it seems like SendMessage is a bit heavy for this all in one application case.
You describe these are 'text console
windows', but then say you have
multiple of them - are they actually
Windows Consoles? Or are they
something your application is drawing?
Our app is drawing them, they are not regular windows consoles.
Note that we also need to get data back when a user types into the console, as we quite often have interactive serial sessions. Think of it as very similar to what you would see in a serial terminal program -- but using an external application is obviously even more expensive than what we have now.
If you can't make a change like that,
perhaps you could buffer your output
for something like 100ms so that you
don't have so many out-going messages
per second, but it should also update
at a comfortable rate.
Good point. Right now, every single character output causes a message to be sent.
And when we scroll the window up when a newline comes, then we redraw it line-by-line.
Note that we also have a scrollback buffer of arbitrary size, but scrolling back is an interactive case with much lower performance requirements.