dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) (06/20/91)
My office-mate repeatedly questions the wisdom of the Apple engineers who designed the standard scrollbars. He would like to know why the thumb (box) is not proportional, i.e. show how much information of the total information content of the window is currently being displayed, rather than positional. - David DMittman@Beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV P.S. Please respond via email, I'll summarize.
Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (06/23/91)
dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes:
DM> My office-mate repeatedly questions the wisdom of the Apple engineers
DM> who designed the standard scrollbars. He would like to know why
DM> the thumb (box) is not proportional, i.e. show how much information
DM> of the total information content of the window is currently being
DM> displayed, rather than positional.
Maybe they wanted the Windows developers to have _something_ original to claim?
<BG>
--Adam--
****************************************************************
* "...it was a lot easier to train a pilot to pick up *
* a rock, than train a scientist to land on the moon." *
* --Mark Berent, in _Steel Tiger_ *
****************************************************************
* CIS: 70721,504 *
* America OnLine: AdamFrix *
* Internet: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG *
****************************************************************
--
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGjas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (06/25/91)
In article <305426.2865D1B9@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: > >DM> My office-mate repeatedly questions the wisdom of the Apple engineers >DM> who designed the standard scrollbars. He would like to know why >DM> the thumb (box) is not proportional, i.e. show how much information >DM> of the total information content of the window is currently being >DM> displayed, rather than positional. > >Maybe they wanted the Windows developers to have _something_ original to claim? > Windows doesn't do this, either. Amiga does, however. jas -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
shores@fergvax.unl.edu (Shores) (06/25/91)
In <305426.2865D1B9@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: >DM> My office-mate repeatedly questions the wisdom of the Apple engineers >DM> who designed the standard scrollbars. He would like to know why >DM> the thumb (box) is not proportional, i.e. show how much information >DM> of the total information content of the window is currently being >DM> displayed, rather than positional. >Maybe they wanted the Windows developers to have _something_ original to claim? Not totally sure, but I don't think the WinDudes deserve credit for that either; AmigaDOS has had them for a long time, I think b4 Windows did. There is, however, at least one custom CDEF that does this. I haven't been able to get my hands on it though. I think it's called Slider CDEF. If anyone does have this, please send a copy to Sumex! Tom... Tommy... Thomas... the Tom-ster, the Tom-boy, the Tomminator... ... Tom Shores, Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska. ... shores@fergvax.unl.edu
jbr0@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) (06/25/91)
In article <shores.677812173@fergvax> shores@fergvax.unl.edu (Shores) writes: >>dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: > >>DM> My office-mate repeatedly questions the wisdom of the Apple engineers >>DM> who designed the standard scrollbars. He would like to know why >>DM> the thumb (box) is not proportional, i.e. show how much information >>DM> of the total information content of the window is currently being >>DM> displayed, rather than positional. > >Not totally sure, but I don't think the WinDudes deserve credit for that >either; AmigaDOS has had them for a long time, I think b4 Windows did. Actually, I have seen Xerox applications that have this (most notably Ventura Publisher), so I wonder if the old Xerox PARC stuff had them. I must admit, that this is one thing I wish Apple would have done differently, but I'm sure that changing it now would probably cause problems for some programs. -- - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corporation @ AT&T Bell Labs /_\ @ / ` 471 E Broad St, Suite 1610, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 860-7461 / \ | \_, E-mail: jbr@cblph.att.com Who pays attention to what _I_ say? "Scotty, we need warp drive in 3 minutes or we're all dead!" --- James T. Kirk
jfw@neuro (John F. Whitehead) (06/25/91)
dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: > ...why the thumb (box) is not proportional, i.e. show how much information > of the total information content of the window is currently being > displayed, rather than positional. NeXT machines do this very nicely. Not only do they show a proportional thumb, but when you slide it, you see the window slide so you know exactly how much you need to move it! If anyone has such a program, I would love to know how I can get it. ________________________________________________________________________ | John jfw@neuro.duke.edu Duke University Medical Center | | Whitehead jfw@well.sf.ca.us Department of Neurobiology | |____________ white002@dukemc (bitnet) __ Durham, North Carolina ________|
lamont@convex.com (Bradley Lamont) (06/26/91)
In <22430@duke.cs.duke.edu> jfw@neuro (John F. Whitehead) writes: >... but when you slide it, you see the window slide so you know >exactly how much you need to move it! For some reason, Apple chose not to do this. It is part of the mac user interface guidelines not to update the screen during scrolling when the "thumb" is being moved, only to update when the arrows are clicked. From the point of view of programming it in a new application, it is extermely easy to do. But adding it to existing applications would require rewriting the scrollbar control routine. Brad Lamont ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- lamont@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu The University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign lamont@trojan.convex.com Convex Computer Corp. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ________________________________________________________________________ >| John jfw@neuro.duke.edu Duke University Medical Center | >| Whitehead jfw@well.sf.ca.us Department of Neurobiology | >|____________ white002@dukemc (bitnet) __ Durham, North Carolina ________|
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (06/26/91)
In article <22430@duke.cs.duke.edu>, jfw@neuro (John F. Whitehead) writes: > dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: > > ...why the thumb (box) is not proportional, i.e. show how much information > > of the total information content of the window is currently being > > displayed, rather than positional. > > NeXT machines do this very nicely. Not only do they show a proportional > thumb, but when you slide it, you see the window slide so you know > exactly how much you need to move it! X does this too - at least the DECWindows variation thereof. The problem with tracking the thumb in real time on the Mac is supporting those ever popular 68000 based machines. No way are you going to be able to smoothly keep the window in sync with the thumb. Given enough cycles and memory there is no reason that a Mac program couldn't implement this behavior. (I don't *think* it would be against UI guidelines (the thumb tracking, not the wierd proportional thumb)...) -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) (06/26/91)
In article <lamont.677870839@convex.convex.com> lamont@convex.com (Bradley Lamont) writes: >In <22430@duke.cs.duke.edu> jfw@neuro (John F. Whitehead) writes: > >>... but when you slide it, you see the window slide so you know >>exactly how much you need to move it! > >For some reason, Apple chose not to do this. It is part of the mac user >interface guidelines not to update the screen during scrolling when the >"thumb" is being moved, only to update when the arrows are clicked. >From the point of view of programming it in a new application, it is >extermely easy to do. But adding it to existing applications would require >rewriting the scrollbar control routine. > Well, it's not generally applicable, but the 4-Plus programmer's add on for THINK C features a "power thumb" option that does just this for THINK C windows, so it's certainly possible to add the feature via an INIT for at least some applications. David Fry fry@math.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@huma1.bitnet Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry Cambridge, MA 02138
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.124247.11023@cbnews.cb.att.com> jbr0@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) writes: >In article <shores.677812173@fergvax> shores@fergvax.unl.edu (Shores) writes: >>>dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: >> >>>DM> My office-mate repeatedly questions the wisdom of the Apple engineers >>>DM> who designed the standard scrollbars. He would like to know why >>>DM> the thumb (box) is not proportional, i.e. show how much information >>>DM> of the total information content of the window is currently being >>>DM> displayed, rather than positional. >> >>Not totally sure, but I don't think the WinDudes deserve credit for that >>either; AmigaDOS has had them for a long time, I think b4 Windows did. > >Actually, I have seen Xerox applications that have this (most notably Ventura >Publisher), so I wonder if the old Xerox PARC stuff had them. I must admit, >that this is one thing I wish Apple would have done differently, but I'm sure >that changing it now would probably cause problems for some programs. You are correct that changing it now would cause problems. In order to show a proportional thumb, you have know know the size of the view you are scrolling, which isn't currently supported in the scrollbar control interface. By the way, Apple computers have had proportional thumbs since 1986. On the Apple IIgs... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "But where the senses fail us, reason must step in." - Galileo
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (06/27/91)
In article <lamont.677870839@convex.convex.com> lamont@convex.com (Bradley Lamont) writes: >In <22430@duke.cs.duke.edu> jfw@neuro (John F. Whitehead) writes: > >>... but when you slide it, you see the window slide so you know >>exactly how much you need to move it! > >For some reason, Apple chose not to do this. It is part of the mac user >interface guidelines not to update the screen during scrolling when the >"thumb" is being moved, only to update when the arrows are clicked. >From the point of view of programming it in a new application, it is >extermely easy to do. But adding it to existing applications would require >rewriting the scrollbar control routine. There are three reasons that I can see that "live scrolling" wasn't done. The first reason is that the original Mac had only 128K of RAM that doubled as a screen buffer, a 64K ROM holding routines optimized for space and not for speed, and an 8MHz 68000. There just wasn't enough horsepower to do that kind of scrolling. Second, unless you are using something like MacApp, there is no uniform way of performing coordinate translation. You can either munge the window port's origin yourself, or you can keep it at (0, 0) and manage your own local origin. There are probably other ways, too. Without knowing the technique the application is using, there is no way for the scrollbar to automatically scroll the window. Third, again without something like MacApp, there is no way for the scrollbar to know which areas to scroll. The second two of these problems can be solved with a 'view system' as implemented in MacApp. Coordinate translation is handled in a standard way across all applications, and the bounds of the associated view to scroll are easily available. For example, MacBrowse (nee Mouser), MacApp's class broswer, implements live scrolling in its current internal release. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "But where the senses fail us, reason must step in." - Galileo
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (06/28/91)
In article <54350@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >There are three reasons that I can see that "live scrolling" wasn't >done. >for space and not for speed, and an 8MHz 68000. There just wasn't >enough horsepower to do that kind of scrolling. Amen. >there is no way for the >scrollbar to automatically scroll the window. > >again without something like MacApp, there is no way for the >scrollbar to know which areas to scroll. You and I must not be using the same scrollbars. The scrollbars I use have a hard time doing anything at all without me holding their little arrows, much less knowing how to scroll part or all of my window. I don't see how live scrolling is conceptually harder than handling presses on one of the scroll-bar arrows; you'd handle it in pretty much the same way, with a callback to the application, *IF* the hardware were fast enough. I submit that the hardware is still NOT fast enough, except *perhaps* on a ci or fx in 1 bit mode, for most applications. I'm quite happy with live scrolling on my 25MHz 68040 box, but I just can't see it on a 16MHz 68030, much less these 8MHz 68000's Apple is still selling truckloads of. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
shores@fergvax.unl.edu (Shores) (06/28/91)
In <54349@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >You are correct that changing it now would cause problems. In order to >show a proportional thumb, you have know know the size of the view >you are scrolling, which isn't currently supported in the scrollbar >control interface. But you do know the size of the view most of the time. Why couldn't the scrollbar CDEF look at contrlMin, contrlMax, and contrlValue fields of the control it's mangling? I suppose that many applications are lazy and don't update these fields as they should. IMHO, the System 7 folks should have added proportional thumbs while they had the chance, since many developers are in the process of making their stuff 7.0 friendly. Tom... Tommy... Thomas... the Tom-ster, the Tom-boy, the Tomminator... ... Tom Shores, Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska. ... shores@fergvax.unl.edu
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (06/28/91)
In article <shores.678054739@fergvax> shores@fergvax.unl.edu (Shores) writes: >In <54349@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >>You are correct that changing it now would cause problems. In order to >>show a proportional thumb, you have know know the size of the view >>you are scrolling, which isn't currently supported in the scrollbar >>control interface. > >But you do know the size of the view most of the time. Why couldn't the >scrollbar CDEF look at contrlMin, contrlMax, and contrlValue fields of >the control it's mangling? I suppose that many applications are lazy >and don't update these fields as they should. Yes, you could make a guess at the size of the view in pixels. You could also look at contrlMin, Max, and Value. However, you don't know what units are being used for the control values. Are they in pixels? Are they in lines of text? Are they in units of 10 pixels? Are they in something else? Unless you can make that determination, you can't get a proportional thumb to be aesthetically correct. I've seen and used INITs that implement proportional thumbs, but they never work uniformly well. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "But where the senses fail us, reason must step in." - Galileo