Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking for a tool / standard / concept / convention that would improved the communications between a designer and a developer for describing UI elements and their layout.
I will try to explain by example:
consider a design that shows a 200 by 200 pixels red box with a 100 by 100 pixels green box centered within it.
This is very clear as long as nothing is dynamic,
but the moment you want to account for any dynamic change this is not enough any more.
just consider what should be happen to this design if the size of the device turns out to be 300 by 400 pixels... instead of 200 by 200.
It can be interpreted as:
Keeping the 200 by 200 square pinned to any of the corners of the 300 by 400 area leaving unbalanced white margins.
Keeping the 200 by 200 square centered with respect to the 300 by 400 are leaving balanced white margins.
stretching the red area to fit the new available area but leaving the internal square the same original size.
And so on.
This is not some theoretical Q, This is a real problem with designing UIs for applications that need to support more then a single language.
the dimensions of a button can change due to text contained within it changing as a different language is used.
I am looking for a (graphic?) standard for showing anchors / margins / minimum or maximum sizes, relative positioning and so on.
Something that can easily convey a message such as:
Those two buttons should have margins of 5px on each side, and a middle area that is at least 80px or bigger if so required to accommodate their texts. both buttons should eventually have the same size (by increasing them all to the size required by the largest of them).
I manage developers and designers at an agency. We make sure our designers design for every possible (device) screen. If the UI is designed for a PC, the developers will have questions about how the layout changes from PC to mobile to tablet. Most designers are aware of this and design for all screens from the beginning.
For a specific answer to your hypothetical question, using percentages for dimensions would help translate a design from large to small screens and keep the design aesthetic better than using absolute pixel sizes.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for a tool that will let me draw out a map of dependencies for applications, servers, etc. We have a lot of servers and a lot of databases, and no way of tracking what depends on what. Note that I'm not talking about code or class dependencies within a project, but rather dependencies on servers, databases, and so on.
When I sat down to create a sample map, I ended up with something like this:
Now, the problem I have with doing this on paper or in MS Paint is that the layout is not adjustable. For example, if I took a node in the above example and moved it, I want the other lines and nodes to adjust to the new position of the one I just moved.
I checked out some "mind mapping" applications, like FreeMind, and found it to be too restrictive. For example, in that application, you can't just freely draw stuff and connect it, you have to specify nodes and their relationships (child, parent, sibling). Also, there was no ability to comment on anything. For example in the above image, I'd like to be able to include comments for each thing in the map, but have them be hidden until that object is clicked. In this way, I can write a lot of text regarding the relationship and it's history, without muddling up the map.
At the most basic level, all I want is a super simple application that will just let me draw squares, insert text (and hidden comments) in, and connect them with arrows, and then allow me to move the squares around and have the surrounding squares and arrows adjust automatically.
A good tool for making general diagrams of this sort is GraphViz. You specify the input as a .dot file, containing instructions similar to (for your example):
digraph G {
web_app -> server1
web_app -> sql_database
web_app -> repository
server1 -> esx_server1
...
}
(There are many formatting directives, such as proper labels you would use on the vertexes, rather than the short names I've used above.)
Then run a command line tool to lay out the graph as an image. There are many layout algorithms, so often you will use trial and error to find one which works best for your graph.
GraphViz can do a reasonably good layout job on many graphs. But the great thing about it is the text-based input; it's easy to autogenerate the input from a program, or keep it in version control, etc.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been visiting websites and developing some and till now i don't know why the default size of the layout of those webpages is 1024x768. In other words, why they are neglecting the other parts of the screen? Why don't they develop the pages according to a high large resolution like 1920x2120 for example?
I have visited most websites around the web from Yahoo.com to Pepsi.com and all of them are placing those right and left margins eating half of the screen to fit their elements on a stage of 1024x768.
Is it because they need to open those website on mobile devices? or there is a more deep technical reason for that?
The primary reason is that people want more and more people to access their website. Almost 10 years ago, 1024x768 was the most common display resolution. After that while new and higher resolution displays have come in, there has not been a significant jump in the vertical resolution (768) of low end devices. Even now (beginning of 2012) almost 50% displays use max 800p as the vertical resolution.
So 1024x768 is a standard minimum resolution for which people design websites. There are high chances that if you design for wider/bigger resolutions, people using these devices may not see them on the top of their screen (without scrolling) and the content may remain unnoticed.
Check this wikipedia link for more detailed stats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
To answer the other question, why not have multiple versions? Two reasons mainly:
Many websites actually are dynamically scalable. Check facebook or google images for example. Depending on your screen resolution they use the extra area to fit in extra content. This strategy generally suits websites that have blocks of content that can be fit in dynamically.
There are studies that suggest that for optimal and quick reading around 6-7 words or 500px (not exact numbers) is the best width. Anything more than that causes too much horizontal span and decreases reading speed. This affects the resolution of websites that are more about text for e.g. blogs and news websites.
Twenty years ago, the general "standard" for GUI applications was 640x480.
Personally, I seldom run any of my displays over 1280x1024. At the moment, I'm using two displays.
There really has to be some "least common denominator". And, for no particularly good (or bad) reason, for the moment it happens to be 1024x768.
IMHO ... PSM
PS:
Here's a good table. It's 5++ years old ... but probably still pretty accurate. Especially given the increasing importance of smart phone displays over the last five years:
http://magiclamp.net/?PageID=102
Date Range April 2005 June/July 2005 Oct-Dec 2005 Jan-Mar 2006
Sample Set (Unique Visitors) 500K 1.5MM 1.8MM 1.9MM
# of Site for Sample 2 3 3 3
800 x 600 21% 16% 14% 12%
1024x768 65% 67% 68% 69%
1280 x 1024 10% 15% 16% 18%
1600 x 1200 1.5% 1.5%
It's simply a matter of good design choice. 1024 x 768 seems still to be a popular enough resolution; so web-designers, in order to ensure maximum reach, design their websites to be viewable (as intended) by people using resolutions of 1024 x 768 and up. In short, it's mostly done to ensure backward-compatibility and, as chirag points out, greater compatibility with mobile devices.
You should study the information on the page at the link above carefully. The shown trend hints greatly at current design etiquette, how this etiquette has evolved over the years, and why. It will also give you an idea of the thinking-styles of seasoned web-designers. After all, you don't want your website to be caught with undesired scrollbars sticking out the right ;-)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently writing a software application which creates notes on a staff, when a piano key is pressed. Unfortunately I have no background in music, and thus am finding it quite hard to get started.
Could someone kindly tell me if the following screenshot represents what it would look like on the staff (approximately) if someone presses all the white keys on a 25-key keyboard (15 white, 10 black) from left to right, and then from right to left?
Am I on the right track, or is this completely wrong? (The notes are just displayed as circles for now - im trying to get the positioning right).
Almost. You need a few extra things. (NB. This is a simplified list just to get you going. Music notation is a complex beast that can take years of study to master)
A Clef. Presumably in this instance you're looking for a treble clef.
You need to imagine that there are invisible lines (ledger lines) above and below the 5 you can see. In your example, the very first note played is immediately below the first of the invisible lines at the bottom, so you need to draw that as part of the note. (See the example on the wikipedia page I linked to.)
Obviously, note duration is required, but you mention you're already on that so I won't talk about it here.
A Key signature to tell the player what key the music is in, and therefore what sharps and flats to expect
There's a lot more to drawing music on a stave than meets the eye, I'm afraid, but these should point you in the right direction.
Try looking at examples of sheet music. That may be helpful.
For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheet_music
I think so..
But what I'm missing at the most left side of the staff is the 'key'. This is pretty important.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am making a 2d game, can you post link- tutorials for making a 2d game sprites?, and tutorial for browser game development?
I will be really helpfull
Thanks to all
Here's an article with quite a few details
This site also has some sprite-related resources, and the forums have some guides from a number of experienced people.
If you are wanting to learn about making 2D sprites, the best advice I can give is to learn from the hard work of others. Find a game with sprites that you can edit, and start by modifying the existing sprites (a simple recolor is an easy starting point). Then you can move on to larger sprite modifications (shape, size, etc), "swapping" sprites between games, creating a simple game and using sprites that you "borrowed" from an existing game, etc.
I've been thinking about this problem recently.
In the old days, sprites were hand-drawn pixel by pixel. This works well for flat 2D games (side-scrollers, cartoon adventure games, Z-axis top-down, and such), particularly if they are in the 320x200 resolution. Some examples of gorgeous hand-drawn sprite games are the Sierra and Lucas Arts adventure games, Disney's jump&runs, Capcom's fighter games, the Tyrian/Raptor-style top-down scrollers, and the early RTS games (C&C, WC1).
Some games, like Prince of Persia and Mortal Combat, used sprites from animated actors. That produced fluid motion, but looked 'flat'.
Between the mid-90s and the early-00s, character/item sprite-drawing was done by taking stills of 3D objects. Practically every 2D RTS game since around Age of Empires 1 did that. AFAIK Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Divine Divinity, and other such RPG games did the same. This is the reason those games came on so many CDs - they were chock-full of content.
This approach looks great (not flat, but "2.5D") but takes a lot of hard-drive space. Also, whereas you could produce hand-drawn sprites in Paint, the 2.5D ones require 3Ds Max (or equivalent).
One problem that arises with this approach is the combinatorial explosion in costume design (i.e. if you want animate a character in three different coats with three different hats and three different pairs of pants, you need 27 distinct animation). The solution to this, as seen in Diablo II and Baldur's Gate, is rag-dolling - you produce different sprites for every part of the body. This takes a lot of work. Blizzard made their own tools to produce their sprites, but I'm not sure there are sprite rag-dolling tools in the open.
More recently, most games are 3D. Many actually look worse than the old 2.5D ones, because a simple 3D model can animate well in sprites, but poorly in real-time 3D. The difference is that between a glamor shot of a celebrity, taken from a certain distance in certain lighting and then worked-over in photoshop, and the appearance of the same celebrity in real-life (which may not be as glamorous).
I wonder if there are 3D Object -> Sprite programs. I know of one (don't remember the name at the moment), but are there others? At the very least I'm sure there are scripts for Maya and 3ds Max that take shots of an animated 3D object from different angles. Does anyone know more on this?
To make a 2D game sprite:
Open up paint. Paint a picture. Save as a bmp. You now have a 1 frame sprite. You can add meta data to this in code if needed for hotspot, collision info, etc. If you want it to animate, create a bunch of bmps and display them 1 at a time at whatever speed you want to animate them at.
No need for a tutorial link for something like this. Or, you can download any one of thousands of sprite editors that do the above stuff in one place.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the most user-friendly color combinations for Web 2.0 websites, such as background, button colors, etc.?
ColorSchemer will suggest good schemes for you.
If you want to try something out on your own, try Color Combinations.
I've been using this free color schemer to help me determine some nice layouts. You give it a base color and it will give you a lot of complements.
EDIT: Gah! Curse you jko and your god-like typing abilities! At least we have the same reference though. 8^D
For color schemes, I like browsing Colour Lovers. There are thousands of user-submitted color schemes to pick through for ideas and you can easily create your own scheme if you'd like. A lot of times I use it just for the color palette to create just the right color (it outputs the color in hex, RGB, HSV and CMYK).
These aren't combinations per-say but are good colours if you're just looking to mock something up (or if you're like me and have the colour sense of a bat).
Google Docs & Spreadsheets: Web 2.0 Colours - found this recently and it's been very helpful.
Modern Life is Rubbish: Web 2.0 Colour Palette - a sort of parody but useful :-)
As for when i do use actual palettes I use Colourlovers, kuler and Colourschemer with custom colours.
what about colllor ?
user-friendly color palette generator
My stick figures come out wrong, but the following links have kept me artistically aligned for many years:
Color tools for the design impaired
Color Scheme Generator
To web 2.0-ize it, just put a lens flare on your logo & mark it BETA - you'll be fine.
search for color on useit
search for color on boxesandarrows
There has been loads of research on this sort of stuff and most of it is conflicting a couple of good jump off points are listed above.
Generally lighter backgrounds and good contrast are favoured by all researchers but the details get niggly.
I would say that using the right combination of colors is user-friendly. Make sure your colors coordinate with each other and you should be fine.
A tool I use a lot is kuler (http://kuler.adobe.com). It'll help you pick colors that work well with each other.
Miles Burke has compiled a list of the colors used in the majority of the big names in this Web 2.0 world.
He also gives a PNG or a JPG as a color cheatsheet.
I am sure I can give you an idea from what color to chose for your application.
There is no single set of colours that everyone finds legible, but tools exist to formalise the variation and help you to make informed choices. Anyone doing UI should know about automated colour checking for accessibility. Anytime you have text that people need to read, pop the foreground and background colours into this;
Colour Contrast Check
This is based on a lot of research into contrast and legibility. If your colour combination is >125 and >500 you are as safe as you can be. Between 100 and 125 for brightness difference and 400 and 500 for colour difference then it's fine, but could be better. Below 100 and 400 respectively, increasing numbers of people will have trouble reading it for a variety of reasons.