[Gzz-commits] gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu irregu.tex

[Tuomas J. Lukka]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    gzz
Changes by:     Tuomas J. Lukka <address@hidden>        02/11/29 14:21:05

Modified files:
        Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu: irregu.tex 

Log message:
        Why... please check

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex.diff?tr1=1.95&tr2=1.96&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex
diff -u gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex:1.95 
gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex:1.96
--- gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex:1.95        Fri Nov 29 
13:27:21 2002
+++ gzz/Documentation/Manuscripts/Irregu/irregu.tex     Fri Nov 29 14:21:05 2002
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
 
 In this article, we apply {\em break lines} or {\em break out section}s
 from technical drawing to {\em viewports} in computer user interfaces.
-Break lines or break out sections (see Fig.~\ref{fig-breakout})
+Break lines or break out sections (see Fig.~\ref{figbreakout})
 are freehand lines drawn to indicate
 that an object extends beyond the part drawn in the diagram.
 % XXX: break lines = ``contour''
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=5cm]{mercury5part.ps}
 \caption{
-\label{fig-breakout}
+\label{figbreakout}
 An example of break lines in a NASA drawing for the Mercury 5
 (some text has been erased for clarity).
 Freehand lines have been long used in engineering drawings
@@ -183,6 +183,8 @@
 since they always show the whole irregular object,
 not only part of it.
 
+\cite{bjork02windowframes}
+
 % ---
 % 
 % Reasons: - using mostly graph or 2D structure
@@ -267,15 +269,15 @@
 
 \section{Tearing}
 
-Terms: canvas, tear-out, connected/scattered, envelope, spine of the envelope,
-``torn edge'' = ?,
-``thickness of roughness'' = ?,
-``border'' = ?,
-``section/segment of envelope'' = ?,
-``inner edge (of the border)'' = ?,
-``outer edge (of the border)'' = ?,
-``ripple volume'' = ``volume under $({\bf p},f({\bf p}))$''?,
-``ripple function'' = $f({\bf p})$.
+% Terms: canvas, tear-out, connected/scattered, envelope, spine of the 
envelope,
+% ``torn edge'' = ?,
+% ``thickness of roughness'' = ?,
+% ``border'' = ?,
+% ``section/segment of envelope'' = ?,
+% ``inner edge (of the border)'' = ?,
+% ``outer edge (of the border)'' = ?,
+% ``ripple volume'' = ``volume under $({\bf p},f({\bf p}))$''?,
+% ``ripple function'' = $f({\bf p})$.
 
 In this section, we 
 introduce the use of non-photorealistic rough, torn shapes as break
@@ -303,39 +305,52 @@
 
 \subsection{Rationale ``Why?''}
 
-The important difference is that
-the edge is not a different object; the ``object'' is simply the torn piece.
+In a situation with several overlapping viewports (e.g.~the type
+of focus+context view shown below), when the contents of the viewports
+have strong horizontal and vertical components, the 
+irregular edges make it easier to understand where a viewport
+ends and where there is simply a line inside a viewport; see
+e.g.~Fig.\ref{figbreakout}.
+
+% Fourier viewpoint
 
+Additionally, the motion of the uneven edge can be used to give the
+user a cue about the motion of the viewport, and
+the style of the ripples can give a cue about the scale of the view.
 
-A smooth rectangular or elliptical frame with scrollbars
-can make small viewports seem claustrophobic. 
-One reason for this is that the frame is often visually too small for its 
contents
-to yield a balanced graphical design. For example, 
 
-Also, because the frame moves differently from its content, it is an extra 
``object''
-that the user's visual system must track.
+% The important difference is that
+% the edge is not a different object; the ``object'' is simply the torn piece.
 
-Additionally, if looking at ``printed matter'' through the viewport,
-the frame outside the canvas and graphical frames inside the canvas can make 
the display
-much less clear.
+% A smooth rectangular or elliptical frame with scrollbars
+% can make small viewports seem claustrophobic. 
+% One reason for this is that the frame is often visually too small for its 
contents
+% to yield a balanced graphical design. 
+% Also, because the frame moves differently from its content, it is an extra 
``object''
+% that the user's visual system must track.
 
-The torn edge separates itself visually from the content, alleviating
-the visual tension...
+% Additionally, if looking at ``printed matter'' through the viewport,
+% the frame outside the canvas and graphical frames inside the canvas can make 
the display
+% much less clear.
 
-The irregularity of the edge allows a some of the context of the viewport to 
be partially
-seen.
+% The torn edge separates itself visually from the content, but
+% the visual tension...
 
-Focus+context
+% The irregularity of the edge allows a some of the context of the viewport to 
be partially
+% seen.
 
-Fourier viewpoint
+% Focus+context
 
 From a purely physical viewpoint the tearout is not really
 a good metaphor\cite{kuhn91formalization}:
 a real torn piece of paper cannot change the place from where it is torn, with 
the edges rippling etc.
-However, similar jagged edges have been used in technical drawings for quite 
some
-time to indicate that the depicted object extends beyond the part drawn in the 
diagram.
-Because of this, it should be comprehensible
-to users that we're not tearing the original paper but only a depiction of it.
+However, the idea of break lines in technical drawings is well
+established and therefore this idea should be comprehensible.
+
+% However, similar jagged edges have been used in technical drawings for quite 
some
+% time to indicate that the depicted object extends beyond the part drawn in 
the diagram.
+% Because of this, it should be comprehensible
+% to users that we're not tearing the original paper but only a depiction of 
it.
 
 \subsection{Detailed design ``What?''}