Re: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: about transform [was RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - Proposed WebCGM 2.1 ...]

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 03:16 PM 9/4/2007 -0400, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I don't know about all of this. Sounds like we are about to make the
>same mistakes the SVG group did a while back (from an authoring tools
>perspective). As soon as a tool will make a change to an illustration;
>its animation properties will be lost. A quote from the SVG spec:
>"Animation can be produced via script-based manipulation of the
>document, but scripts are difficult to edit and interchange between
>authoring tools is harder. Again in response to feedback from the design
>community, SVG includes declarative animation elements ..."
>
>Declarative animation would be better for interchange.

I think there was general agreement (heeding the experienced advice of 
Itedo!) that declarative animation is beyond the scope of a "quick 2.1".

The point is well-taken about scripts being potentially invalidated by 
editing of the associated graphical asset.  We should keep in mind whether 
we are discussing something that works with volatile graphical assets, or 
rather more stable assets?


>In my opinion, 'experimentation' should happen before we put features in
>the spec; not the other way around.

On the other hand, we saw simple animation that is being done right now by 
committed CGM users, using no other facilities than layers and visibility 
("marquee animation" as Larry labelled it).  As M&L said, the performance 
could be okay, but it could also degrade horribly as the number of layers 
and animation states multiplied.

In each case (and I think this is part of Stuart's point) we could see that 
they could do exactly the same thing much, much more efficiently with 
grobjects and our current collection of attributes and style properties, 
plus a few additions, and with easily imaginable modifications to their 
animation-generator application program (which Molly described as a couple 
thousand lines of code).

Does that qualify as experimentation?  I admit, it is something of a 
virtual experiment.

Cheers,
-Lofton.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Galt, Stuart A [mailto:stuart.a.galt@boeing.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:48 PM
>To: Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: about transform [was RE: [cgmo-webcgm]
>Groups - Proposed WebCGM 2.1 ...]
>
>Hello all,
>
>Putting the transformation capability into the DOM allows users to no
>longer have to create a bunch of grobjects that represent all of the
>intermediate frames and do the budget animation by sequentially changing
>the visibility.  Tools will eventually happen that make it easier for
>the non-nerds to be able to make objects move.  Being able to manipulate
>this from the DOM allows you to use any 2.x compliant viewer.
>
>The demo we saw was not the normal xx frame a second kind of thing.
>It was designed to be more like a film strip speed a frame every second
>or two.  Yes, they would like to be able to do more but if all you have
>is webcgm 2.0 then you are stuck with changing the visibility of
>grobjects.  Implementing transforms either as a raw matrix and/or
>convenience routines that just translate or rotate about a point would
>provide the next evolutionary step.  This would allow the bit-twiddling
>nerds to experiment with what is possible.  Tool makers can take the
>lessons learned and incorporate script assistance into the tools to take
>make it easier for joe-average cgm person to do the gee whiz stuff.
>
>
>
>--
>Stuart Galt
>SGML Resource Group
>stuart.a.galt@boeing.com
>(206) 544-3656
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bezaire, Benoit [mailto:bbezaire@ptc.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:35 AM
> > To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: about transform [was RE:
> > [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - Proposed WebCGM 2.1 ...]
> >
> > Hi Lofton,
> >
> > So it sounds like Forrest and Boeing both agree that nobody is going
> > to write the scripts. Good, I agree too ;-)
> >
> > So as Dieter points out; why take the approach of a DOM interface in
> > that case? Scripts are the worse possible approach when trying to
> > maintain some level of interoperability. Any revision will make that
> > script obsolete.
> >
> > Would it be possible to get access to that demo?
> >
> > Benoit.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:54 AM
> > To: Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: about transform [was RE:
> > [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - Proposed WebCGM 2.1 ...]
> >
> > At 11:32 AM 9/4/2007 -0400, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
> > >Hi Lofton,
> > >
> > >No I didn't see the demo.
> > >
> > >But regardless, we have a hard time imagining CGM users will
> > take the
> > >time & effort required to write javascript code and do 3x3 matrix
> > >calculations.
> >
> > That is one thing that impressed me about their demo ... how much work
> > *they* were willing to do to create "discount animation".
> >
> > Also their demo made clear that they are not the end user of the
> > animations.  What they did is create a tool that handles/hides most of
>
> > the tedious dirty work needed to create the end-user's animation (in
> > their "discount animation" style.)
> >
> > Clearly, the creation of such animations without the tool would be
> > beyond the ambition or ability of the average user (as you noted
> > above).
> >
> > Just to clarify, for my own understanding... Does "time & effort"
> > represent the entire scope of your comment, "it will result in a bad
> > user experience"?  Or did you have other aspects in mind?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Lofton.
> >
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:20 AM
> > >To: Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >Subject: about transform [was RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - Proposed
> > >WebCGM
> > >2.1 ...]
> > >
> > >Hi Benoit,
> > >
> > >One question about your comments, and a question to everyone at
> > >Seattle...
> > >
> > >At 10:25 AM 9/4/2007 -0400, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
> > > >Hi All,
> > > >
> > > >I will be on the call tomorrow. Dieter will try to attend but his
> > > >schedule may prevent him from doing so.
> > > >
> > > >Here's our position on the 2.1 requirements:
> > > >- substring hotspots: ok.
> > > >- text search: ok for example; we think the general text search
> > > >functionality should be a viewer feature as oppose to a DOM
> > interface.
> > > >i.e., why should a user have to write javascript to search
> > for text
> > > >in a CGM file?
> > > >- animation:
> > > >  1) we do not see our dev team implementing a transform
> > interface,
> > > >we think it will result in a bad user experience.
> > >
> > >I'm curious whether you ever managed to arrange to see the demo that
> > >Molly and Larry showed us in Seattle?
> > >
> > >I'd like to hear from the other attendees, but I got the impression
> > >that everyone thought availability of transform (at least as a Style
> > >Property) would be useful to them in implementing their "discount
> > >animation" more efficiently than they presently are able.
> > >
> > >Comments?  (Everyone!)
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >-Lofton.
> > >
> > > >  2) zoom and pan interface: no objection.
> > > >  3) additional style properties: we need more info.
> > > >- improved font interchange: ok.
> > > >- z-compression: ok.
> > > >- clarify transparency: ok.
> > > >
> > > >Cheers,
> > > >Benoit.
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
> > > >[mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com]
> > > >Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:20 PM
> > > >To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - Proposed WebCGM 2.1 enhancements
> > > >(WebCGM_21_list_r2.html) uploaded
> > > >
> > > >updated the WebCGM 2.1 enhancement document again to add the
> > > >interaction of transparency
> > > >
> > > >  -- Mr. david cruikshank
> > > >
> > > >The document revision named Proposed WebCGM 2.1 enhancements
> > > >(WebCGM_21_list_r2.html) has been submitted by Mr. david
> > cruikshank
> > > >to the OASIS CGM Open WebCGM TC document repository.  This
> > document
> > > >is revision #2 of WebCGM_21_list.html.
> > > >
> > > >Document Description:
> > > >This is a draft document identifying potential WebCGM 2.1
> > > >functionality
> > >
> > > >enhancements.
> > > >
> > > >Added the functionalilty of z-compression left out in the original
> > > >document
> > > >
> > > >Rev 2 added the transparency issue
> > > >
> > > >View Document Details:
> > >
> > >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/document.php
> > > >?d
> > > >o
> > > >cument_id=25179
> > > >
> > > >Download Document:
> > >
> > >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/download.php
> > > >/2
> > > >5
> > > >179/WebCGM_21_list_r2.html
> > > >
> > > >Revision:
> > > >This document is revision #2 of WebCGM_21_list.html.  The document
> > > >details page referenced above will show the complete revision
> > history.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
> > > >application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be
> > > >able to copy and paste the entire link address into the
> > address field
> >
> > > >of your web browser.
> > > >
> > > >-OASIS Open Administration
> >