RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Flow of electricity

["Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>]

One of the things Stuart could have done to get around the remove style
properties would have been to just leave the base art and use his script
to generate invisible line segments that overlayed the base art.  That's
what Molly and Larry were doing.  They weren't actually spliting up the
base art they were just overlaying it with thicker line styles and line
types and using visiblity to show flow on top of the base art.  Keep in
mind that this was all done with straight 2.0 functionality.  With
access to more style properties in the future it would be possible to
simulate current flow more naturally.

Thx...Dave 


Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
Boeing Commercial Airplane
206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Galt, Stuart A 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:43 PM
To: Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Flow of electricity

Thank you for the kind words.

I forgot about the setting the style to 'inherit'.  

My goal in making the circuit was to demonstrate the sort of effect
(budget
animation) that I want to achieve with more complex images AND to give
people an idea what was possible with plain old 2.0...

While the circuit is made up of several segments of wire the original
CGM had 3 polylines in it.  I wrote a quick and dirty script to break it
into appropriate size pieces because I am too lazy to make all those
pieces by hand.  The javascript is more tightly coupled to the CGM than
I would like but it looks for application structures of the form "Wire_"
followed by a sequence number and turns them on one at a time.  If I
change the CGM image the script still works as long as the apsId keep
the same form.  I experimented with different length segments without
changing the javascript.

As far as declarative vs DOM I don't care too much, but I would need to
be able to at least start the animation via an event (like closing the
switch).  I think to make that work some DOM control would be needed.
In general most people will need to use tools to build the animations.



--
Stuart Galt
SGML Resource Group
stuart.a.galt@boeing.com
(206) 544-3656

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bezaire, Benoit [mailto:bbezaire@ptc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:50 AM
> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Flow of electricity
> 
> Hi Stuart,
> 
> That's a nice little animation. Clever!
> 
> If I remember correctly, we do have a remove style... you have to do: 
> setStyleProperty( prop, "inherit" );
> 
> I have a felling I'm not about to make any friends with what I'm about

> to say; but I have to say it since I think it matters.
> 
> Although the result Stuart generated is good looking (which is a great

> positive), I would not encourage users to do this.
> I would argue that it takes too long to author such an animation. 
> Equivalent results can be achieve faster in other file formats.
> 
> If we want animations to be frequently used in CGM we need easier 
> methods than what is shown in this example (I'm mostly referring to 
> the flow aspect). The electrical path was broken down into multiple 
> fragments, then each were assigned a specific name/id. I would argue 
> that most revisions of this illustration breaks the animation.
> Additionally, I suspect that customers wiring diagrams are 20x more 
> complex; thus, authoring animation must be much easier.
> 
> Attached is an example of what I mean (in SVG). Displayed are two (out

> of many) ways of showing flow, both used at the same time. In this 
> example, if the wire (say during a revision) goes from a rectangle to 
> a some sort of polygon, or if the battery/switch are moved to a new 
> location... the animation still work.
> 
> Again, I'm not opposed to animation in CGM, but I very much favor a 
> declarative approach than a DOM approach.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Benoit.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:10 PM
> To: Galt, Stuart A; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Flow of electricity
> 
> Stuart --
> 
> Good stuff!  Again, we should be looking to put your examples (and 
> anyone
> else's) of 2.0 capabilities somewhere on the Web site.  So, aside from

> technical (and 2.1 rqts questions), there is the Education/Outreach
> question:  when and where can we put these up and direct people to 
> them?
> 
> Technical questions...
> 
> At 01:46 PM 9/28/2007 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote:
> >[...]
> >As I start making more complex images/applications I am
> finding myself
> >wishing I had a either getStyleProperty() or removeStyleProperty()
> 
> Is the "get" an inquiry function?  Do you actually want both "get" and

> "remove", or did you really mean "either...or"?
> 
> Do you propose that these be added to the 2.1 wish list?
> 
> >method
> >(I realize that this is difficult to implement) and the
> ability to make
> 
> >several DOM changes without waiting for a redraw between each one.
> 
> I guess this has now been added to the 2.1 wish list.
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> 
>