Re: [Gzz] REPOST: PEG: Alter Canvas2D vocab to support transclusions

[Benja Fallenstein]

Matti Katila wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> > - Mudyc agrees that transclusion of nodes is needed for some things, 
> > e.g. mindmapping, but not for some other applications of 2D canvases, 
> > such as 'general "text"'.
>
> And my biggest point is that user should recognize if node is clone or 
> not, on canvas. 

Having a visual indicator that there are clones of a node is entirely 
fine with me.

Note that by default, transclusions are always shown as buoys. So when 
you edit a clone, normally you see immediately that the other clones 
(shown as buoys) change, too.

> Clones are really dangerous in general text but very good in mindmaps.

I still don't have the faintest idea of what you mean by "general text," 
can you explain?

I agree that the UI should be so that the user doesn't accidentally make 
clones.

> You talked a system like:
> -user selects area of nodes
> -by pressing "A" he/she takes content copy
>  or
> -by pressing "B" he/she makes clone tranclusion.
>
> I think this is not good because this sounds like clone is something what 
> would you do in your everyday copying.

In Gzz, I found it to be pretty much everyday.

> Making clone copy is not just copying, you really have to make the node to 
> clone node to do that.

I don't understand this.

If you simply mean that "clone" is a different menu item than "copy," 
that's ok. My original idea about the UI made cloning very similar to 
copying (select a strip of text vs. select the whole node); I agree that 
it would be better to have them more different (two different menu items).

> In a system where I suppose cloning is available user has to make a node 
> to clone node before copying. That might prevent unwanted clones.

You mean that the user says, "make this a clone node," and after this, 
saying "copy" makes a clone instead of a copy of the content?

I think it's better to have separate "copy" and "clone" actions 
available to the user.

> Of 
> course in mindmap part of system this would be turned off by default.

What would be?

> > - I believe that there should be only one vocabulary; if transclusion 
> > isn't needed, use the same vocabulary, and simply don't put a node on 
> > more than one canvas / position on a single canvas.
>
> You are assuming that cloning is needed. Is it needed?

You have agreed to its usefulness in "mindmapping".

I assume that canvases are normally used to make a spatial arrangement 
of things. Whenever they are used for this, it is useful to have more 
than one spatial arrangement of the same things. Whenever this is 
useful, you need clones.

> We have no real user case testing.

We have years of experience with Gzz, where it has proven very useful.

> I'd propose that we make this simple 
> modification in structure if it will be more than 5% of use cases in our 
> own use. Doing something for because it's doable isn't really a good 
> cause.

I'm not proposing to do it because it is doable. You have agreed that it 
is useful.

> > - In particular, I think it's important that the computer doesn't make a 
> > difference between "transcludable" and "not transcludable" nodes. In a 
> > UI that supports transclusions (such as the full Fenfire system) it 
> > should be possible to transclude any node if the user says "transclude."
> >
> > (If one node used a vocabulary that doesn't allow for transclusion, then 
> >  that node could not be transcluded.)
>
> You should be very exact when you talk about transcluding in node or span 
> level, since everyting we use in fenfire is already transclusion of the
> enfilade.

Fine. I have tried to be clear in this mail.

> > - I have always assumed that there'll be a single vocabulary for 
> > "placing something on a spatial canvas," and that it's up to the user to 
> > use this general tool for mindmapping, text editing, note taking, or 
> > whatever. I still think there should be a single vocabulary allowing for 
> > all that, and at least some of these uses definitely use transclusions.
>
>
> Are you defining now "fenfire's general structure"?

I'm sorry, I don't understand that question...

>  Canvas --contains--> Coordinates --transcludes--> CloneContentNode 
>                          -x,y

This is what I propose as the vocabulary for spatial canvases.

Ok, if you meant above, "are you now defining fenfire's single 
vocabulary for spatial canvases," well, yes, my PEG proposes the above 
to be that.

- Benja