Folks:
I’m putting out what I think is a fantastic idea for an app. It’s much more
than I’d be willing to take on, but in the US, I think it could be very big.
But, then again, perhaps it exists already. I’d like to use such an app for my
aging stepmother. I release the idea into the livecode-sp
Auftrag von
William Prothero
Gesendet: Montag, 28. September 2015 22:23
An: Use-livecode Use-livecode
Betreff: A modest proposal
Folks:
I’m putting out what I think is a fantastic idea for an app. It’s much more
than I’d be willing to take on, but in the US, I think it could be very big.
But, then
On 09/28/2015 03:23 PM, William Prothero wrote:
Folks:
I’m putting out what I think is a fantastic idea for an app. It’s much more
than I’d be willing to take on, but in the US, I think it could be very big.
But, then again, perhaps it exists already. I’d like to use such an app for my
aging s
Warren:
Just like taxicab companies hire and vet drivers, there are many referral
organizations that manage caregivers. The referral agencies are like a taxi cab
company, but I”m proposing something more like Uber. If I were to do this app
(which I’m not), I would partner with one of the referra
ication between the family and providers.
I see a lot of potential with your idea!
Tell me how could I help you with
Software Testing, Screen Design
and Graphics.
Alejandro
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/A-modest-proposal-tp4696730p4696775
Software Testing, Screen Design
> and Graphics.
>
> Alejandro
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/A-modest-proposal-tp4696730p4696775.html
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi William,
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015
William Prothero wrote:
> Thanks for the offer. I liked the idea and wanted to offer it
> in case somebody could use it. I don't even begin to have
> the time to develop and promote such an app. So please feel
> free to develop it if you are interested and it could
In the past few List digests, there's been some discussion of practical issues
regarding when a click does or doesn't count as clicking *on* a particular
item. So, here's a proposed addition to LiveCode…
=
Name: clickableRegion
Recognized abbreviation: clickReg
"clickableRegion" i
How would you determine that a clickLoc is within such a
"region" or not?
(Say, for simplicity, the region is inside the control's
rectangle)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and
That won't work. Everything else is screen based, so a conversion of
coordinates would have to be performed if relating to anything like object
location.
Bob S
> On Sep 25, 2017, at 23:24 , Quentin Long via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> The clickableRegion of a control is a return-delimited li
For many images with alpha layers the returned values would be a complex
set of points, and for some discontiguous.
If the purpose for obtaining that collection of points is to determine
whether a click at a specific location would be inside or outside the
control's region(s), that would requi
I asked because I thought QL's proposal might be based on a new algorithm?
There are already (partial) solutions to that:
In LCS getting "transparency" clicks of cross-layered objects is hard but
possible for a big class of regions (see stack #47 = "pointInShape" of
the Raspi stacks collection, J
Certainly doable in a script, but consider the simplicity of this with a
polygon as complex and even self-intersecting as you'd like:
on mouseMove
put within(grc 1, the mouseLoc )
end mouseMove
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
hh wrote:
I asked because I thought QL's proposal migh
The way that this problem is handled in sort other tools is to have a definable
hit area for each control (usually those would be buttons). You can set the
idle, over, and pressed versions of the button’s image, and also you can set
the hit area image.
LiveCode already has a way to do most of t
Colin Holgate write:
> The way that this problem is handled in sort other tools is to have a
> definable hit area for each control (usually those would be buttons).
> You can set the idle, over, and pressed versions of the button’s
> image, and also you can set the hit area image.
>
> LiveCode al
How do you currently set the alpha channel? The hit area icon I was suggesting
could be an image with the alpha channel that the button uses. That way you
could have any shape hit area, it wouldn’t have to be based on the button’s
icon.
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-live
use LiveCode
Cc: Colin Holgate
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for a new property
How do you currently set the alpha channel? The hit area icon I was suggesting
could be an image with the alpha channel that the button uses. That way you
could have any shape hit area, it wouldn’t have to be based
Ralph DiMola wrote:
> How would you use the alpha channel to do this? I just had an image
> and the transparent part of the image did not send a mouseup message.
> I put a button behind the image to solve it. Was there a way I could
> have used the alpha channel to get the mouseup message anywher
Though this is not a universal solution… but related..
FWIW we have an enhancement request in for widgets to allow us to set their
margins.
The entire area of a widget is its "hit box" (term from Unity)
So all we need it to be able to set margins. Typical use case might be to have
a 24 X 24 w
@Richard G.
Everybody engaged in this thread knows about "within" and "intersect".
They are good and very effective where they are applicable.
Now solve this simple example:
Make a circular arc showing 70% of a pie and then tell us when clicking
into the oval which part is hit, the 70% or the tr
hh wrote:
> Now solve this simple example:
>
> Make a circular arc showing 70% of a pie and then tell us when
> clicking into the oval which part is hit, the 70% or the transparent
> 30%.
>
> A one-liner?
>
> The OP's proposal, for example, would define a series of points along
> the outline path
Colin Holgate wrote:
> The way that this problem is handled in sort other tools is to have a
> definable hit area for each control (usually those would be buttons).
> You can set the idle, over, and pressed versions of the button’s
> image, and also you can set the hit area image.
>
> LiveCode al
On 09/26/2017 01:46 PM, hh via use-livecode wrote:
Now solve this simple example:
Make a circular arc showing 70% of a pie and then tell us when clicking
into the oval which part is hit, the 70% or the transparent 30%.
That's the point where I stopped trying to do pie charts in LiveCode.
Wors
Mark Wieder wrote:
On 09/26/2017 01:46 PM, hh via use-livecode wrote:
Now solve this simple example:
Make a circular arc showing 70% of a pie and then tell us when clicking
into the oval which part is hit, the 70% or the transparent 30%.
That's the point where I stopped trying to do pie char
On 09/26/2017 06:02 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
>> Worse: try to set a tooltip showing the percentage under the cursor.
>
> Multiple graphic objects?
>
Been there.
When they're stacked on top of each other the transparent part of the
rect is still the object under the cursor, and
Mark Wieder wrote:
> On 09/26/2017 06:02 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
>
>> Worse: try to set a tooltip showing the percentage under the
>> cursor.
> >
> > Multiple graphic objects?
> >
>
> Been there.
> When they're stacked on top of each other the transparent part of the
> rect is
The original issue that influenced this one was how to provide a larger hit
zone on an SVG widget. How would this property work for that?
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On September 26, 2017 6:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
> > Mark Wieder wrote:
> > That's the point where I stopped trying to do pie charts in LiveCode.
> > Worse: try to set a tooltip showing the percentage under the cursor.
>
> Multiple graphic objects?
Sadly no. This simply doubles the problem.
The pie chart was the cause I
sez hh :
To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> How would you determine that a clickLoc is within such a
> "region" or not?
> (Say, for simplicity, the region is inside the control's
> rectangle)
Given that the engine *already does* have *some* sort of mechanism for
determining which control gets tr
Exactly. This discussion has raised so many very different use-cases
that I don't believe any single solution will satisfy them all.
In those cases where an irregular shape needs to work like a rectangular
button, it would seem simplest to use a button displaying the image as
an icon.
Where
hh wrote:
>> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> > Mark Wieder wrote:
>> > That's the point where I stopped trying to do pie charts in
>> > LiveCode.
>> > Worse: try to set a tooltip showing the percentage under the
>> > cursor.
>>
>> Multiple graphic objects?
>
> Sadly no. This simply doubles the problem
On 2017-09-27 03:20, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
Been there.
When they're stacked on top of each other the transparent part of the
rect is still the object under the cursor, and so obscures what's
underneath.
Methinks that could be considered a bug :)
The graphic object does do hit-tes
marvelous, very important thread…in mobile, it's all about the touch msg…
yes "all of the above" the enhancement request to allow margins for widgets
stands as still useful but plays directly into the other scenarios described
here. And though separate "desires," they do over lap
e.g. As it is
As far as the pie charts go.. A workaround is to create the required ovals
one at a time and import an image from each, then stack THOSE up.
Or alternatively use the ovals, stack them, group them, and have a list of
background colors used in each, and then in the group mouseup handler use
the mous
Mark Waddingham wrote:
> On 2017-09-27 03:20, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
>> Been there.
>> When they're stacked on top of each other the transparent part of the
>> rect is still the object under the cursor, and so obscures what's
>> underneath.
>
> Methinks that could be considered a bug
> Herman wrote:
>
> Make a circular arc showing 70% of a pie and then tell us when clicking
> into the oval which part is hit, the 70% or the transparent 30%.
>
> A one-liner?
Here’s a kludge. But it’s no one liner.
It takes a few milliseconds depending on size of the graphic.
on mouseUp pBu
> JLG wrote:
> The original issue that influenced this one was
> how to provide a larger hit zone on an SVG widget...
Yet another option.
You can use my iconGrid widget for that. Use a 1x1 grid
with your SVG icon as property.
It informs you whether the used SVG icon itself or the
enlarged transpa
On 9/28/17 11:53 AM, hh via use-livecode wrote:
JLG wrote:
The original issue that influenced this one was
how to provide a larger hit zone on an SVG widget...
Yet another option.
You can use my iconGrid widget for that. Use a 1x1 grid
with your SVG icon as property.
It informs you whether the
sez hh :
> > > JLG wrote:
> > > The original issue that influenced this one was how to provide a
> > > larger hit zone on an SVG widget.
> > > How would this property work for that?
>
> > Quentin L. wrote:
> > I?m thinking that a single line of code would suffice:
> >
> > set the clickableRegion o
@Quentin L.
Hopefully the following citation can help all of us to understand
better what's going on. Especially point (1) relates to our current
discussion:
Posted by Mark Waddingham in a long thread (2015) in the LC Builder
forum, not hard to find. It still describes at about the current state.
40 matches
Mail list logo