GenericDialog Field placements
Locked
GenericDialog Field placements
 
|
Hello All,
I'm curious if there is anyway to control the placement of the input field boxes of the generic dialog. Right now it seems to create a new line for every addition you make to it. Is this possible to do? Does anyone have experience with moving around GUI components? Thanks, Kenneth Arcieri |
Antwort: GenericDialog Field placements
|
|
Hi Kenneth,
what you describe is IIRC one of the shortcomings of the "simple" but quick Generic Dialog class. Using GenericDialog,setInsets (look it up) gives you some capabilities to place input fields for ex. on the same vertical line, however for some more cluttered dialogues I use "expert" subdialogs triggered by a CheckBox and dialogItemChanged events, which will however not yet fully work with Macro recording. Finding a more general solution for complicated dialogues is on my TODO list for a long time and I would appreciate any progress in this area! Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards Joachim Wesner Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH | GmbH mit Sitz in Wetzlar | Amtsgericht Wetzlar HRB 2432 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Traeger | Dr. David Roy Martyr | Colin Davis www.leica-microsystems.com Kenneth Arcieri <[hidden email] IH.GOV> An Gesendet von: [hidden email] ImageJ Interest Kopie Group <[hidden email]. Thema GOV> GenericDialog Field placements 24.08.2010 22:21 Bitte antworten an ImageJ Interest Group <[hidden email]. GOV> Hello All, I'm curious if there is anyway to control the placement of the input field boxes of the generic dialog. Right now it seems to create a new line for every addition you make to it. Is this possible to do? Does anyone have experience with moving around GUI components? Thanks, Kenneth Arcieri ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ |
Re: GenericDialog Field placements
|
|
In reply to this post by Kenneth Arcieri
On Aug 24, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Kenneth Arcieri wrote:
> Hello All, > > I'm curious if there is anyway to control the placement of the input field boxes of the generic dialog. Right now it seems to create a new line for every addition you make to it. Is this possible to do? Does anyone have experience with moving around GUI components? A GenericDialog can have checkboxes in multiple columns. There is an example at: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/plugins/multi-column-dialog/ Note the new address for the ImageJ website. The old addresses (rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/ and rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/) will continue to work. -wayne |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kenneth Arcieri
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Kenneth Arcieri wrote: > I'm curious if there is anyway to control the placement of the input > field boxes of the generic dialog. Right now it seems to create a new > line for every addition you make to it. Is this possible to do? Does > anyone have experience with moving around GUI components? You can do what Bio-Formats did: rearrange the children of the Dialog after the fact. _HOWEVER:_ I have to stress that you are going into a direction that makes it much, much harder to reuse your component. Even macro scripting might be an issue if you go there. Unless done carefully, rearranging the GUI components of a GenericDialog is a _REALLY_ bad idea. Especially if it is only about the "look" of the dialog (if I interpret your email address correctly, you are working with scientists, not random computer users). Hth, Johannes |
Antwort: Re: GenericDialog Field placements
|
|
>_HOWEVER:_ I have to stress that you are going into a direction that makes
>it much, much harder to reuse your component. Even macro scripting might >be an issue if you go there. >Unless done carefully, rearranging the GUI components of a GenericDialog >is a _REALLY_ bad idea. Especially if it is only about the "look" of the >dialog (if I interpret your email address correctly, you are working with >scientists, not random computer users). Hi Johannes, I fully agree with your comment about scientific users, but some times after a plugin get´s more and more options, the screen height really becomes a limiting factor (hit this limit several times) and also "geeky" usuability would be improved, when there was an official "macro-save" way to create sub-dialogs for "special settings" Sincerely Joachim ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ |
Re: GenericDialog Field placements
|
|
Hello All,
Thank you for your discussion on this topic! I am currently writing a plug-in in Java, so I'm not sure if the macro limitation would apply to my scenario... unless you are describing having a macro interact with my plug-in. When looking through the source code I do see grid.x and grid.y to help out with the placement of fields in the panel space. Being able to manually set this grid position would give me that little bit of control I need to not make my panel a horizontal monster. Right now, I'm writing an experiment manager plug-in for the hardware in the lab I'm writing it for (this is in conjunction with micro-manager). I would like each stage of the experiment to have numeric fields to define variables. Right now, my only choices are to list all these boxes one under the other or make a message that contains all of the stage data and then have a way to select it to update or remove it. If it was possible to add custom buttons and position items on the grid, it could make each panel in my plug-in much more powerful. While I understand the simplicity for scientific users, adding a few layout functions for power users in the API could increase the power of each panel and increase the ease of use. Best, Ken -------------------------------------------------- From: "Joachim Wesner" <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:25 AM To: "List IMAGEJ" <[hidden email]> Subject: Antwort: Re: GenericDialog Field placements >>_HOWEVER:_ I have to stress that you are going into a direction that makes > >>it much, much harder to reuse your component. Even macro scripting might >>be an issue if you go there. > >>Unless done carefully, rearranging the GUI components of a GenericDialog >>is a _REALLY_ bad idea. Especially if it is only about the "look" of the >>dialog (if I interpret your email address correctly, you are working with >>scientists, not random computer users). > > Hi Johannes, > > I fully agree with your comment about scientific users, but some times > after a plugin get´s more and more options, > the screen height really becomes a limiting factor (hit this limit several > times) and also "geeky" usuability would be improved, > when there was an official "macro-save" way to create sub-dialogs for > "special settings" > > Sincerely > > Joachim > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > |
|
In reply to this post by Joachim Wesner
Hi Kenneth & Joachim,
This discussion came up a few months ago, and I elaborated on how to manually rearrange the components here: http://imagej.588099.n2.nabble.com/Two-column-dialog-layout-td5030124.html#a5031669 As long as you readd all the same components, your plugin will still be scriptable in a macro. That said, the method Wayne mentioned is much easier to code. However, you will need ImageJ v1.44a or later to use the multi-column GenericDialog code. HTH, Curtis On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Joachim Wesner < [hidden email]> wrote: > >_HOWEVER:_ I have to stress that you are going into a direction that makes > > >it much, much harder to reuse your component. Even macro scripting might > >be an issue if you go there. > > >Unless done carefully, rearranging the GUI components of a GenericDialog > >is a _REALLY_ bad idea. Especially if it is only about the "look" of the > >dialog (if I interpret your email address correctly, you are working with > >scientists, not random computer users). > > Hi Johannes, > > I fully agree with your comment about scientific users, but some times > after a plugin get´s more and more options, > the screen height really becomes a limiting factor (hit this limit several > times) and also "geeky" usuability would be improved, > when there was an official "macro-save" way to create sub-dialogs for > "special settings" > > Sincerely > > Joachim > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > |
|
|
Please help sign me off the list.
|
|
|
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Jinming Zhu wrote: > Please help sign me off the list. Most likely you missed the message I sent not even two days ago: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.imagej/19270 Also, you might have heard of that new fantastic new website where you are offered a text input field, and after hitting the "Search" button, it finds all kinds of related websites. The link is: http://www.google.com/ If you type in "unsubscribe imagej" as search terms, it will find the correct page right away! Magic! Hth, Johannes |
|
|
please sign me off
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Johannes Schindelin < [hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Jinming Zhu wrote: > > > Please help sign me off the list. > > Most likely you missed the message I sent not even two days ago: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.imagej/19270 > > Also, you might have heard of that new fantastic new website where you are > offered a text input field, and after hitting the "Search" button, it > finds all kinds of related websites. The link is: > > http://www.google.com/ > > If you type in "unsubscribe imagej" as search terms, it will find the > correct page right away! Magic! > > Hth, > Johannes > |
|
|
In reply to this post by dscho
> Also, you might have heard of that new fantastic new website...
http://www.google.com/ This kind of condescending sarcasm is not welcome. It is not always easy to sign off the imagej mailing list. For example, it is common for personal email addresses such as <[hidden email]> to be re-directed via google mail as eg <[hidden email]>. If you are subscribed as a virtual address <[hidden email]> you will then find it difficult to unsubscribe, since the imageJ server finds that your request is actually coming from <[hidden email]> and will not accept to unsubscribe <[hidden email]> You can change the sender address in gmail, but the server in its wisdom knows better - it knows that the request is coming from <[hidden email]> whatever you do, a Catch-22 situation. I just confirmed this, and received a long list of reasons why the server could not unsubscribe me. It finishes by suggesting that I contact the imageJ list owners on <[hidden email]> but even that is not guaranteed to work, since they are only human dealing with a broken system. Alan On 26 August 2010 07:56, Johannes Schindelin <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Jinming Zhu wrote: > >> Please help sign me off the list. > > Most likely you missed the message I sent not even two days ago: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.imagej/19270 > > Also, you might have heard of that new fantastic new website where you are > offered a text input field, and after hitting the "Search" button, it > finds all kinds of related websites. The link is: > > http://www.google.com/ > > If you type in "unsubscribe imagej" as search terms, it will find the > correct page right away! Magic! > > Hth, > Johannes Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE <[hidden email]> +33.476.98.41.68 http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat ______________________________________________ |
|
|
I've had this problem with multiple mailing lists in the past. I assure you
I'm quite competent at using computers, but sometimes having redirects and outdated e-mail addresses from universities can cause quite a headache. Furthermore, the people requesting to get off the list are typically those that are not reading each message that is sent to the group. Thus, it's not particularly helpful to respond to the entire group about how to unsubscribe each time someone asks. It's actually more annoying to me than the original question to be removed from the list. I appreciated Dr. Hewat speaking up about this issue. Many mailing lists and forums related to technology and software are full of people answering in condescending tone, and answers that exist only to prove "superiority" at a certain program. This IMAGEJ list has largely been without much of this, and is one of the reasons I find it quite useful. Please do continue to be respectful and friendly of others, it's one thing that I've thought makes this list a cut about the rest. Best, Ben |
|
|
The whole issue may be academic. My understanding is that Wayne just
honors these unsubscribe requests, so the miscreant may never see the subsequent complaint. Bob |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Hewat
Dear Alan,
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Alan Hewat wrote: > > Also, you might have heard of that new fantastic new website... > http://www.google.com/ > > This kind of condescending sarcasm is not welcome. Please note that the list is definitely the wrong address to ask to unsubscribe you. Every mail you get via the list contains mailing list information. Look there, get help, and do not get condescending sarcastic mails from one of the 1600+ subscribers who are not interested in you wanting to unsubscribe. Easy, isn't it? Now let's go back to discussing what this mailing list is actually meant for: ImageJ. Hth, Johannes |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kenneth Arcieri
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Kenneth Arcieri wrote: > I am currently writing a plug-in in Java, so I'm not sure if the macro > limitation would apply to my scenario... The limitation I was referring to very much applies to your situation: your plug-in would not be recordable. If you don't fiddle with the components of a GenericDialog, your plugin is recordable. Without your further doing anything. Ciao, Johannes |
«
Return to ImageJ
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |