Login  Register

Re: ImageJ mdi version

Posted by Duane and Julie on Mar 26, 2006; 1:00am
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/ImageJ-mdi-version-tp3703148p3703155.html

Some little notes about my experience on Mac OSX:

OS X (and probably Linux as well) doesn't suffer from the  
overpopulation of a task bar.

I frequently have many large images open, often more than will fit on  
my screen (and I have a 30" cinema display).  If the interface became  
MDI, that would actually reduce my display area, making it all that  
more cramped.  If I ran the MDI full screen, then I'm actually back  
to SDI with the edges removed.  No gain and a little loss.

Just so you know, Photoshop on Mac is SDI (at least it is for me).  
XCode (Mac IDE) is either, depending on the user preference.  Eclipse  
is MDI.  For some reason I seem to prefer MDI for development and SDI  
for graphics and imaging.  Go figure.

For those of you who are Windoze users and don't know, on a Mac the  
menu bar is not attached to each window: it is at the top of the  
screen, and is always in the same place.  This kind of makes it  
always MDI even if it's SDI.  Sort of.  Perhaps that's full screen  
MDI with a transparent background?  :-)

I guess the bottom line is: please don't mess with an interface  
without taking into account other operating systems and user  
preferences.  I mentioned XCode above because it did that precisely:  
you can have it either way, and in fact it allows you to have it both  
ways to some extent.  Yes, the first reply will say that we can just  
have two different ImageJs, but a branch in the code is just a  
really, really bad idea.  I like the interface just the way it is.

Cheers!

    duane

On Mar 25, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Robert W. Baer, Ph.D. wrote:

> Very interesting Damien.  I enjoyed looking at it will probably  
> play a little more.
>
> First as to MDI.  I expect the advantages of MDI are in the eye of  
> the beholder which, in turn, depends on many historical things that  
> differ for each of us.  I am mainly a Windows user and more of my  
> applications use the MDI than SDI approach so I tend to feel more  
> comfortable with MDI.   Jochim hit upon the 'where is the main  
> menu' thing which is always a little more certain in a parent-frame  
> world, but just as quickly Wayne reminded us that the facile SDI  
> user will use <ENTER> to bring the window to the top. (Thanks for  
> that Wayne).  The other thing that sometime frustrates me is the  
> overpopulation of my task bar with a vast number of 'Image' buttons  
> that are all subpieces of a single ImageJ project.  With Windows XP  
> these eventually get collected together and grouped (which helps),  
> but I number this 'subtask' invasion of the task bar among the  
> downsides of SDI applications.
>
> For Daminen's 'proof of concept project' he has built an MDI, but  
> he has not added all of the functionality that one generally finds  
> in such an application structure.  Generally an MDI app is more  
> integrated than a SDI dumped into a single parent frame.  Let me  
> share one example of an MDI functionality that I use in the  
> Photoshop MDI, and that I sometimes miss in ImageJ.  The context is  
> working with multiple images from multiple treatment conditions  
> during an experiment.  When doing the equivalent of Window | Tile  
> the Photoshop MDI parent window only tiles those images that are  
> not minimized.  This is a quick and flexible way to make montage  
> like layouts in the MDI parent frame.  The parent window can itself  
> be sized such that I can look at data in an Excel spreadsheet while  
> contemplating the images.  The parent frame itself is the flexible  
> office space that I work in.  The MDI design encapsulated one  
> philosophy of how to best facilite the work flow. The SDI supporter  
> will rightfully come back by pointing out that it is far easier to  
> drag some of the images to monitor 2 in a dual monitor workstation  
> with an SDI interface.  Again the SDI embeds a philosophy of how  
> workflow is most easily mangaed.  Which interface is BETTER is not  
> an answerable question.  In the end, it boils down to the job to be  
> accomplished, the OS preference and experience of the user, and the  
> creativity and foresight of the SDI or MDI developer.
>
> I had not heard of 'Swing' before, but the link ( http://
> java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/mixing/ ) that you provide  
> on your download page seems to suggest that Swing components are  
> light-weight Java objects that are being positioned as an  
> alternative to AWT components. I am certain there are trade-offs,  
> but I don't know what they are.  For example, it appears that Swing  
> components have a single thread rule.  Would this have implications  
> for ImagJ?  I could not tell if Swing would be an integrated part  
> of the next JDK or not.
>
> Rob
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gabriel Landini"  
> <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:16 AMs
> Subject: Re: ImageJ mdi version
>
>
>> On Friday 24 March 2006 19:04, Damien Farrell wrote:
>>> Anyone interested in the development of a version of ImageJ that  
>>> uses a
>>> single Swing desktop pane for all windows.
>>
>> Damien,
>> What is the advantage of having a single pane?
>>
>> My past experience with another imaging programme (the defunct  
>> Optimas) was
>> that only 1 pane with everything inside was a bit of a pain rather  
>> than a
>> plus, but there must be some advantages that I haven't thought about.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gabriel