1 / 22

Piccolo.NET: A Scalable Structured Graphics Toolkit

Piccolo.NET: A Scalable Structured Graphics Toolkit. Ben Bederson University of Maryland Human-Computer Interaction Lab Computer Science Department. Piccolo.NET: What is it?. Toolkit that supports: structured canvas of graphical objects hierarchical scenegraph model

Download Presentation

Piccolo.NET: A Scalable Structured Graphics Toolkit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Piccolo.NET: A Scalable Structured Graphics Toolkit Ben Bederson University of Maryland Human-Computer Interaction Lab Computer Science Department

  2. Piccolo.NET:What is it? • Toolkit that supports: • structured canvas of graphical objects • hierarchical scenegraph model • creation of “controls” for use within Windows Forms • Supports 2D object-oriented graphics • hierarchies (transformation, transparency, etc.) • animation, event handling • cameras, layers, views • efficiency mechanisms • Missing structure that relies on underlying renderer • GDI+, Direct3D, OpenGL, Java2D, etc. => Open, Extensible and Efficient Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  3. What Is It Good For? • => Structured graphics • Custom interaction • Zoomable User Interfaces Gentleware.com - Poseidon Demo PaperLens – Microsoft Research Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  4. What Is It Good For? • Structured graphics • => Custom interaction • Zoomable User Interfaces Demo International Children’s Digital Library www.icdlbooks.org This Presentation Tool Range Slider Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  5. What Is It Good For? • Structured graphics • Custom interaction • => Zoomable User Interfaces U. Victoria – Ontology Visualization Demo PhotoMesa www.photomesa.com Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  6. Where Does It Run? • Almost everywhere • Piccolo.NET • (C#) .NET for Windows • PocketPiccolo.NET • (C#) Compact Framework for Pocket PC • Piccolo.Java • (Java) for everywhere else Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  7. Class Hierarchy Typical run-time structure How Does It Work? • “Monolithic” design • Simple class hierarchy • Simple runtime structure • Utilities for easy startup using UMD.HCIL.Piccolo; using UMD.HCIL.Piccolo.Nodes; using UMD.HCIL.PiccoloX; public class PHelloWorld : PForm { public override void Initialize() { PText text = new PText("Hello World!"); Canvas.Layer.AddChild(text); } static void Main() { new PHelloWorld(); } } Code Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  8. What Does It Do? • Let’s look at the “Feature” demos: Demo Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  9. Bigger Example: GraphEditor • Nodes and Edges • Highlightable • Draggable • Approach: • Structure of objects • Relate nodes & edges • Event handlers Code Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  10. This Presentation Tool • Similar structure to GraphEditor: • Scenegraph • Event handlers • But this time: • Hierarchical transforms • Animation Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  11. PocketPiccolo.NET • Same great taste – less filling! • Essentially identical except for: • Lower quality rendering • No graphical paths or transparency • No rotation • Poorer performance • Still all the cool stuff: • Hierarchical, transformable objects • Animation • Event handling • Efficiency mechanisms Demo Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  12. History Lesson – ZUI ToolkitsSpatial Data Management System (SDMS): Donelson, MIT • 1978 – SDMS • Tour de force • Ubiquitous computing • ZUIs • Novel input devices • Totally specialized system Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  13. History Lesson – ZUI ToolkitsPad: Perlin, NYU • 1993 – Pad • Ran on Sun 2 • Written in C • X Graphics • Jump-zoom, B&W • Impressively fast • Moderately extensible Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  14. History Lesson – ZUI ToolkitsPad++: Bederson, UNM • 1994 – Pad++ • Designed for prototyping • Used C++ and Tcl/Tk and X or OpenGL graphics • Smooth zooming • Full color • Bitmaps and vector objects • Didn’t scale up well • The API was defined in Tcl and the C++ code was efficient, but messy… [Bederson & Meyer - SPE 1998] Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  15. History Lesson – ZUI ToolkitsJazz: Bederson, UMD • 1998 – Jazz • Wanted ability to build “serious” applications • Moved to Java and object-oriented design • Inspired by 3D graphics: • We built “polylithic” scenegraph • Different than “monolithic” GUI toolkits Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  16. Polylithic Potential • Simpler objects, easier to maintain • Decoupled objects, easier to extend • More run-time control • Could better support design environments • But … • More objects to manage • Introduced “editor” to manage object chains • Still not good enough for app programmers Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  17. History Lesson – ZUI ToolkitsPiccolo: Bederson, UMD • 2003 – Piccolo • Decided app builder more important than toolkit builder • Added support for C# and Pocket PC • Went back to “monolithic”, but OO design • Finally happy • This is our “last” toolkit • Now have commercial apps being built using Piccolo Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  18. How Do Toolkits Compare? • Tough comparison – many design differences aside from polylithic / monolithic architectures • Did case studies and a performance analysis DateLens www.datelens.com DateLens Mockup • Piccolo.dll [120 kb] • PiccoloX.dll [68 kb] Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  19. Performance Analysis Scenegraph manipulation speed Rendering Speed [Bederson, Grosjean, Meyer - TSE 2004] Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  20. Architectural Reflections • Toolkits are usually worth their weight • Polylithic and Monolithic each have merits • Similar performance and code sizes • Base arch. on expected life cycle • More programmer oriented => monolithic • More design program oriented => polylithic Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  21. Language Reflections: Java vs. C# • Languages • C# “usability” advances important for us: properties, events, indexers, foreach, using, attributes • Libraries • Similar, but multiplatform has significant cost • Platform-specific feature use common • Java tortured its APIs with backwards compatibility • IDEs • Eclipse: Free, refactoring support, pluggable, rapid changes • VS.NET: Expensive, but fast, form designer, integrated device emulator, and cheap for academics • Platforms • Multiplatform required for UMD’s required CS courses • But C# is used in some senior/grad courses Demo Human-Computer Interaction Lab

  22. Conclusions / Directions • Are toolkits beneficial? • => Clearly yes (sometimes) • Does zooming work? • Is animation helpful? • Good small representations needed • Animation helps maintain object constancy • Understand domain and users • Piccolo’s Future: • Finish website, tutorials, etc. • Hook up to other renderers (Direct3D, OpenGL) • Build more apps! • Funded by: • Microsoft • Initially by: • DARPA • NSF www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/piccolo Human-Computer Interaction Lab

More Related