Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Animating From Markup Code To Rendered Result

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the be-sure-to-preview-your-comment-below dept.

GUI 72

New submitter lulalala writes "Writing documents using markup languages isn't always easy. Take Wikipedia, for example: one often needs time to relocate the current focus when they switch between previewing and editing mode. Now with Gliimpse, one can watch the markup code gradually turn into the rendered result. The demonstration on Youtube simply looks amazing, and shows that the software supports many markup languages, including LaTex Mathematics."

cancel ×

72 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm pretty excited by this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465775)

Unfortunately, apart from a demo in .jar format, I don't see a download link.

The Voice-Over Kept Referring to HTML as "Code" (2)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466233)

...and all I saw in the demo was marked-up text.

As a marketing convention, this equivalence of HTML and code is almost as pretentious as Wordpress' notion of equating code with "poetry."

Re:The Voice-Over Kept Referring to HTML as "Code" (2)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466309)

...and all I saw in the demo was marked-up text.

As a marketing convention, this equivalence of HTML and code is almost as pretentious as Wordpress' notion of equating code with "poetry."

So, remind me, what does the C in ASCII stand for?

"Code" has never indicated that something has any particular mathematical properties (such as, say, Turing completeness), or that writing it was a particularly challenging task.

Re:The Voice-Over Kept Referring to HTML as "Code" (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467143)

TeX isn't a markup language, it's a Turiing-complete programming language.

DOWNLOAD!? (2)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465817)

The biggest F#$@#!!#@ tease - where is that damn DOWNLOAD button?!?

Re:DOWNLOAD!? (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465905)

The biggest F#$@#!!#@ tease - where is that damn DOWNLOAD button?!?

Indeed. As far as academic projects go, I've always found it in bad taste for projects that do not have links to downloadable material/experiments.

Re:DOWNLOAD!? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465931)

... It's right there marked demo.

http://www.aviz.fr/gliimpse/GliimpseDemo.zip

mod parent up (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465975)

Thank you - right front center .... "doh"

Does not need Ant (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466189)

The readme file states that you need Apache Ant to run the demo. That's not true,
java -cp gliimpse.jar:lib/bliki-core-3.0.16.jar:lib/bliki-pdf-3.0.16.jar:lib/colt.jar:lib/pdfbox-app-1.4.0.jar:lib/PDFRenderer.jar:lib/swingx-1.0.jar fr.aviz.codeglimpse.uistdemos.HTMLEditorDemo
will work, too.

Re:DOWNLOAD!? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466231)

Why, right behind the patent application of course.

I don't think so... (1)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465841)

How is that "better" than a browser open you can Alt-Tab to and refresh in two keystrokes? Cognitively it looks like a mess, and I don't see the benefits, even after RTFA and WTFV. I do HTML and CSS for a living and have tried just about every IDE and tool combination that's been available since HTML was born, and (IMHO) nothing beats a code aware text editor and the latest browsers to preview the rendered markup. There just isn't much loss in productivity when you're using keyboard shortcuts to bounce back and forth from code to render in less than 3 seconds. Load times? Well, in development those should be almost nil because you should be working from a local dev server on your network. I just don't see the gain from this application's approach, especially when you add in the bane of every WYSIWYG markup editor the ever moving standards support game. The browsers are always ahead of the WYSIWYG editors as far as new standards support.

Re:I don't think so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465861)

Well, I only sort of watched the video, but it seems like they have some up with some way of cutting down the time from code to render for quickly bouncing back and forth. Annoyingly, they've used that extra time to play a cheesy animation, leaving the practical amount of time about the same. It looks cool in a demo, but that animation would get annoying as fuck in about 30 seconds for anyone who has to do this for a living. It could be cool though if integrated into something like Wikipedia, which I think might be the target demographic, but I got bored of the video after about a minute so I'm not sure.

Re:I don't think so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465945)

Well, I only sort of watched the video, but it seems like they have some up with some way of cutting down the time from code to render for quickly bouncing back and forth.

How long does it normally take you to render some marked up text?

Re:I don't think so... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466739)

It could be cool though if integrated into something like Wikipedia, which I think might be the target demographic, but I got bored of the video after about a minute so I'm not sure.

And even for Wikipedia, a classic WYSIWYG word processor type of editor would be optimal.

Depends (3, Insightful)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465889)

How is that "better" than a browser open you can Alt-Tab to and refresh in two keystrokes? Cognitively it looks like a mess, and I don't see the benefits, even after RTFA and WTFV. I do HTML and CSS for a living and have tried just about every IDE and tool combination that's been available since HTML was born, and (IMHO) nothing beats a code aware text editor and the latest browsers to preview the rendered markup. There just isn't much loss in productivity when you're using keyboard shortcuts to bounce back and forth from code to render in less than 3 seconds. Load times? Well, in development those should be almost nil because you should be working from a local dev server on your network. I just don't see the gain from this application's approach, especially when you add in the bane of every WYSIWYG markup editor the ever moving standards support game. The browsers are always ahead of the WYSIWYG editors as far as new standards support.

My thoughts exactly (kinda) when it comes to html editing. People can do fine (and actually do) by simply alt-tabbing+F5.

I do disagree, however, in that it cognitively looks like a mess or that there are no benefits. The algorithms explored in this research *could* be integrated into professional editing tools that spit out html (or any markup for that matter). If all I need to do is press one key to toggle back and forth from preview to editing in a single window, that on itself is efficient (subject to the editing person's predilection) than alt-tabbing+F5 with two windows.

Beyond html, this would certainly help with wikitext or latex. Call me crazy, but I would prefer a single toggle key to preview my wikitext on demand (and certainly with latex, which even with tools like LyX, previewing always take more than a few keystrokes.)

Beyond the actual need for something like this (which people can legitimate question), the algorithms and idea behind this are impressive.

Re:Depends (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465903)

Replying to my own post - why don't markup editors (and word processors for that matter) provide a single toggle key shortcut to switch back and forth from editing and previewing? That would be a far better approach than what is suggested with Gliimpse (get rid of the animation), and than alt-tabbing+F5.

Re:Depends (4, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466129)

The point is also that you can connect effect and cause of parts of the site. This is not easy by just a preview.

This is also what Bret Victor talked about in Inventing on Principle [vimeo.com] : To be effectively creative and productive, there must be an immediate connection between what you do and the consequences.
That principle is broken when you have to go over, and reload. (anything longer than 500ms is broken).

Re:Depends (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471831)

Umm, Emacs?

Re:Depends (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468351)

I use LyX a lot. I always map a shortcut like ctrl-d to view-PDF so that a document preview is not very far away. Larger documents take a few seconds to render, bigger documents not so much.

It seems like you could write something to periodically export your lyx file to pdf and render in a side window, next to your editing window. How hard could that be?

Re:Depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39469175)

There's a plugin for vim that does just that, compiling the document and updating your viewer on cursor movement (it can be toggled, of course). It's not perfect, but damn useful.

http://frescobaldi.org/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39469339)

Does this for LilyPond on Windows, Linux and MacOS

http://frescobaldi.org/

Re:I don't think so... (4, Interesting)

Omni-Cognate (620505) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465897)

Having just watched the video, it looks like the reason it's better (as alluded to in the summary) is eye focus. When you tab to a different browser you have to then find your place in a potentially large document. Ditto when you tab back. With this thing, if you keep your eye on where you are in one view and follow the animation you end up looking in the right place in the other view.

I find this a genuine problem, and as a solution this looks positively awesome.

Re:I don't think so... (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465943)

I still prefer a method where I can view both the code and the formatted document simultaneously. As for finding the place I need I use Opera Dragonfly which highlights the place in the document that I have selected in the code or finds and selects the part of the code that I have picked in the document.

Re:I don't think so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466117)

I still prefer a method where I can view both the code and the formatted document simultaneously. As for finding the place I need I use Opera Dragonfly which highlights the place in the document that I have selected in the code or finds and selects the part of the code that I have picked in the document.

Firefox and Chrome also do that natively, plus you can edit HTML, CSS and JS and see it rendered/executed on the fly. Firefox also has 3D markup visualization. For the best editing experience, use Firefox with Firebug. If it had a usable interface for browsing, loading and saving local/remote files, I could do all my web development in the browser.

Re:I don't think so... (2)

Omni-Cognate (620505) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465951)

Clicking around the links from that page, they (or at least one of them) also did this, which is pretty neat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17lz5nt5_jg&fmt=18 [youtube.com]

Re:I don't think so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466175)

I found the users fighting over what to call the pope hillarious.

Re:I don't think so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466989)

It looks kewl, but doesn't scale. Only useful for stuff which expands to more or less the same space on the rendered version. If you are editing a text which contains a single line per page and this expands to five screenfuls, how does the preview handle it? Will it jump to the first page? Second? Based on what, cursor positioning? Mouse positioning? Also, how many of you turn off fucking annoying animations in operative systems after the "oh ah" factor? They slow you down.

Re:I don't think so... (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465899)

> How is that "better" than a browser open you can Alt-Tab to and refresh in two keystrokes?

Because you can watch where each piece of code ends up on the screen.

That is *not* obvious when using a classic preview system.

Re:I don't think so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39467997)

Why can't the preview pane just highlight the relevant parts when I hover over the code (like Opera Dragonfly does)?

FireBug (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465967)

As a professional code monkey I assure you that no one uses alt-tab-f5 any more.

You edit the code in FireBug and see the change in the upper window. In fact using FireBug is even quicker than the thing demoed here, because the change is instant. No pressing a special key to see anything. You see things change as you type.

Re:FireBug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39467223)

It seems they don't like the Firebug-way because it uses "more screen real estate" but IMHO it's far better than Glimpse and its annoying transitions between source code and the final output. Nevertheless I'm sure that this technology will find some useful applications. Still can't imagine which ones.

Re:FireBug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39467809)

Does Glimpse support CSS? If not then it neglects the idea of "separating content from presentation." And does it support JavaScript?

Glimpse is academically interesting (and just plain "amusing" to me) but it's not going to replace FireBug or its ilk.

Re:FireBug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39468733)

[answers own question]

Yes, it works with CSS [slashdot.org]

FF 11. 3D debugger 'Tilt' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39468025)

Tools-> Web Developer-> Tilt (ctrl-shift-m)

Has anyone any experience with this new feature?

Re:I don't think so... (2)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466115)

There are a few 'live preview' apps available for both HTML and LaTeX, no Alt-Tab needed.

TexWorks also supports double clicking on something in the PDF and taking you straight to that section of code.

Re:I don't think so... (0)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466251)

How is that "better" than a browser open you can Alt-Tab to and refresh in two keystrokes?

It's not. It's just a pretty animation designed to make people think it's better because it looks fancy. This should appeal to people who buy "hologram wristbands" to promote health and wellness. Or people who consider Dreamweaver experience a "skill."

Cognitively it looks like a mess, and I don't see the benefits, even after RTFA and WTFV.

It reminds me of the shell game. You make a change and then see if your eyes can follow the element while it slides around. Most real world HTML files are going to be long enough that you won't fit all the code on one page, so the element you're trying to find will keep sliding off the screen. You'd be far better off just using CTRL-F or CMD-F to find the element in the code.

Or use a "real-time" HTML editor [squarefree.com] that updates your view of the page in a separate frame as you type. The only downside to this is that you can't use the tab key to indent lines, because it'll switch you to the other frame.

As a side note, it would be nice if the Gliimpse software could also do spell checking. You press the hot key, and your misspelled words morphs into a hand that facepalms the screen with an option on each finger you can choose to replace them with real words that are similar. For instance, if you're naming your app, and you type "Gliimpse," a hand appears, facepalms the screen and appears to have words tattooed on each finger: Glimpse, Gimps, Gimp, Goatse, and "Click here for $1 off a sandwich at Blimpie's."

Re:I don't think so... (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472141)

First of all, this isn't targeted to professionales (from you comment, I guess you do this for a living, or at least, at a very high level).
Secondly, it allows users to quickly relate pieces of markup with the resulting view itself. It makes navigation and relating both views easier for less-professional users.

Re:I don't think so... (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472187)

Having only semi consciously watched the video I think their target audience is wikipedia editors, not developers.

Re:I don't think so... (1)

thirdender (1412803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483619)

I recently added LiveReload to my coding process (guard-livereload [github.com] , LiveReload for Chrome [google.com] ), and it eliminates the second keystroke :-p It also has the added benefit of keeping any element styles you applied in the DOM inspector while reloading CSS or JS (which is kind of nifty).

What's the point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465851)

Just use a gui editor. You highlight the text and mark it as bold, it shows s bold, no need to mess about with smoothly transitioning between seeing the markup and seeing the presentation. This sort of problem was solved, better, back in the 20th century.

Re:What's the point? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466209)

By tools that are stuck in the 20th century, and that produce a horrid mess of nonstandard buggy code that you don't want to have to edit ever again. Good riddance, Dreamweaver and Frontpage.

Re:What's the point? (3, Insightful)

eldorel (828471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466239)

Yes, gui editors are great!

I really love how a single image and a paragraph turns into a 2MB html file and 10 pages of markup.


Seriously though.
When a gui editor can create easily read code that loads faster than something I can do in the same amount of time with notepad, I'll think about switching, and so will the other 400,000 people on slashdot who do this type of work.

Until then, STFU about gui html editors and let the professionals talk.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466983)

When a gui editor can create easily read code that loads faster than something I can do in the same amount of time with notepad

Notepad? Seriously? I mean, I can understand not wanting to use a GUI editor since they all suck, but you're only hurting yourself if you insist on using the second most primitive tool available. (Why not go the whole hog and use EDLIN?)

There are a whole load of things in between that provide conveniences like indentation, tag/attribute completion, on-the-fly validation, etc while still letting you write the HTML yourself the way you want it. You should be using one. It will make you more productive and increase the quality of the web pages you produce; and if you are really refusing to do so, then you, sir/madam, are no more a professional than a "carpenter" would be who insisted on planing wood with a sharpened screwdriver.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39469699)

(Why not go the whole hog and use EDLIN?)

Hey, I use sed you insensitive clod!

Re:What's the point? (3, Interesting)

eldorel (828471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471517)

I never said that I use notepad by choice.

I was using notepad as an example, especially since I know for a fact that I can code a simple web page design by hand in notepad faster than the office's contracted "web designer" with her wysiwyg tools. (we tested it one day after I got irritated and let my mouth get away from me)
I actually prefer to use Vim for editing. (with a ton of customization, and a few wrapper scripts)

If I am working on a web design, I have a large set of tricks that I use to get the best features of GUI editors without the issues.

For example,

I add a javascript autorefresh on a 10 second timer to the header of the page
ssh into the dev server and open the page in all of the browsers that I need to be compatible with.
........(I have a 3rd monitor set aside just for this, and if I have more than a few browsers, I'll open some on my laptop as well)
I also use a script that tests the page for validation errors every minute and changes the background color of my terminal window to let me know I broke something.

And I never claimed to be a professional.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472035)

(Why not go the whole hog and use EDLIN?)

Notepad isn't the second worst editor, and it actually has its points. When you really need to strip all markup from the copy buffer nothing beats a quick paste/copyfrom notepad.

Pity us poor wretches who have to use Windows all day. We use what we have. It's Life.

He could also always just use MSDOS Edit (which *is* the worst editor right after edlin and right before EMACS *ducks*

wikitext gui editors suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472015)

Wikitext gui editors suck. Badly.

It would be really really helpful to see my wikitext parsed and displayed as I type. pressing Preview is irritating and time consuming.

As it is, I am in the middle of converting a 300+ intranet site that is full of images and markup to Confluence wiki. I really really would like to see my changes resolved in real time, if for no other reason than to spot my code stuffups early.

One little stuffup in wikitext can wreck the rest of the page..

look out, F5! (or not) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465883)

Wow that's amazing!

Now I don't have to press F5 to reload the page when making changes. (Ok, alt-tab first)

What will I do with all the spare time this frees up? Life will never be the same again!!!!!!!!!11one1!!!

Oh hold on a second(hooho), it's quicker to alt-tab then press F5 than wait for the stupid transition.

Yay for frivolous transitions without productive benefit!

My memory is fuzzy... (1, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465927)

Didn't Word Perfect used to have an edit window for the markup at the bottom of the screen, while the top of the screen displayed the formatted text?

I've always thought that was a good idea compared to tools like Eclipse which flip between rendered and raw views (display both on the same tab, people!), but it's definitely not a new idea.

Re:My memory is fuzzy... (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465977)

Didn't Word Perfect used to have an edit window for the markup at the bottom of the screen, while the top of the screen displayed the formatted text?

Yes it did. It was also liked by typists as you could drive it totally from the keyboard.

Re:My memory is fuzzy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466409)

YES! It was WordPerfect! It was absolutely the best word processor ever. Damn I miss it!

Re:My memory is fuzzy... (1)

spasm (79260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467517)

It still exists, & is still maintained.. http://apps.corel.com/lp/wpo/ [corel.com]

Comes from Interleaf (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466513)

Interleaf [wikipedia.org] had that in 1984, on Sun workstations. The markup was in a column alongside the text, and lined up with it. The markup display didn't show the text, just the formatting commands.

Interleaf had a technology that was way ahead of its time. Because of that, they had a terrible business model - Interleaf's main product was a set of four Sun workstations and a laser printer, branded with the Interleaf name. The software alone was thousands of dollars per workstation. They couldn't sell many copies, since you needed a $10,000 workstation to run it.

Re:Comes from Interleaf (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466659)

Man, I miss Interleaf. 20 years after I first used it, there's still no layout tool that manages to do what it did. It's even more aggravating watching Word add pointless features release after release while failing to get right what Interleaf got right two decades ago.

Re:Comes from Interleaf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39468961)

Man, I miss Interleaf. 20 years after I first used it, there's still no layout tool that manages to do what it did. It's even more aggravating watching Word add pointless features release after release while failing to get right what Interleaf got right two decades ago.

FrameMaker came pretty damn close. WYSIWIG visuals, rendering a real markup language (MIF) underneath it.

Now the world has gone back to editing the underlying code (XML) and never gets to see what the end product looks like. Great if you've got 10,000 writers and one production team. Not so great if you're responsible for both content and production. If I'm going to edit a thousand-page manual with /usr/binvi, I might as well be using troff or TeX.

Somewhere in between... (1)

jjoelc (1589361) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465941)

I started to post this in reply to "what's the point"... Or maybe in reply to "I don't think so"... But... The answer is somewhere between the two comments, I think.

This tool would be amazingly useful somewhere in between the "casual" cases where WYSISYG is most prevalent and needed (for those that either don't know the markup, or for whatever reason don't care enough to bother learning it) and those that are masters of the markup. For those that are in the process of learning the code, in other words.

For those who have just discovered that they will be using a markup often enough to run into the limitations of WYSIWYG editing, but are just entering the world of the markup code underlying it. An obvious example already mentioned is Wikipedia (or any other wiki). Another great place would be for students just learning Latex.

This method, aside from must looking pretty, does a good job of letting you easily see what parts of the code translate into what parts of the screen.

Re:Somewhere in between... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466041)

An obvious example already mentioned is Wikipedia (or any other wiki).

It may be an obvious example but it's a terrible one. Wikipedia should just have a gui editor. Expecting people to learn a markup language and then have a 'transition' process layered on top of that just to put in some formatted text is absurd. There are much better solutions to that problem already. There's no need for people to be manually editing mark up languages in that context. Of course, as I think you implicitly acknowledge, it also probably won't be great for complex web pages, if it does work in that context then that's what they should have demonstrated. You may be right that there's some sort of middle ground where it works but the thing is, if they have a good example then they should show it, not just say 'look at this text that you could have just formatted simply in Word but instead can sit and watch transition for no benefit'.

Coral cached it before it got slashdotted (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465965)

here's your non-slashdotted link [nyud.net] , editors, is that really so hard?

It does time travel too! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465979)

From the demo video:

Human-Computer Interaction
Fall 2012

but then:

<td colspan="2" color=#999999> <center>

Seamless transition from 2012 to 1997! Great Human-Computer Interaction experience.

License=? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466125)

Can't find shit. Is it really so hard to mention it on your fucking web page? Or at least in the goddamn download? After all, it is the single most interesting thing about a software project.

Old idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466359)

The Bitfighter level editor has had a similar feature for... well, for a long time. Holding tab gives a live preview. Though, admittedly, without any transition animation...

People don't understand or like markup languages (3, Interesting)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466391)

For all the "I don't get it comments", the issue is that people don't understand or like markup languages. This helps people literally see the connection between the markup and the result. This problem was studied and documented extensively by Wikipedia:
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study#What_I_see_Vs._What_I_get [wikimedia.org]

Wikipedia addressed the problem by making a JavaScript GUI editor to hide the markup. IMHO the problem with that approach is that it solves the wrong problem. The problem isn't that the markup is to difficult (although learning more then the basics is), it's that people just don't care to put any effort into understanding it and would rather complain that it's 'to hard'. The solution shouldn't focus on teaching people markup. It should either remove the markup and only allow a GUI, making the encoding inaccessible like document editors do, or use the effort required to understand markup as a barrier to entry.

Animation for complex code changes (4, Interesting)

RoccamOccam (953524) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466417)

Where would the animation transition to if you were changing a line in your CSS?

Shouldn't be cast as the one true UI mechanism (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466443)

The demo presents this as the only system you're going to want, which is very trollish, frankly, but I can't really fault them for being enthusiastic about their idea, especially when they've implemented an actual version of it.

Typically, editing usage will fall into the two use cases of writing brand new markup, or editing existing markup.

This looks like it will be far more effective for editing existing markup, and that a live preview will be more effective for writing new material. And you'd clearly want the display to show you all your errors and such. This is simply another (very clever, and probably very useful in many cases) application of the idea that the IDE should aggregate information from continuous integration directly in the editing pane, or as close to it as possible.

The larger problem, I think, is that these systems are billed as being for large, complex documents, but that's precisely the case where they fall apart. As an example, I've got a few LaTeX document that is a clunky system of:
-- source managed on git
-- build scripts written with waf
-- a multi-file structure using the subfiles package
-- some latex is literate haskell that is preprocessed through lhs2tex (which looks pretty, but is surprisingly unreadable compared to naïvely typeset haskell, and I'll probably tear it out at some point)
-- some latex is generated by Perl scripts
-- some graphics are generated by Perl scripts
-- tons of macro definitions for common words and symbols
-- indices based on the macros

As soon as you introduce a few layers of indirection, all these sorts of systems completely choke, so the best I've managed is to have all the scripts run in Jenkins so at least I hear it reading out the bugs a few minutes after I commit. I'll also put in visible markers indicating where files begin and end, but that's the LaTeX equivalent of sprinkling print statements throughout my code...

Flicking back and forth (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466809)

It is actually quite hard to follow where each part of the text takes its new place in the transition. You can focus on one point ok but seeing the whole text is tough. If I would be using that, I think I would spend a lot of time flicking back and forth between the two views.

That being said, the code behind that gizmo must be quite sophisticated. It's pretty cool accomplishment.

Been tried before - caused nausea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466851)

We tried something similar to this a while back, it made people feel sick trying to follow the focus with their eyes. I see they haven't improved on it enough to stop that (watch it in full screen, several times in a row).

It's a nice toy, but won't work on extended periods of work, or indeed on complex documents.

Brilliant and useful (2)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467949)

I spent the last half hour or so using the demo provided. It's a bit disorienting at first, but after a few minutes it's very useful at keeping you focused on what you're working on. There is no delay or loss of focus going between editing and the rendered page. I let my kids try it and they suddenly understood quite a few things about nesting and wrapping text with tags that they've been struggling with after just a few minutes of watching their text change as it was rendered. It also worked with CSS so they could see how the same HTML looked totally different with some tweaks to the CSS page.

The demo doesn't let you save anything, but it's still fun to play with. Can't wait until this comes to main stream. All that searching and re-orienting with side by side windows seems so archaic by comparison now. It's like moving to scripting languages where suddenly you're working with live code instead of a compile cycle.

I look forward to this being integrated into browsers or other editors in the future. Keep up the good work guys.

License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39468333)

Maybe I'm blind (morning coffee here) but what's the license for this new tool?

This fits somewhere on the continuum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39468653)

I think this would be nice to have as an option. I think it might depend on the document whether or not you'd want to use it. There are some things where you'd rather work WYSIWYG. Then there are some things where you prefer to stay with code. Sometimes split screen is better. Sometimes it's not adequate. Having one more tool in the bag sounds good. This probably takes some horsepower. If your boss says you can't get the bigger monitor because you don't need side-by-side, then tell him you need more horsepower to animate the documents.

No big deal (1)

frisket (149522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39469159)

In Emacs/psgml, M-x sgml-hide-tags RET (and show-tags, bound to the key of your choice) pretty much does, this, bar the typographics.

It's got its uses (1)

leadfile (2559129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39473451)

I could see glimpse coming in handy in situations when I'm dealing with someone else's code, and it's a really neat concept. Even if it's faster to ALT+TAB and F5, I like that they're thinking outside the box, I could see myself using both methods and being happy with that.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>