Abstract:
A method of creating a free-form visual user interface element includes receiving a command to associate a visual representation of at least one of a set of graphical user interface controller attributes with a free-form visual element, generating instructions defining the at least one of the set of graphical user interface controller attributes, and adapting the instructions to a data structure embodying the free-form visual element. The method also includes attaching the adapted instructions to the data structure to form a free-form visual user interface element.

Description:
BACKGROUND 
     Model-view-controller (MVC) is an architectural pattern used in software engineering. Certain uses of this pattern may isolate business logic from user interface considerations, resulting in an application where it may be easier to modify either the visual appearance of the application or the underlying business rules without affecting the other. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 1 , in MVC, a model  10  represents the information (the data) of the application and the business rules used to manipulate the data, a view  12  corresponds to elements of the user interface such as text, checkbox items, and so forth, and a controller  14  manages details involving the communication to the model  10  of user actions such as keystrokes and mouse movements. As illustrated, method invocations appear in solid line and events appear in dashed line. 
     The model  10  may encapsulate the application state, respond to state queries, expose application functionality and notify the view  12  of changes. The view  12  may render the model  10 , request updates from the model  10 , send user gestures to the controller  14  and allow the controller  14  to select the view  10 . The controller  14  may define application behavior, maps user actions to updates for the model  10  and select the view  12  for response. 
     Swing is a platform-independent, MVC graphical user interface (GUI) framework for Java. It follows a single-threaded programming model, and possesses the following traits: 
     Platform Independence 
     Swing is platform independent both in terms of its expression (Java) and its implementation (non-native universal rendering of widgets). 
     Extensibility 
     Swing is a partitioned architecture, which allows for the “plugging” of various custom implementations of specified framework interfaces. For example, users may provide their own custom implementation(s) of these components to override the default implementations. In general, Swing users may extend the framework by extending existing (framework) classes and/or providing alternative implementations of core components. 
     Component-Oriented 
     Swing is a component-based framework. A component is a well-behaved object with a known/specified characteristic pattern of behavior. Swing objects asynchronously fire events, have “bound” properties and respond to a well-known set of commands (specific to the component.) Specifically, Swing components are Java Beans components, compliant with the Java Beans Component Architecture specifications. 
     Customizable 
     Given the programmatic rendering model of the Swing framework, fine control over the details of rendering of a component may be possible in Swing. As a general pattern, the visual representation of a Swing component is a composition of a standard set of elements, such as a “border,” “inset,” decorations, etc. Users may programmatically customize a standard Swing component (such as a JTable) by assigning specific borders, colors, backgrounds, opacities, etc., as the properties of that component. The core component will then use these properties (settings) to determine the appropriate renderers to use in painting its various aspects. It is also, however, completely possible to create unique GUI controls with customized visual representation. 
     Configurable 
     Swing&#39;s reliance on runtime mechanisms and indirect composition patterns allows it to respond at runtime to fundamental changes in its settings. For example, a Swing-based application can change its look and feel at runtime. Further, users can provide their own look and feel implementation, which allows for uniform changes in the look and feel of existing Swing applications without any programmatic change to the application code. 
     Lightweight UI 
     Swing&#39;s configurability results from not using the native host operating system&#39;s (OS&#39;s) GUI controls for displaying itself. Swing “paints” its controls programmatically through the use of Java 2D APIs, rather than calling into a native user interface toolkit. Thus, a Swing component does not have a corresponding native OS GUI component, and is free to render itself in any way that is possible with the underlying graphics APIs. 
     Swing components typically rely on an Abstract Window Toolkit (AWT) container because (Swing&#39;s) JComponent extends the AWT&#39;s container. This allows Swing to plug into the host OS&#39;s GUI management framework, including the device/screen mappings and user interactions, such as key presses or mouse movements. Swing “transposes” its own (OS agnostic) semantics over the underlying (OS specific) components. So, for example, every Swing component paints its rendition on the graphic device in response to a call to component.paint( ), which is defined in the AWT container. But unlike AWT components, which delegated the painting to their OS-native “heavyweight” widget, Swing components are responsible for their own rendering. 
     This transposition and decoupling is not merely visual, and extends to Swing&#39;s management and application of its own OS-independent semantics for events fired within its component containment hierarchies. Generally speaking, the Swing Architecture delegates the task of mapping the various flavors of OS GUI semantics onto a simple, but generalized, pattern to the AWT container. Building on that generalized platform, it establishes its own GUI semantics in the form of the JComponent model. 
     Loosely-Coupled/MVC 
     The Swing library makes use of the MVC software design pattern, which conceptually decouples the data being viewed from the user interface controls through which it is viewed. Because of this, most Swing components have associated models (which are specified in terms of Java interfaces), and the programmer can use various default implementations or provide their own. The framework provides default implementations of model interfaces for all of its concrete components. 
     Typically, Swing component model objects are responsible for providing a concise interface defining events fired, and accessible properties for the (conceptual) data model for use by the associated JComponent. Given that the overall MVC pattern is a loosely-coupled collaborative object relationship pattern, the model provides the programmatic means for attaching event listeners to the data model object. Typically, these events are model centric, e.g., a “row inserted” event in a table model, and are mapped by the JComponent specialization into a meaningful event for the GUI component. For example, the JTable has a model called TableModel that describes an interface for how a table would access tabular data. A default implementation of this operates on a two-dimensional array. 
     The view component of a Swing JComponent is the object used to graphically “represent” the conceptual GUI control. A distinction of Swing, as a GUI framework, is in its reliance on programmatically-rendered GUI controls (as opposed to the use of the native host OS&#39;s GUI controls). This distinction may be a source of complications when mixing AWT controls, which use native controls, with Swing controls in a GUI. 
     The Swing framework does not require the creation of custom models, as the framework provides a set of default implementations that are transparently, by default, associated with the corresponding JComponent child class in the Swing library. In general, only complex components, such as tables, trees and sometimes lists, may require the custom model implementations around the application-specific data structures. 
     In terms of visual composition and management, Swing favors relative layouts (which specify the positional relationships between components) as opposed to absolute layouts (which specify the exact location and size of components). 
     SUMMARY 
     A method of creating a free-form visual user interface element includes receiving a command to associate a visual representation of at least one of a set of graphical user interface controller attributes with a free-form visual element, generating instructions defining the at least one of the set of graphical user interface controller attributes, adapting the instructions to a data structure embodying the free-form visual element, and attaching the adapted instructions to the data structure to form a free-form visual user interface element. 
     A system for creating a free-form visual user interface element includes one or more computers. The one or more computers are configured to receive a command to associate a user interface controller attribute with a free-form visual element, generate instructions defining the user interface controller attribute, and adapt the instructions to a data structure embodying the free-form visual element. The one or more computers are also configured to attach the adapted instructions to the data structure to form a free-form visual user interface element. 
     While example embodiments in accordance with the invention are illustrated and disclosed, such disclosure should not be construed to limit the invention. It is anticipated that various modifications and alternative designs may be made without departing from the scope of the invention. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  is a block diagram of a model-view-controller architectural pattern. 
         FIGS. 2 and 3  are flow charts depicting portions of algorithms for creating a visual program. 
         FIG. 4  is a screen shot of an example user interface for creating a visual program. 
         FIG. 5  is a flow chart depicting an algorithm for creating a visual element. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     Visual designers may create visual applications by combining bitmap or vector-based artwork with a set of animated behaviors, and then connect this to programming logic (frequently created by non-visual design specialists). This style of visual interface development may make use of stock components, e.g., the Swing look and feel classes or Abstract Window Toolkit. A designer may also compose a collection of artwork, such as bitmap images from Adobe Photoshop or vector graphics from Adobe Illustrator, and then apply a collection of graphic transforms to those objects under a set of conditions. For example, a selected collection of images of a piece of paper moving from one folder to another may be animated to visually indicate a copy action. Alternatively, a visual designer may imbue their artwork with stock personalities, such as the personality of a button or a slider, and/or attributes, such as the accessible description of the object or the accessible value of something that is behaving like a slider. As discussed below, this may be accomplished within the tool used by the visual designer to create their visual application. 
     Referring now to the algorithm of  FIG. 2 , a set of predefined attributes, such as emitter of actions/signals, implementer of the accessibility API, provider of component information, provider of accessible value information, etc., are created as indicated at  16 . As indicated at  18 , these attributes may be composed into one or more sets of predefined personalities, such as the button personality, the slider personality, the tab personality, etc. 
     The selection of attributes—and their collection into personalities—may be performed by the developer of the tool as appropriate to the application domain. For example, the minimum set of personalities for realizing a typical graphical user interface application may include buttons, checkboxes, radio buttons, sliders, static and editable text fields, combo-boxes, images and tabbed panes. The set of attributes may be the decomposition of these personalities: “contains static text,” “contains editable text,” “is clickable,” “provides one of a range of values,” etc. In order to support accessibility needs, there may be a minimum set of accessibility attributes including “accessible name,” “accessible role,” “accessible states,” etc. Further, to support an accessible graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI personalities may already have accessibility attributes built into them. 
     Referring now to the algorithm of  FIG. 3 , the designer may place their artwork into the design tool which, in the embodiment of  FIG. 3 , automatically defines them as nodes within a scene graph as indicated at  20 . 
     As known to those of ordinary skill, a scene graph may be a general data structure commonly used by vector-based graphics editing applications and modern computer games. Some scene graphs are structures that arrange the logical and often (but not necessarily) spatial representations of graphical scenes. 
     A scene graph may be a collection of nodes in a graph or tree structure. A node may have many children but often only a single parent, with the effect of a parent apparent to all its child nodes. An operation applied to a group may automatically propagate its effect to all of its members. In certain programs, associating a geometrical transformation matrix at each group level and concatenating such matrices together may be an efficient and natural way to process such operations. A common feature, for example, is the ability to group related shapes/objects into a compound object which can then be moved, transformed, selected, etc., as easily as a single object. In some scene graphs, a node may have a relation to any node including itself, or at least an extension that refers to another node. 
     As indicated at  22 , the designer may associate the predefined personalities and/or attributes with their artwork as they build their visual application by, for example, placing the nodes into objects that implement the predefined attributes and/or personalities. 
     As indicated at  24 , the visual program is thus created. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 4 , an embodiment of a user interface  26  for associating predefined personalities and/or attributes with graphic elements includes a palette  28  and a visually rich user interface  30  under development. The palette  28  includes a plurality of personalities  32   n  ( 32   a - 32   j ). As discussed above, each of the personalities  32   n  is a composition of one or more attributes. In the embodiment of  FIG. 4 , the personality  32   a  represents a label, the personality  32   b  represents a text box, the personality  32   d  represents a horizontal slide bar, the personality  32   g  represents a button, etc. The palette  28  also includes a plurality of attributes  34   n  ( 34   a - 34   f ). In the embodiment of  FIG. 4 , the attribute  34   b  represents editable text, the attribute  34   c  represents an icon, the attribute  34   e  represents a table, etc. Any suitable attributes and personalities, however, may be used. 
     The user interface  30  comprises a number of free-form visual elements  36   n  ( 36   a - 36   g ). As discussed above, these free-form visual elements  36   n  may be, for example, bitmap images from Adobe Photoshop or vector graphics from Adobe Illustrator. In the embodiment of  FIG. 4 , the free-form visual elements  36   a - 36   e  are intended to behave as buttons. The free-form visual element  36   f  is intended to behave as an icon. The free-form visual element  36   g  is intended to behave as a label. 
     To imbue the respective free-form visual elements  36   n  with their intended functional properties, the designer may select a desired personality  32   n  or attribute  34   n  from the palette  28  and drag-and-drop it onto one of the free-form visual elements  36   n . For example, the designer may drag-and-drop the label personality  32   a  onto the free-form visual element  36   g  (“123graph”), the designer may drag-and-drop the button personality  32   g  onto each of the free-form visual elements  36   a - 36   e , the designer may drag-and-drop the icon attribute  34   c  onto the free-form visual element  36   f , etc. The free-form visual elements  36   a - 36   g  thus take on the respective functional properties associated with the personalities  32   n  and/or attributes  34   n  dropped onto them. 
     A general Java/JavaFX object that is able to contain generic attributes or a specific Java/JavaFX object that corresponds to the specific personality in question, for example, may thus be created. Such an object may be ready to receive associated code that is part of the data structure in memory associated with the visual object imported from another application. As such, attribute holder and personality holder objects may be created into which graphics are placed, for example, as nodes in a scene graph. Any suitable technique, however, may be used. 
     Referring now to the algorithm of  FIG. 5 , a command is received to associate a visual representation of a graphical user interface controller attribute with a free-form visual element as indicated at  38 . As an example, a user may move a mouse over a palette containing icons representing a set of graphical user interface controller attributes, hold a mouse button down while over one of them, move/drag the mouse until it is over a free-form visual element and finally release the mouse. As another example, a user may bring keyboard focus to a palette containing icons representing a set of graphical user interface controller attributes, e.g., with the F6 key, bring focus to one of the representations of the set of graphical user interface controller attributes, e.g., with the arrow keys, and select the desired representation of the graphical user interface controller attribute(s), e.g. with the spacebar or &lt;CR&gt; key. The user may then bring focus to the pane containing the free-form visual elements, e.g. with the F6 key, bring focus to a specific free-form visual element, e.g., with the TAB key, and finally imbue the focused visual element with the previously selected user interface controller attribute(s), e.g., with the spacebar or &lt;CR&gt; key. As yet another example, a user may right click on a mouse, select “imbue” from a menu and a text description of the graphical user interface controller attribute(s) from a submenu. As still yet another example, a user may input Ctrl-F10 or some other keystroke to bring up a context menu, arrow to select “imbue” from the menu and then arrow to select a text description of the graphical user interface controller attribute(s) from a submenu. 
     As indicated at  40 , instructions defining the graphical user interface controller attribute are generated. In one example algorithm, a generic code template for the user-chosen graphical user interface controller attribute(s) may be stored in a file/memory as XML tagged code or a collection of XML tagged code fragments (one per attribute). The generic code template for the user-chosen graphical user interface controller attribute(s) may then be looked up and passed onto  42  discussed below. Other suitable code and/or techniques, however, may be used. 
     As indicated at  42 , the instructions are adapted to a data structure embodying the free-form visual element. In one example algorithm, the tagged code may be inspected and, for each tag indicating adaptation is needed (e.g., an XML tag noting that an adapter needs to replace that tag with generated code), the associated information in the free-form visual element containing the information needed for adaptation may be looked up. The adaptation may then be made. 
     As an example, for the controller attribute “get bounds” from the collection of attributes relating to the Accessible Component interface of the java accessibility.* API, the static bounds of the free-form visual element may be determined or a call to a function on the free-form visual element that returns this may be slotted in. In one example, the XML code fragment 
     
       
         
               
             
           
               
                   
               
             
             
               
                     Rectangle getBounds( ) { 
               
               
                         return &lt;variable attribute=“bounds” type=“Rectangle”&gt;; 
               
               
                     } 
               
               
                 may be turned into 
               
               
                     Rectangle getBounds( ) { 
               
               
                         return new Rectangle (0, 0, 200, 300); 
               
               
                     } 
               
               
                 Of course, any suitable technique may be used. 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
     As indicated at  44 , the adapted instructions are attached to the data structure to form a user interface element. In one example algorithm, assuming the visual elements are nodes in a scene graph, the free-form visual element in the scene graph may be modified by modifying the scene graph node data structure to indicate that the node is a visual user interface element that has attribute methods on it, adding each of the adapted instructions from the previous step to the scene graph node data structure or modifying the root of the scene graph to indicate that one or more nodes within it are visual user interface elements (this may be important for certain types of controller attributes such as those associated with keyboard focus &amp; handling keyboard input). 
     Once the program is created, at runtime it may behave similar to any other component-based application, e.g., Swing application, from the point of view of either an accessibility framework or for standard behaviors, e.g., keyboard focus and operation behavior for buttons and tab components, etc. 
     While embodiments of the invention have been illustrated and described, it is not intended that these embodiments illustrate and describe all possible forms of the invention. Rather, the words used in the specification are words of description rather than limitation, and it is understood that various changes may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.