Tooltips and context menus are used in numerous software applications. Tooltips are nuggets of information that help users familiarize themselves with features of a software application without needing to read a user manual or access web-based help. For instance, if a user hovers his or her mouse over a toolbar's button, it displays a tooltip as a brief textual description of that button's function. Context menus give users access to frequently-used menu commands that relate to the operation of the context in which the user works. Often, a context menu is associated with a control to target its menu more specifically to the user's needs. In this manner, context menus can save steps for the user by displaying menus without having to click on menu and submenu selections. Context menus can be displayed when the user presses a single key or combination of keys on a keyboard. For example, in MICROSOFT® Office Word, right-clicking, or holding down the Shift key while pressing F10 displays menu selections pertaining to ways that text can be formatted.
Current technologies such as MICROSOFT® VISUAL BASIC® allow developers to design part of the user interface for a software program simply by dragging and dropping controls, such as buttons and dialog boxes, onto a form. Then developers define each control's appearance and behavior. Developers cannot implement a tooltip or context menu for a control unless the control contains a property or pre-defined field to support a context menu or tooltip. For controls that do not have these built-in properties for tooltips and context menus, developers must manually write code for listening for events, creating a context menu or tooltip control when the specified event occurs, and displaying the content. This is time consuming.
Further limitations of current technologies permit context menus and tooltips to exist only for certain controls on status bars, menu bars, and user interfaces. Furthermore, displayed content is limited to text in a box. The sum of all these limitations requires developers to spend significant time coding context menus and tooltips.
Various technologies and techniques are disclosed that improve the process for creating and displaying context menus and tooltips. These technologies and techniques employ a centralized model that allows controls and various parts of a software application to access it. Developers can create a context menu or tooltip for any control. The central service model handles procedures associated with context menus and tooltips. This includes, but is not limited to, listening for events, creating context menu or tooltip controls, and displaying content. Developers write code to access the central service model and specify the content of the tooltip or context menu. A tooltip or context menu can include audio output, graphics, video clips, or other rich media content. In one implementation, the shapes and effects of the tooltip or context menu can be customized. By way of example and not limitation, a tooltip can be an idea bubble with a graphic in it.
This Summary was provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the principles of the invention, reference will now be made to the embodiments illustrated in the drawings and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope is thereby intended. Any alterations and further modifications in the described embodiments, and any further applications of the principles as described herein are contemplated as would normally occur to one skilled in the art.
The system may be described in the general context as an application that employs a central service model for generating context menus and/or tooltips. The system also serves other purposes in addition to these. One or more of the techniques described herein can be implemented as features within programs such as MICROSOFT® Office Word, MICROSOFT® Office Excel, online help programs, web browsers, custom software programs, or from any other type of program or service that uses context menus and tooltips. As described in further detail herein, in one implementation of the system, properties of context menus and tooltips are created and maintained in a central service model, where they can be reused from many software applications. In another implementation, developers write code to access the central service model to specify content for context menus and tooltips. In yet another implementation, content may be enhanced by use of rich media and customized display options.
As shown in
Additionally, device 100 may also have additional features/functionality. For example, device 100 may also include additional storage (removable and/or non-removable) including, but not limited to, magnetic or optical disks or tape. Such additional storage is illustrated in
Computing device 100 includes one or more communication connections 114 that allow computing device 100 to communicate with one or more computers and/or applications 117. Device 100 may also have input device(s) 112 such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc. Output device(s) 111 such as a display, speakers, printer, etc. may also be included. These devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length here.
Turning now to
Context menu/tooltip application 200 includes program logic 204, which is responsible for carrying out some or all of the techniques described herein. Program logic 204 includes logic for a listening for events 206; logic for determining whether the event should trigger a context menu or tooltip 208; logic for storing, locating, and/or retrieving information from a central service model 210; logic for displaying content in a correct mode and location 212; and logic for closing the context menu or tooltip 214. In one implementation, program logic 204 is operable to be called programmatically from another program, such as using a single call to a procedure in program logic 204.
In one implementation, program logic 204 resides on computing device 100. However, it will be understood that program logic 204 can alternatively or additionally be embodied as computer-executable instructions on one or more computers and/or in different variations. As one non-limiting example, one or more parts of program logic 204 could alternatively or additionally be implemented on one or more other computers and/or applications 117.
Turning now to
The procedure begins at start point 240 with a developer choosing to create a context menu or tooltip for a specified control (stage 242). In one implementation, the developer creates content for the control (stage 244), which can include rich media content, as described herein. The developer accesses properties of the central service model (stage 246) for a context menu or tooltip. The developer specifies the content for the context menu or tooltip (stage 248), which can include, but is not limited to, on-screen text and/or graphics, audio output, video output, and/or hyperlinks. The shape in which the content should be displayed can also be specified (stage 248), including, but not limited to a square, rectangle, circle, oval, bubble, and/or other shapes. In one implementation, the developer writes code for the tooltip or context menu using a development system such as MICROSOFT® VISUAL BASIC® or MICROSOFT® C#®. In another implementation, the developer writes code for the tooltip or context menu using a text-based markup language, such as extensible markup language (XML) or extensible application markup language (XAML). The process ends at end point 252.
Turning now to
In several circumstances, the system checks to see if there is a parent element (decision point 466). For example, if no content is defined (decision point 462), if the service is disabled (decision point 464), or if the element is disabled and should not be shown on disabled (decision point 472), then the parent element is checked (decision point 466). If there is a parent element, then the system goes to the parent element (stage 468) to see if content is defined for it (decision point 462). If so, then the other stages are performed for the parent element to see if the service is enabled for it (decision point 464), if the element is enabled (decision point 470), and to make sure the parent element is not already open (decision point 474) before firing the opening event (stage 476) to open it (stage 480). The process then ends at end point 482.
Turning now to
Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims. All equivalents, changes, and modifications that come within the spirit of the implementations as described herein and/or by the following claims are desired to be protected.
For example, a person of ordinary skill in the computer software art will recognize that the client and/or server arrangements, user interface screen content, and/or data layouts as described in the examples discussed herein could be organized differently on one or more computers to include fewer or additional options or features than as portrayed in the examples.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5694562 | Fisher | Dec 1997 | A |
5923325 | Barber et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5937417 | Nielsen | Aug 1999 | A |
6199082 | Ferrel et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6281879 | Graham | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6363435 | Fernando et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6542164 | Graham | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6819336 | Nielsen | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6826729 | Giesen et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6828988 | Hudson et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6931603 | Boegelund | Aug 2005 | B2 |
7240323 | Desai et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7353246 | Rosen et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7533340 | Hudson et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
8046735 | Singh et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8522196 | Kim et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
20020054013 | Graham | May 2002 | A1 |
20020118221 | Hudson et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030004923 | Real et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030164862 | Cadiz et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040004632 | Knight et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040021647 | Iwema et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040036714 | Blakely et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040205514 | Sommerer et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215649 | Whalen et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225959 | D'Orto et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050028107 | Gomes et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050050470 | Hudson et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050076372 | Moore et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086690 | Gilfix et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091578 | Madan et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050125744 | Hubbard et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050197826 | Neeman | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050204309 | Szeto | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050283728 | Pfahlmann et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036996 | Low | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060085741 | Weiner et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20070146812 | Lawton | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070240057 | Satterfield et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070240101 | Wilson | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20090094105 | Gounares et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090313597 | Rathbone et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Ahlstrom et al., Improving menu interaction: a comparison of standard, force enhanced and jumping menus, Apr. 2006, 10 pages. |
Findlater et al., A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus, Apr. 2004, 8 pages. |
Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 11/402,299, mailed on Jun. 20, 2008, 11 pages. |
Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 11/402,299, mailed on Aug. 17, 2009, 9 pages. |
Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 11/402,299, mailed on Nov. 13, 2009, 9 pages. |
Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 11/402,299, mailed on Oct. 27, 2010, 11 pages. |
Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 11/402,299, mailed on Apr. 4, 2011, 11 pages. |
Rekimoto et al., “Pre-Sense: Interaction Techniques for Finger Sensing Input Devices”, Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology (UIST'03), 2003, pp. 203-212. |
Saha, “A Novel 3-Tier XML Schematic Approach for Web Page Translation”, Ubiquity, Magazine, Nov. 2005, 14 pages. |
“Thesaurus Tooltip Sample”, accessed at: http://cmsdevelopment.com/thesuarus, Jul. 6, 2007, 3 pages. |
Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 11/868,749, mailed on Sep. 22, 2010, 10 pages. |
Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 11/402,299, mailed on Dec. 2, 2008, 10 pages. |
Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 11/402,299, mailed on Jul. 16, 2010, 10 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070162898 A1 | Jul 2007 | US |