- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:59:57 +0200
- To: "Doug Schepers" <doug@schepers.cc>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Doug, good to meet you last week. Thanks for the thoughtful discussions on an auto direction algorithm. This email is just closing the loop and directing you to what the Tiny 1.2 spec did regarding navigation. On Saturday, November 13, 2004, 10:45:41 AM, Doug wrote: DS> While there is a certain lack of precision, there is an equal lack of DS> commitment; if a person is slightly surprised by an unorthodox navigation DS> decision, they can quickly figure out the system behind it and navigate to DS> the correct option, and the can't get "stuck"; with document order, they DS> have no cues at all to try to recover from a mistaken direction navigation. This is helpful, and we have considered various automatic algorithms such as Thiessen polygons derived from shape centroids, however its clear that no one algorithm copes well with all content (consider intersecting shapes, shapes with 'donut holes' which contain and completely surround other shapes, etc). Its also become clear that the user can indeed get 'stuck' (moving back and forward skips over a particular shape of interest that cannot be reached) and that unintuitive results can often be produced (going in one direction and then going in the reverse direction frequently does not take you back to where you started, in many algorithms). DS> There are other, more complicated approaches, like using a Voronoi diagram DS> or Delaunay triangulation, but in this case, I think that the Good-Enough DS> principle holds. There are drawbacks to every approach I could think of, Right. We found that too. DS> and the one I went with finally was the simplest to do, and equally DS> intuitive to the end user. The point is, any directional solution is DS> better than a purely "hidden" document order selection. Given that, and given the difficulty of finding an algorithm that is both general and gives intuitive and reproducible results, and given that things like the accuracy of tessellating curves will result in different results on different implementations - always a bad thing) the WG decided as follows. Firstly, to add a way for the document author to add specific directional navigation (linking to a given shape by ID, so they can design a system that is intuitive) http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/interact.html#specifyingnavigation and secondly, using document order as a fallback mechanism since it gives repeatable results. we agree that it is not a preferred mechanism, here its just a fallback so that *something* happens rather than focus staying on the same element. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Sunday, 21 August 2005 00:00:10 UTC