Flashificator UI

[thatkeith]

I'm now the proud owner of Flashificator (okay, a FFC license to be more precise), and I am impressed with how it helps make FPP panos so much easier to deploy.

However, the user interface..... oh boy.

I apologise for this Trausti, but it reminds me of the kind of things that appeared back in the bad old days of early multimedia development in the late 1980s and very early 1990s, when 'whacky and zany' was prized above comprehensible. Floating pseudo-tabs? Cramped control layout? Totally unexplained buttons at the bottom-right? Please! All I want is a sober, subdued interface that follows basic established standards. I want a tool, not a toy. I don't want to notice the UI, I just want it to make sense without effort.

Flashificator looks like it will be very useful, and the function it delivers is exactly what we've needed for so long. But I have to say that the UI is in dire need of a complete rethink.

Sorry!

k

[vnomad]

I second the motion.
To be sure . . . also on the positive side

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Thank you for the input.

It's always good to see people on MY side of things... and you ARE.

The UI will be redesigned. First of all: It is way too small. What happens when it's translated into other languages, and longer words/descriptions have to be on display? It will be impossible to find space for anything additionally. Plus, the 2nd tab is a wast of clicking efforts. If in "Filters" or "Hotspots" tab, one should be able to have access to ALL the controls, without having to click the second tab.

Only yesterday I was addressing the change of layout with the new programmer, and I explained to him that I want a surface that is flexible. I'd prefer an elastic toolbox, that you can still move around (not standardized with lots of chrome and crap that limit's one's view etc.) A toolbox that can grow as more is added, without us constantly having to worry about the space available on the tabs.

Because of the very limited space available, things are difficult to spot and to place "ergonomically correct".

I am absolutely aware of these issues, and it will become an intolerable problem when we have the translations ready for implementation.

The floating buttons... well, they would do just fine if they were not linked to the framerate set in the UI. ... and they get stuck ... I prefer to remove the motion tween effect, and let it be like a click down... that will eliminate the "broken" look and feel of the buttons.

There is no way around the need to have the toolbox redesigned, but it has to be done so that it will not create another problem later on... and due to the limited time we have to do everything, the redesign will only take place when most other things have been done ... so no immediate solution to this here and now.

But rest assured that I completely and absolutely agree with your sentiment, so this will be fixed before we all die of old age.

[thatkeith]

I want a surface that is flexible. I'd prefer an elastic toolbox, that you can still move around (not standardized with lots of chrome and crap that limit's one's view etc.)

No nono no! Sorry Trausti, but I really don't think that coming up with a new funky-freaky interface design is the answer. This is a utility... please just make it LOOK like a utility. It really doesn't need any funky glitz, it just needs to help us do the job. Standardised is GOOD!

k

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Standardized would mean a tiny little preview window, lots of drop down menus to access the tools and ... I'd be very unhappy.

Sometimes it is good to take a new path.... we are working with VISUAL things... therefore the possibility to go completely full screen with FFC, with no chrome. No other panorama software offers that - as far as I know. I see it as a good thing not copying everyone's standards.... but I do ALSO see the pitfalls we DO have... and those can be improved upon.

[thatkeith]

Standardized would mean a tiny little preview window, lots of drop down menus to access the tools and ... I'd be very unhappy.

I completely agree, a tiny preview window would make all of us unhappy too.

But UI design is a science as well as an art, and it is almost always (as in at least 9999 times out of 10000) better to stick with established conventions for the basics, such as standard window control buttons and placement, and tab-buttons that don't have holes around them for the imperfectly-aimed click to fall through.

As for the arrangement of the controls in the window, things need more spacing to make the whole feel less like an aircraft flight deck. But you can save space too; in the Visual Quality section, for example, using sliders for items that have just three or four different states is not as efficient as popup/dropdown menus would be.

You'd also gain in clarity; right now the word "Static" on the left of one slider looks like the left-most slider option, not the title for that control regardless of where it is set! And where a slider is required, for Segments for example, could you use an Adobe-style 'popup' slider that appears beneath a simple numeric text field when used and isn't visible when not in use?

There are other things, but I don't want to come across as a moaning old git! I am enormously grateful for Flashificator, I'm just keenly aware that it could be SO much greater even without any feature enhancements if the interface was cleaned up and made more immediately comprehensible. (Among other things, every year I talk about the vital importance of user testing and usability with my MA Publishing students. This is a superb example of a great product that simply will not, at present, realise its full potential because of usability issues.)

Keith (not a grumpy old guy, really!)

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

I'm actually listening carefully to what you are saying, nodding in agreement at every word.

Here's what I want to suggest you (and others) to do if you have the time and will to do it:

Making a visual model (photoshopped) of the interface as you would like to see it.

Last night, the developer fixed several bugs we had... and on top of that, on my request the motion tween of the tabs was removed (now the buttons work well, without getting stuck in transition). There is still the issue of clicking through... it IS irritating, I just got "around" dealing with the irritation by keeping the toolbox on top of other windows (using the "TOP" button in the lower right corner)... and after that it really didn't bother me again.... but I can see that just because I found a solution that worked for me, doesn't mean it is a global fix I recon there could be put an invisible layer behind, to prevent the click-throughs.

The "X" for closing the application has been replaced with a clearly understandable OFF sign:


We have talked about the need to change the interface, mainly to make more space for everything... because it IS way too squeezed, and it has been like that forever... and I have never liked it being this small (giving the developer free hands has it's price). He has some new ideas regarding the layout of the interface, but before he does anything I will put the plans out for all of you to comment on... and if you (any of you) have contributions to the layout, then we could put up a poll and vote for the most liked design. After all it is all of you who have to work with the interface, so it's only natural that you are heard.

Many of the numeric steppers will be changed out with sliders (was not done initially due to limited space) since working with sliders is faster when you have a large scale of numbers available. Equally, as you point out, a drop down menu with 3-4 different options is absolutely to prefer over a slider.

I also think that the FFC specific controls (found in the preview window chrome and in the right lower corner of the toolbox) should be grouped together, rather than spread around.

... and don't worry about coming through like Mr. Grumpy.... that's my role in life. For as long as you have valid points and concerns, I am all ears, and will do anything to move things in the correct direction.

So... maybe a visual layout suggestion from you and others?

[prb16]

Interesting thread this one!

Trausti, I think you are right to give an opportunity to your customers to have a say and give thier suggestions on some of the design looks and features of FFC. However this is your baby and you may see it a little differently to others on how it should look and work. The most important thing is keeping it easy to understand and navigate as so to achieve the desired results, not easily done when you consider the potential power of the software. Many people like me only need to spend time on the creativity side rather than getting buried in coding, after all; that is what your wonderful creation is all about.

Thanks Trausti for allowing us the chance to have a say in FFC's future development, I can't think of another software producer that is so in tune and receptive towards its customers.

Looking forward to your next update!

[thatkeith]

maybe a visual layout suggestion from you and others?

I would be delighted to put my pixels where my mouth is!
Of course I won't specifically expect you to use anything; as prb16 said, it is your baby. But I'm very pleased to be able to pass along something in case it might help.

I'll work on something and get back to you...

k

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Well, it is my baby, but you are all the foster parents, and you should have a say in regards to how the baby is dressed and how it "speaks".

I only want to be able to offer the best tool possible ... and that will never happen if I don't listen to - or if I dictate everything to the users. As things stand right now... and I am sure we can all agree; FFC is a great tool, but the way I have allowed it to be dressed up (design-wise) leaves a lot more to be done. On this end, the question of re-dressing has never been .. well, a question. My biggest concerns were based on how little space there was, and how things would get even more difficult when translations would come through, and buttons etc would not hold enough space to allow full translated text to appear fully. I don't want to make this in the traditional way, where we have a limited part of our monitors assigned to the pano, and the biggest part assigned to buttons and empty spaces. The next design will be based on the same principal: Flexible preview window, with the full screen window as max (well, that is not the max per se right now, because you can magnify the view ... you can try it out by choosing the resolution of 1920x1200 in the preview window chrome (Click "Custom" then the resolution) you will get a numeric stepper showing the value "1"... and you can incresase it to "2". That's a limit we put on it on this end, but more could be allowed).

So a flexible INDEPENDENT window for the visuals, and a floating toolbox.. that can be improved for functionality on almost all fronts. As it is now, the user base for FFC is relatively small and changing the view now, is better than doing it when the user base is much larger... it will prevent mass-confusion and learning the control's again.

Just because I am the "father" of FFC, does not mean that I am always right.... so I prefer to hear everyone out. If there is general interest in changing the interface and... say... maybe 2 or more suggestions for a layout are presented, I think it would be the right thing to put up a poll where people could vote for this or that design.

A free full version with all the benefits (free updates) to the design that gets the most votes, or 55 euros (if the winning design is made by someone who has already purchased FFC.

Is that something that sounds like a good deal?

Just remember that I am willing to do whatever it takes in order to make FFC into something that everyone will enjoy and be happy with. I am in NO way or form affiliated with M$ or their business model... just to make it clear once and for all.

Thank you Keith and everyone else who try to guide me into what you see as the right direction!

[thatkeith]

A very quick first sketch, showing controls separated purely by grouping/spacing, and using more standard (Mac OS standard anyway) window controls, tabs, and a mix of UI elements (incrementable fields, sliders, popup menus and checkboxes) as appropriate.

I know this rough layout has numerous problems of its own, but it is really a 'for example' image showing a very different direction. I hope the thought behind it, i.e. something that lets me get on with the job without distracting me from my pano production, comes through...



I would imagine that having this permanently floating on top of the pano window would be a good idea. It can be minimised/docked as normal, and it simplifies how the user works with it.

Anyway, it is past bedtime again!

k

[terrycm]

two thumbs up to my friend with the mac.

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

I like the look... still... too limited space, but it's more the idea of the layout that is on display here. I absolutely like it.

[thatkeith]

Yes, space is an issue with so many interface elements.

In terms of the layout, what I've done is rationalise things from a design point of view. I've applied a simple layout grid (modified for the last two columns to accommodate necessary extra width), and simplified the type down to a single size and just two simple styles: plain and bold. No other changes in style should be necessary.

Here's the design grid made a bit more obvious:


But here's a quick look at a slightly different approach to organising the different sections of controls:

This would be the left-hand section of the controls window. By splitting things into easily-accessible panels, browsed through a familiar (iTunes etc.) hierarchical list in a left-hand panel, this would allow the UI to take much less room overall while still allowing for different languages with different space requirements for specific controls and labels. In fact, both 'Positions' elements in this example could be presented within one named panel rather than in the two as in this example. It would also help present the available plugins in a very easily expandable and browsable format.

It goes to show: there's always another way to skin a cat! (My apologies to any nearby felines, it is just a figure of speech.)

k

[thatkeith]

Just wondering if there are any more opinions on this topic. I love what FFP does, but I still find the UI to be a serious hindrance and source of confusion. [sigh]

I honestly would be *more* than happy to have a noticably larger window and a well-designed, well-constructed, standards-inspired UI. Leave the funkiness to James Brown!

k

[thatkeith]

And here's another development possibility. This one is actually taken directly from the UI skin for this forum (please ignore the actual text in there!), although I've tweaked it to make it suit a floating window - and I've also turned the colour to a neutral hue. The last thing I want when working with my images is to have my tools mess with my colour perception! I also find it a little uncomfortably Windows-like with that blue window frame stuff.



The tab buttons along the top provide good large-scale panel switching, while the list-style tab items on the left allow each main area to be split up into multiple 'sub-panels' according to categories within the main tab button section. And the pale grouping inner area that links the current 'sub-panel' title with the main area helps tie things together very neatly.

Tab buttons have been cleaned up; they're proper rectangles apart from the active one. Pixel lines provide slight highlight/shadow touches on the main panel top and bottom... well, you can see it all for yourself!

The dark grey framing border provides both the draggable area and stops it feeling fragile and allowing slight mis-clicks to fall 'through' between tab buttons to whatever's behind the window. Finally, this UI looks both believably standards-based and also not too specifically tied to a single platform. Which is probably a handy thing if development in AIR continues.

Trausti or anyone else, would it help if I drew it up more specifically for Flashificator, using proper button label text, controls and so on?

My thanks to whoever designed this forum skin, it provided some rather useful starting points!

k

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Earlier this week the main programmer started a new layout based on a design very similar to this. Main categories on top, sub categories on the left, help window (yellow) on the right, hotspot drawer in the bottom and with this there will be PLENTY of space for all controls on each tab, and not as now ... where everything is compressed and overcrowded and confusing (even for me).

All FFC specific controls, such as "Flashificate" the controls of the preview window, minimize, stay on top etc. will be kept in the same group and not split up to be on the preview window and the toolbox.

When we will see the first version with the new layout is impossible for me to predict. The Tourificator problems (loadPano) is still very real, and I have not heard from Denis regarding that issue yet. I will be consulting the guy who is working on the save functions regarding the Tourificator issue... let him have the current source file and see if he can spot a solution.

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Here a first look/feel of the path I sincerely believe to be the best solution:

http://flashificator.com/1/ffcUIexample ... xample.swf

You can either view it in your browser or right-click the link, save it to your computer and play around with it.

As I stated elsewhere, FFC is a big toolbox that has all the tools, but it's all a big mess, and too much clicking back and forth.
With this interface, you can set up your own workspace and organize the tools as you want, AND you will be able to save your setup for next project, eliminating the need to organize your tools again if you have found the perfect setup for the work you normally do.

The workspace in this example is expandible. You can drag the sides/top/bottom to make the toolbox bigger and move the tools around at will, but we will probably end up with 2 models, one where there is a toolbox containing everything inside (like this example) and one where you can move the individual tools all over your monitor, over the preview window while in fullscreen mode and therefore not block view with empty space of the toolbox background.

If you never use "Shrinking, H-FOV, Shrinking, Leash, Keypbard Key Assignment, Sensitivity of keybaord and mouse" etc, etc, etc, you don't have to spend time looking at those tools if you don't select them for your standard setup.

This way you can have ALL the tools you need for your project visible, and having no need to click back and forth and look for the tool that does this or that.

Have a look at it and present me with your honest opinion. This is just a rough first sketch, but should be enough to give an idea about the individual freedom people will have with the UI.

[thatkeith]

An interesting direction. I'll have other comments later, but first:

Please!
Speed... up... the... main... button... reveal... wipe... transition!

k

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Speed... up... the... main... button... reveal... wipe... transition!

k

Can you cut it out in paper for me?

The summer is over us here, too hot to think clearly.

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Here it is again with more functionality.

FFCuiTest.png (4.69 KiB) Viewed 2891 times

The windlets (small tool windows), can be moved freely around your monitor
The windlets top bar can be right-clicked, enabling a context menu with different options (depending on which tool you are using). For now you can decide if it is on top of all other applications or not, and you can choose a colour for the top bar (chrome). This enabling/disabling will also be present in the main category picker, so you can apply "on top" (or not) for all the windlets.
The individual windlet chrome can be double clicked, and the tool box will roll up.
The individual windlet has an "X" in the chrome for closing it.

You are welcome to test the file and speak your mind.

FlashificatorNewGenerationUItest.zip

(106.95 KiB) Downloaded 69 times

[chadu]

Trausti,
After checking your UI test and comparing to thatkeith's Mac OSX style mockup... I absolutely prefer thatkeith's. It's logical, fast and allows quick easy access to deep functionality. Your rolldowns and popup metaphor requires to much "knowledge of the UI"... not intuitive at all, really. Users should never "need to know in order to know", make sense? His other option of the left hand nav / two pane interface could work as well. A two pane interface works well for sleelctive disclosure of deep info in email apps like Outlook, etc.

His sentiment that this is a utility and should be designed as such is spot on.

Separation by tabs, division into regularly spaced grids, etc are of paramount importance. Reinventing the wheel for an app like this is almost never a good way to go.

If UI design is something that doesn't come naturally to your developers, I recommend picking up a copy of Designing Interfaces by Jennifer Tidwell. That hlped me get thorugh a lot of UI design issues I had moving from web design to RIA/Application development.

I really want to use this application as I hate having to write XML, but a simpler UI would make this even more pleasurable.

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

The next generation will be a world apart from the current one.

As things are now, we have to know where each tool is ... messed up with all the other tools, we have to click back and forth to access the tools we need, and it is anything BUT convenient. I absolutely agree there. After all, I am using the UI as well for my projects.

That is why I decided on having the whole thing remade, so that the users can put together the workspace with the tools they want/need, save their setups etc. There will be preset toolsets ... for instance for making a single simple pano project. For making a multi-node tour. For making day/night - before/after transitions. For making tours with video etc. All these presets can be edited and saved according to the user's needs. This will make things easier, faster, and clicking back and forth between tabs will be a thing of the past.

If I didn't care, I would just keep things as they are (cheaper for me)... but I REALLY want this application to be easy to use and to be flexible and customizable on the USERS end.... and I AM one of the users... therefore I decided to have it completely remade (putting myself in deeper financial hardships) but that is the right thing to do.

When you and other users come with suggestions, I listen. A far cry from most other software creators (companies) that simply release their products and have no interaction with their client base. That is also found in the panorama software world... and those who know me, know what specific Canadian based company I am thinking about. For them, the clients mean nothing at all. Questions are not responded to. HUNDREDS of requests for removal of their splash/spam screen when the panos load, finally resulted in another program addition you had to BUY ... and STILL their logo would be displayed during loading, and elsewhere in the application.

I won't have any of that crap. When you-the users-buy Flashificator, you get NO non-removable branding from my side. I see it as an intrusive greed and spam based behaviour when users are not given FULL control of the product they have invested in.... and you can quote me on that any time!

When I started this project, I had the intention of having something simple and functional made. That was the free version of FFC. But soon I saw that a lot more was needed... and jumped right into the development of version 1 of FFC.... only to discard it when it was almost ready for being released, because it was way too limited and badly made. Decision on making version 2... which was initially thought of as FFC PRO, was easy... and costly, but I am like a pitbull terrier when it comes to completing something. I don't care how much it costs (including bankrupting myself)... because it HAS to be done correctly. I have had one programmer working on this for 13 months, and the second programmer has been on this for over 3 months. Programmers don't come cheap... regardless of me living in a 3rd world country. Current number of FFC clients is 152, and it's far from being enough to cover my costs (count in 5% sales fee to shareit, 8% for valuta exchange by my bank connection and 30% tax), but I will make sure that the program WILL become easy and good to use before it's "over".

Should you or others have suggestions for improvements/additions etc. I am all ears - and orders (for my programmers). Please don't think of FFC as a dead fish in the water.

[chadu]

Trausti,
Thanks for the response. Understood. I appreciate your response, really I do. My main suggestion is just to keep it simple. Look at OSx's Automator, look at Disk Uitlity, degraggers etc... keep it easy. boring.

Learning an interface is something that users don't like to do. the closer you can make yours to something they already know, use and like is the easiest way to make something good.

If budgets and time are unlimited (and I know they never are) you have the ability to do things like Apple does with their software (extensive design, usability tests, etc)... until then, learn from what the masters do, steal it and make your $!

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Thanks Will try to be original BUT keep it within a frame of known standardization. As far as I know, FFC is the only panorama creating software where you can have the preview window in real full-screen while developing your projects... and that is something I see as a seriously important advantage, since we ARE working with visual material.... so that is a thing I pressed through in an unconventional way... and I seriously doubt anyone will complain over that feature But many other things have been done in a way that should have been in better traveled paths... which will be put on track in the upcoming new version.

This is the first software I have ever been directly responsible for on development plan, and clearly I have failed on many accounts... but with the will and intent and determination of making it good for everyone, it WILL get there. If you have the time and will to push me into the right direction, then by all means do so. Same goes for everyone else! Don't hesitate to report errors and bugs and lack of functionality you think should be there.

Trausti

[number-88]

Trausti,

First of all thanks for the energy you put in this GUI and answering all these postings!

But.... how can I say this ... the interface is as in other postings said before: not easy to use.. I have the feeling this interface is build from the sight of an engineer not from a user..
I am sorry to say I still not use this software.. sadly because I have seen so many beautyfull things created with your software, but I cannot get it to work (easy). Yes some testings but not the real thing.
Think I will have to wait on the new version, which is as I hope.. much easier to use..

Keep up the good work!!

Rick

[biliourisnik]

Trausti,

First of all thanks for the energy you put in this GUI and answering all these postings!

But.... how can I say this ... the interface is as in other postings said before: not easy to use.. I have the feeling this interface is build from the sight of an engineer not from a user..
I am sorry to say I still not use this software.. sadly because I have seen so many beautyfull things created with your software, but I cannot get it to work (easy). Yes some testings but not the real thing.
Think I will have to wait on the new version, which is as I hope.. much easier to use..

Keep up the good work!!

Rick

I agree with number-88. I also can't use this software for real thing. My bigest problem is that when i finish a project and i find that something is wrong i have to start again from the beginning. Waste time for nothing. We need the "SAVE PROJECT" button and "LOAD PROJECT".

Regards,
Nikos.

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Unfortunately I do understand the way you feel (well... actually it is fortunate... or there would be no improvements on the agenda). As things are now, FFC is a messy toolbox which contains all the needed tools, but it CAN be difficult to remember where this or that tool is located. What further complicates the standard (messy) setup of the toolbox, is that individual users have individual needs for individual tools, while some tools will never be used by the individual user, and as such, many of the tools are simply "in the way" and confuse one's overview.
With the new version, users can put up their very own workspace, with the tools they need/want, and place them in a sequence that fits their workflow. That way people are not stuck with a standard layout that may fit some, but not them.

As to the save function... that IS a major issue, and I truly wish that it was already available. It bothers me just as much as anyone else, having to redo a project just because of an error that I discover in the flashificated output.

Things have to be easier to manage, and we are very much aware of it.

[biliourisnik]

Hi Trausti.
You have our support. I don't now from codes and programing, i am a photographer and the only thing i can offer is testing the software for bugs.

"Keep on walking"
Regards,
Nikos.

[number-88]

Trausti,

Please do not take me wrong!!! I love what I have seen from this software!! Really... But I want to be able to create this output also!!

Keep up the work.. You have my support!!

Rick

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

You guys are too kind... but very much appreciated kindness!

My thanks go out to both of you (and others that are not sharpening their knives, preparing for my decapitation )

[mareintorno]

hello to all,
actually the interface is not easy, however the order of the code, and one who speaks does not understand anything of code, allows you to make good copy and paste.
- What a welcome the opportunity to reopen a project.
- I urge Trausti to release the slideshow that lets you call a single photo for a hotspot and inform me in the middle of panoramic effect a transaction choice ...
I hope this good news that would complement this part.
Another IMPORTANT thing, but I think I have read on forum topic, you can call from a pano pano an external, that is a pano that is not part of the tour on.
To understand, not a call to a jpg, but to a xml ...
For this I pray.
Alfredo

[Hcky]

Hello.
Sorry, I don't read all posts on forum. I'm new user.
If you have already been subject to such a solution, please be considered closed.

I thinking about save option in FCC. I have one idea.
Trausti, whether the FCC could generate even once, but no lines of code responsible for the restart of program?
You press "flashificate" but without restart program. In this way, we can freeze the project and make any correct in the final generation.
Whot you think about this? Can you do this?

Thanks.

Hcky

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Hi Hcky and welcome.

Saving a project and calling it back for editing is not possible. The next generation of the program will have a save function, allowing the users to save manually, auto-save, autosave every minute or after every change made etc. Opening an old project and even open a hand-coded project is on the project list to be possible... personally I have my doubts on how effective or doable it would be to open hand-coded projects, but it will be attempted.

The way FFC is made from the start, does not enable simple or feasible implementation of save functions in the code. Possible - yes, but it would be a mess code-wise, and it would take too much time to do. That is one of the reasons for having the new generation of the program put into development.

[adolfo_360vista]

Don´t get in pain Trausti !, I´m very happy whith the opportunities that FFC are giving to me (sorry for my english !) ... I think that we sould be a little bit patient and understand that you guys are working hard, and you are making a very GOOD software that needs to grow up step by step with our compression and "beta-testing". I think that there are many things more important than the visual interface (its true that it sould be better... but let them time to end all the app.), the more important thing of FFC is its SOUL and its lots of things that I can make to my virtual tours.

Recentlly another sofware for making and editing panos was created, its have a nicelly interface and let me "save the project" .... but .... I preffer my FFC with its FPP engine and all that usefull pluggins. I´m excited waiting for the "fliying images" and many things too .... but I TRUST in TRAUSTI ... and I´m patient.

A solution for me to editing panos when are flashificated is using the "editor" plugging from Denis Chumakov and fix the changes in the XML ... Would be great that we could save the proyects but mean while it is possible this is a solution.

BEST REGARDS FOR EVERYONE, everybody are wellcome to Granada, Spain, If anybody comes to Spain I invite you to "bellota serrano ham" and very good wine (ribera del Duero) whith this couple things you can forget the panography programming problems and all the pains too !!!

Adolfo.
http://www.360vista.es

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Thank you Adolfo!

You mentioned using the editor plugin from FPP for editing Flashificated projects.... believe it or not... but I had not thought of that option at all.... EVER. First off: I have never used FPP without Flashificator, since it caused/causes me to go mentally numb to stare at code. But now that you have pointed out the obvious, I would like to have access to the editor plugin as a part of the FFC interface. Just click for opening the editor, and there it would be, enabling after-editing of some of the things.

Brilliant in it's simplicity!

Thank you for bringing this up.

The "Flying images" has been worked on, but still needs more before it is ready for release. There are some depth issues and other things to sort out. When it is ready, all you have to do, is the following:

Make a hotspot, select the image, place it on the floor/table/wall/ceiling/whatever... go to Plugins>"Place An Image" make sure the hotspot is selected in the hotspot drawer, set time for the transition, select type of transition and create the function with the "Create Functions" button. ... now that I checked the manner to do this, I discovered that the latest version (2.021) has the "Place An Image" interface active.... which should not have been the case, since it is not fully develloped it might confuse people dealing with something that isn't fully working. Anyways, then it will probably make many people happy to see that it is in the works (I hadn't intended to let it be known until it was ready... in order to have it like a pleasant surprise... but the surprise bit my own butt right now )

Work on the radar sweeper for the Mapper is in the works as well, and should finish in a few days... then the flying images will be finished as well.

I have not stated it publicly before, but I lost my secondary programmer a couple of weeks or so ago. He was offered his dream job in a 3D gaming house, developing 3D games. So I am back to having only the main programmer... but am looking for a new programmer for the FFC project, and a couple of other programmers for a new and bigger project (bigger in user-base terms, but should be lesser of a task to put together than FFC). That project will have the interest of many panographers as well, so it's something to look forward to in our little panoworld.

[lc8b105]

To be honest, I don't like current UI of FFC(2.048) too.
When I mastered with all the features of FFC, maybe I could give some suggestion.

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

I don't like it either, but have gotten used to it. It makes no difference how much I moan an whine to make the programmer change/improve the interface... his response is always the same: It can not be done due to the structure of the whole thing code wise.

So we have to live with the clicking back and forth... until version 3 comes out. That's just the sad reality of the situation.

In order not to dwell with the negatives, we can always be happy that the interface has as many things to offer as it does, and that it is about to grow with 13 additions shortly.

[thatkeith]

I don't like it either, but have gotten used to it. It makes no difference how much I moan an whine to make the programmer change/improve the interface... his response is always the same: It can not be done due to the structure of the whole thing code wise.

Hmmm... I'm not convinced by that argument. And it is YOUR product, not his. However, that's not my fight.
What I'd just like to say now, reviving the thread after almost 6 months of silence, is this:

As good as Flashificator is,
THAT is how bad the UI is.

Flashificator's scope and flexibility seems amazing. I'm taking another serious look at it after a long time working with KRPano and it's XML.
But Oh. My. God.
The UI really is awful.
Please, Trausti, don't falter. This product will never achieve what it deserves if it remains like this. Right now you have functionality; the product has a very (VERY) impressive set of working features. What you desperately need at this point is USABILITY. This cannot be achieved without a major UI rethink.

Oh, and a revamped manual. More on that separately.

Keith