Computer graphics processing and selective visual display system – Display driving control circuitry – Controlling the condition of display elements
Reexamination Certificate
1998-09-18
2001-08-21
Bayerl, Raymond J. (Department: 2173)
Computer graphics processing and selective visual display system
Display driving control circuitry
Controlling the condition of display elements
C345S215000, C345S215000, C706S048000, C706S050000, C707S793000, C707S793000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06278452
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention pertains to the field of computer systems, including, more particularly, graphical user interfaces and methods for comparing two or more collections of objects.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
In known methods of comparing two sets of objects, for example, the directories on two computer drives, or the files in two separate folders in a database, or one or more files in two separate databases, the comparison is performed in one phase. In these methods, a user requests the comparison of two sets of objects, which is then performed, and, some time later, the results of the comparison are displayed, or otherwise produced, for the user. Normally, once the comparison is requested, the user has no control over the order of the comparison, and must simply await the results thereof. A lack of control over the order of the comparison may be undesirable, especially with comparisons of large files, or many files, as the time required for the comparison can often be quite lengthy.
Further, in known comparison methods, the user may have to wait for the entire comparison to be completed before they are apprised of any of the results thereof. Too, if the user prematurely ends a comparison, i.e., stops it before it is complete, the user may not be notified of, or otherwise made aware of, any of the results of the comparison that were generated as of the time the comparison was prematurely ended.
As an example, referring to
FIG. 1A
, a user requests a comparison of five files in each of two computer directories. The user is fairly sure one of the files, file
90
, is different in the two computer directories. However, the user wants to ensure that all the five files in each of the two directories are equivalent, and, thus, includes them all in the comparison request.
In known comparison methods, the corresponding files in each of the directories are compared in a top down fashion. Thus, corresponding files
91
will be compared first, corresponding files
92
will be compared second, corresponding files
90
will be compared next, and so on.
As depicted in
FIG. 1A
, the corresponding files
91
, the corresponding files
92
and the corresponding files
94
are relatively large, and the comparison of them could be lengthy. The user may have to wait for all five corresponding files to be compared before they can learn whether one or more, including suspected corresponding files
90
, are different.
As the comparison may take longer than the user wishes, the user can generally end it prematurely. However, in known systems, the user may not be notified of the results obtained for comparisons made prior to the premature end of the comparison process.
In the example of
FIG. 1A
, if the user prematurely ends the comparison process during the comparison of the second corresponding files
92
, the user is not notified of the results of the comparison of the first corresponding files
91
. Further, the comparison is never made, and the user is never apprised of the results of the suspect corresponding files
90
.
Also in known methods for comparing two sets of objects, the results of the comparison are displayed in two separate trees, as shown in FIG.
1
B. The first, or leftmost, tree
70
represents the objects, or items, in a first set of objects compared. The second, or right-most, tree
72
represents the objects, or items, in a second set of objects compared.
The objects of Directory1a
74
of Directory1
76
in the example of
FIG. 1B
were compared from two separate sources. The first source, represented by the left-most tree
70
, contains objects itema
78
, itemb
79
and itemc
80
. The second source, represented by the right-most tree
72
, contains objects itema
81
, itemc
82
and itemd
83
. The itema
78
object from the first source and the itema
81
object from the second source comprise an object pair, and were, thus, compared in the comparison process. The itemc
80
object from the first source and the itemc
82
from the second source also comprise an object pair, and were compared in the comparison process.
The itemb
79
object of the first source does not have a corresponding object in the second source, and thus, was not compared in the comparison method. Likewise, the itemd
83
object of the second source does not have a corresponding object in the first source, and was also, therefore, not compared in the comparison method.
The results of the comparison indicate that corresponding objects, or object pair, itema
78
and itema
81
are equal, or otherwise equivalent. The results of the comparison also indicate that corresponding objects, or object pair, itemc
80
and itemc
82
are not equal; i.e., they are different.
As shown in
FIG. 1B
, each set of objects compared is represented in the resultant comparison display as a separate tree structure,
70
and
72
. Thus, in conventional comparison methods, the screen real-estate, or space, necessary for displaying the comparison results is generally large. As a result, it is difficult to display additional information relative to the comparison and/or objects involved therein along with the results of the comparison, for lack of screen space.
Thus, it is desirable to have a comparison process that informs the user of the results of the comparison as they became available; i.e., in real time, as they are generated. It is also desirable to have a comparison process in which the user can control, or otherwise determine, the order of the items compared. Further, it is desirable to have a comparison method that displays the results of a comparison in a more user-friendly manner. Too, it is desirable to have a comparison method that displays the results of the comparison in a more horizontally compact manner, in order to accommodate the display of additional information therewith.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention comprises methods and graphical user interfaces for comparing collections, or sets, of objects, or items. The invention can be used generally to compare any of two or more sets of objects, including, but not limited to, the contents of two or more computer directories, the contents of two or more folders in a computer directory, two or more files in two or more databases and two sets of objects from one or more databases.
In an aspect of one embodiment, a tree is generated with representative nodes for the object types and respective objects of the sets of objects to be compared. An object view of the tree, representing a graphical user interface representation of the tree, is displayed to the user. The displayed object view generally takes up minimum horizontal space on a display device as a single displayed tree of an object view represents all the objects of all the object types requested to be compared that are in the sets of objects being compared.
In another aspect of an embodiment, a user may choose the order in which object pairs are compared. In an embodiment, results of the comparison of respective object pairs are reported to the user in real time, i.e., as they are generated. Thus, the user can determine the order of the comparison and the order of reported results for the comparison.
In an embodiment, a result view is generated. A result view comprises a generated tree having representations of the results of the comparisons of respective object pairs, as they are compared. A result view of the tree, representing a graphical user interface representation of the tree, is thereafter displayed to the user. In an embodiment, the result view also comprises representations indicating which object pairs have been compared, which have not yet been compared, and the object pair that is currently being compared.
In an embodiment, a detail view can be displayed, along with a respective result view, to the user. A detail view provides detailed information on an object, or object pair, in the set of objects being compared.
Other and further objects, features, aspects and advantages of the present invention are found in the detailed description of the preferred embodiment
Bauer Jonathan A.
Huberman Steven A.
Bayerl Raymond J.
Lyon & Lyon LLP
Oracle Corporation
Thai Cuong T.
LandOfFree
Concise dynamic user interface for comparing hierarchically... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Concise dynamic user interface for comparing hierarchically..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Concise dynamic user interface for comparing hierarchically... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2542475