Computer graphics processing and selective visual display system – Display driving control circuitry – Controlling the condition of display elements
Reexamination Certificate
1998-12-23
2001-05-08
Bayerl, Raymond J. (Department: 2773)
Computer graphics processing and selective visual display system
Display driving control circuitry
Controlling the condition of display elements
C345S215000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06229539
ABSTRACT:
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention relates to the display and manipulation of command-related items in a graphical operating system, and more particularly relates to an improved method for displaying and manipulating various controls in a system that uses a graphical user interface.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Most modern computer software employs a graphical user interface (GUI) to convey information to and receive commands from users. A graphical user interface relies on a variety of GUI objects or controls, including icons, text, drop down menus, toolbars, dialog boxes, buttons, and the like. A user typically interacts with a graphical user interface by using a pointing device (e.g., a mouse) to position a pointer or cursor over an object and “clicking” on the object. An example of an operating system that employs a graphical user interface is the “WINDOWS 95” operating system, which is manufactured and sold by Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington.
In a program module (e.g., an operating system or application program) that employs a graphical user interface, commands are typically represented by controls that are displayed in drop down menus and toolbars. Drop down menus, which may also be referred to as popup menus or menu popups, are used to organize numerous controls under major headings, which are displayed in a menu bar that appears along the top of a window. Each heading is a “menu control” that represents a drop down menu. A menu drops down when the user selects the associated menu control in the menu bar, thereby allowing access to the controls that are included in the drop down menu. A user may select or invoke a command by clicking on the menu control, dragging the pointer down to the control associated with the desired command, and releasing the mouse button. Alternatively, the user may click on the menu control and release the mouse, then click and release on the appropriate control in the drop down menu. The primary advantage of drop down menus is that they can be used to contain and organize a large number of controls, but take up very little screen space when not in use. In addition, menus can also be operated using the keyboard when a pointing device is unavailable or unusable.
Toolbars usually include buttons, which are arranged in one or more rows or columns. Each button is associated with a command, and is identified by an icon that represents or depicts that command. For example, the “print” command. may be invoked by clicking on a button whose icon depicts a printer. Significantly, a user can invoke commands on the toolbar by clicking once on the associated button. In addition to buttons, toolbars can also include other interactive controls, such as text boxes, combo boxes, etc. Some toolbars can be turned on or off, and can be oriented horizontally or vertically. Although most toolbars are visually attached to a window, some may float above a window. The primary advantage of toolbars is that they present a set of buttons or controls that are only one click away while the user is using the associated program. A corresponding disadvantage of toolbars is that exposing a large number of commands requires displaying a large number of controls, which require a relatively large amount of screen space. Another disadvantage is that conventional toolbars require the use of a pointing device and may not be operated using a keyboard.
Although toolbars and drop down menus both provide ways to display controls (many of which are associated with the same command), they look and feel very different. In drop down menus, commands are usually represented by simple menu items, such as text without icons. In toolbars, commands are often represented by icons without text. This difference presents a disadvantage for users (especially new users) because there are no common visual cues to alert a user to the connection or linkage between identical commands that appear in a drop down menu and on a toolbar.
As application programs have incorporated ever increasing numbers of commands, drop down menus have become full and software developers have relied more heavily on toolbars as the primary means for exposing some of the commands to the user. Unfortunately, a command that is only available on a toolbar may be somewhat obscure and, in many cases, not easily discovered or understood by the user because the command is represented by only a small icon.
In some programs, a user may customize the drop down menus and toolbars. This allows a user to add controls (which represent commands) to or delete controls from menus and toolbars. In the prior art, drop down menus and toolbars are customized using different processes. Some toolbars may be customized using a drag and drop process to drag controls from a list of available commands to a toolbar. Drop down menus typically require the use of dialog boxes and other techniques to add or delete controls. In addition, although some commands may be represented on menus or in toolbars or both, other commands are restricted to one or the other. This difference results in several drawbacks. First, limiting some commands to drop down menus and others to toolbars restricts the user's ability to efficiently and conveniently group commands. Second, treating drop down menus and toolbars differently requires the program to maintain different lists of available commands for menus and toolbars. This results in duplication and larger program code, which requires more memory to store and more time to load.
In the prior art, toolbars have contained a variety of rich, interactive controls, such as buttons, combo boxes, text boxes, etc. However, drop down menus have been restricted to representing commands with simple menu items, such as a text string. Therefore, if an application was to provide one of these rich controls, it had to use a toolbar to do so.
Another feature associated with drop down menus and toolbars has to do with OLE menu merging, which occurs when one application displays an embedded object in another application's document. For example, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (the object) may be embedded and displayed in a Microsoft Word document (the container). When the embedded object is activated, it may be edited. In order to facilitate this process, Microsoft's Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) interface merges the menus from the spreadsheet and word processing programs, thereby providing relevant commands to the user. However, in the prior art, menu merging required an application to contribute its entire menu. In addition, toolbars were not merged, which resulted in only those toolbars provided by the embedded object being displayed and the controls representing client-type functions (e.g., print) being disabled. This results in several drawbacks. First, some useful commands may be not be available while the embedded object is activated. In addition, some of the available commands may not be useful or intuitive.
In another aspect, prior art menus have provided tear off menus, which may be torn off by moving the mouse cursor past the edges of the displayed menu. However, the prior art method did not include any visual cue that a menu could be torn off, and was therefore not easily discoverable. In addition, these menus are prone to being torn off accidentally if the user tries to close the window by the common practice of moving the cursor beyond the window border and releasing the mouse button.
In summary, prior art drop down menus and toolbars provide a good way to display controls and expose commands. However, there are several disadvantages that flow from the fact that drop down menus and toolbars are treated differently, and may include different controls. Furthermore, menu merging has been limited to menus, and requiring an application to contribute an entire menu has resulted in the unavailability of some useful commands.
Therefore, there is a need in the art for an improved command bar that overcomes these drawbacks. An improved command bar would allow all controls to be included in either menu-type conta
Baldwin Lawrence W.
Morcos Peter G.
Parker David C.
Bayerl Raymond J.
Kilpatrick & Stockton LLP
Microsoft Corporation
Nguyen Cao H.
LandOfFree
Method for merging items of containers of separate program... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method for merging items of containers of separate program..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method for merging items of containers of separate program... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2537285