Positioning
This short
description
has
discussed
only the
properties
of windowing
sub-systems
of
the
above
mentioned
standard
operating
systems,
in
particular
window
enhancements.
All of them
are already
established
on the
market.
Their
technical
complexity
and
multiplicity
of service
offered are
incomparable
to Vidi,
because Vidi is much
more basic
and is
directed
towards
those
very
fundamental
functionalities
and
questions
about
windows
and their
management.
In
addition, Vidi
also
addres
some
technical
challenges
to
actual and
future
windowing
sub-systems.
Some of the
particular
properties
provided by
Vidi
windows have
already been
incorporated
into the
mentioned
windowing
sub-systems.
Vidi
however, is
a concept
and product
which adds
value for
the user,
not instead
of but in
conjunction
with these
products.
Similarities
Some of
our
systems
add
visually
attractive
animations
and better
visual
look-and-feel.
Some of the
changes
don’t just
look
good, but
they
also
address deeper
usability
values.
Most
of them
introduce
transparent
window
borders,
some of them
implementat the Roll
Up/Down
functions
(which
correspond
to the
concept of
structured Vidi window
composition),
one of them
(Actual
Tool)
implements
a
further
function to
"Rollup/Down"
a window
into the
desktop
»Symbol«.
All of them
can maintain
window
transparency. All
of them try
to achieve a
unique
identity as
a
trademark
and as a
product,
expressed
through the
visual
appearance
of the
desktop
and/or
windows. Stardock
introduces
the
possibility
for
one
user
to change
desktop (and
windows)
appearance
in a
thousand of
ways,
however,
window
appearance
and
management
remains
uniform
within
the user's
selected
desktop-pattern. Ubuntu Beryl
introduces,
apart from
some
interesting
animations
and other
improvements
(a
similar
manner as
windows
Vista),
the
possibility
of
group-windows and
maintaining
them as
a
single task
object allowing
multiple-windows
movement. DiamondSpin
offers
specialized
windowing
for Tabletop
displays and
offers,
among
others,
the
possibility
of
rotating
a
window and
managing
windows
using rich
interactions. Metisse can,
among others,
interactively
zoom, rotate
and
replicate
a
particular
window. This
system
however,
does not
provide rich
interactions
in level,
which could
be
appropriate
for tabletop
displays.
Differences
None of
the above
mentioned
systems
allows users
to create a
window
cut from
an
existing
window and
none of them
allows
the
simultaneous
presence of
different
types of
customized
windows on
the display.
Furthermore
none
of them
incorporates
rich
interaction
regarding
the change
of so
many
window
properties
within a
single
interaction
framework,
preserving
simplicity
of
interactions
at
the same
time.
Additionally,
none of them
permits
freeform
shaped
window
creation to
the user.
None of them
implements
interactive
window
luminosity
adjustments.
None of them
automates
view
regenerations
by
hiding
unnecessary
context
concepts
(program,
application,
site and
web-address,
position
within
program or
document...)
to the users,
at
such
a
level as Vidi.
None of them
can maintain
windows
at
such
a
level
of
simplicity
directly on
the desktop,
unaffected
by
the
technique of
maintaining
windows
within
Taskbars,
Sidebars,
and Object
Docks and so
on...
Summary
All
the
mentioned
systems
provide
interesting
improvements
regarding
usability
matters, but
these
improvements
are
non-uniform
among them.
It is hard
to set
a
single
thesis, one
of them
may
prevail
(is
better or
worse)
regarding pure
usability
matters (not
business
matters for
example, and
so
on ...)
for the
average
user. The
true
difference
of
Vidi
regarding
these
matters is
its
ability
to adopt those
properties,
which can
be
considered
as common
and most
influential
regarding
window
usability
improvements.
The Vidi
framework
allows
integration
of the
mentioned
common
properties
into
one
concept,
which can
then
make
the
most of
those
systems more
suitable
for
user
adoption,
as
a
mainstream
product.
Conclusion
The most
common
difference
between
Vidi
and
the
all
mentioned
windowing
systems is
its
intention
and ability
to manage
views,
instead of
managing
the
windows of
views.
Window as
term is
still
present, but
is
pushed more
into the
background
of the
user’s
perception.