Anonymous user
Talk:Honeycombs: Difference between revisions
widgets
No edit summary |
(widgets) |
||
Line 15:
It was looking good, but I think the requirement for the message output and the each-hex-only-once made it more complicated than the gains in illustrating the concepts involved. The user will know that X was selected because the hex changed color, and I don't see the illustrative benefit of each-hex-can-change-only-once. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 02:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we can drop the message, and just keep a record of which hexagons have neen clicked. Depending on how the widgets work for the language, we could either set this as a property of the widget itself, or keep the information in a separate array. We can then use this record to programmatically prevent reacting to already clicked hexagons. I am open to suggestions on the wording here.
[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This reminds me of a [[wp:Blockbusters (UK game show)|gameshow that used to be on UK TV]]. More on topic, would it be an acceptable solution of the task if there was a single containing widget containing a grid of hexagonal active regions that can be colored/highlighted appropriately? That's much easier to implement… –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 09:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
:Without a definition of what a "widget" is, which goes deeply into how widgets are implemented, you are asking for a meaningless distinction. And, personally, I do no think we should be asking for that kind of definition -- I think it would be micromanagement and language-specificity of the sort we try to avoid here. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 11:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
By a widget, I meant an on screen component that has its own set of properties and is capable of reacting to events.
[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
| |||