 We start out, all the work you do results in something new and exciting. I should ask, can you see my screen? Yes. But the more you build, the more any change you make is incremental as a percentage of what you've already got. So there's not a lot new. The only thing that will, although we do have some things to talk about, the only thing I will mention is tags. So tags are typically just, as I understand it, categories. They're not any different categories as we usually understand them. They just don't participate in your category tree. So they're freestanding in that sense, at least for now. They may start building up their own little mini trees, but for now they're flat. And they're represented here. Initially we had, I think there were about 300 of them, and they were simply a flat list where I'm mousing it now. And that was just too long. That didn't make any, that just didn't work as an experience to my mind. So what happens now is I simply take every 15th category, add an ellipsis to it. And then show the 15 categories underneath that sort of synthetic, synthetic category on the right. So they're just now part of the table of contents, like any other part of the table of contents that don't behave any differently. The other thing is Bob, you and I are still going back and forth on how to handle the forums. And it's one of these things where a picture is worth a lot of words. So you've had some thought. I've managed to wrap my arms around a couple of them. So for example, the years are now in descending order rather than in ascending order. And one of the things, I'm not sure whether to be happy about this or not. One of the things about a hover-based interface is that it's a lot more sensitive to any mouse movement you might make. Where typically when we are operating user interface, it's pretty safe to move the mouse around without clicking or dragging. And as long as you don't click or drag, nothing much usually changes with a hover-based interface on this. And that huge changes based on small mouse movements because if you touch a sensitive area, a lot can change. So I stacked the years on top of the months here. And that initially was, for me at least, quite annoying because if you pick the year and then you mouse down to interact with posts, you would go over the months and you would mouse on a month. And there was an 11 and 12 chance that you clobbered the posts you wanted to look at. And that was bad. So I came up with this desperation mechanism where the months get out of the way and leave a gap where you can come down as you move from year to year. But Bob, you, from the exchanges we've had, you've got something much more than this in mind. And he seemed to have a notion of sort of traversing the tree from left to right as you move the mouse. And I'd like to understand, I'll first ask if there are any questions or anything that I've shown so far. And then I would like to talk about that because I'd like us to get to the point where we're both happy with this. I have no further questions and I'm looking forward to the discussion on the forums. Let's do that then. If you could go ahead and start talking. Okay, so I probably haven't communicated it very well. But if you took the line that 23 is on for the years and lowered that line right so it's level vertically with J programming. So when you come out of J programming, you're right on the years. And then underneath that is the months and then underneath that is the just as it is now. So the years and the months would shift altitude based on which. Oh, how interesting, because as you come out right now, you're going to go over one of those those items, you're not interested in them, but you're going to go over them. Right. You might be interested in them. Well, you might, but it's unlikely, right? You're more likely to want to select off of year and month, I think. And there's nothing keeping you from going year month. Unless you're going after the current thing, which is where you usually you start out at. If you're looking for a recent post, it's it's where you're at if it's looking for historical post you want to dive back into history. Right, but you see that's that would be the advantage of lowering though that year level so it's right across from in this case J programming. So you could go back and forth across the years. You're not going to hop on to a more current posting. Because because you're right in the year so you go back to whatever year you want dropped down to the month, and then then you can drop down further into this particular. Into the particular threads that you're interested in, and then from there you can go to the right and select the particular post in that thread. And what I had originally thought of like and I don't I think the solution you came up with which is the horizontal one that actually works pretty well. The original idea I had was you do that instead vertically. So that you're you'd have a line vertical of the years there. And then next to that would be vertical. Well actually you would have a line of the years, followed by the months that were available, followed by the next year. And you do that the same way as your other columns. So it would become an index into the year month. So in one line, you'd see 23 April, March, February, January, and then you see 22 the 12 months you see 21 the 12 months all the way back to five. And then when you got to whatever level you wanted, you would move across to the threads go through the threads go across to whatever post on the threads you'd go across. And the trick with this is you're absolutely right. You have to get a line out of the way to be able to really do it efficiently. I have another idea that might or might not be horrible for how to approach this issue. Okay. Which is currently we it's a hoover. It's a hover system. And we have the idea that you click on something to freeze that one in place. How about if instead of clicking on something to free something in place, clicking anywhere in the left hand pain freezes everything. As long as you're in the left hand plane as long as you have the mouse down. I think I do your field back one layer of detail on that if it's frozen. As long as they stay in the left margin. Right but I'm saying what if we change that. Okay. So that if as long as you're anywhere on the left hand that the, the, the ISI graph or as I draw whatever you're coming using for that. As long as you're there, having the mouse down means that you're not the hoover is disabled whatever you currently got selected there stay selected until you let it up. And you're using Hoover again or until you leave the window in case it doesn't matter. So you, you click down to select and then you can drag across all these other windows and won't do anything until you release and then you'll be into the next window. Is that right? Right, right. The only downside I see that currently is we is, is there's that quirk where we don't know if they release outside the window. So you got to. You'll have to click inside the window again to unfreeze it. I guess if you, if you let it up, but other than that, it's, it's, which is a document. You know, you saw that my documentation maybe, but it's a little bit, it's a little bit. Change in the interaction and I'm not quite clear what it would be buying us. I guess. Well, what it buys us is the ability to, to go over arbitrary places of that interface without changing what you're looking at. You can do that by just moving to a click based interface. And I'm, I hate to be difficult. But I'm going to be. And what I want to do is see how far we can push this non click philosophy. And it's possible it will break before we're finished. Okay. I want to see how far you can push just hovering. And it's, it has its frustrations and Bob has mentioned this and I recognize it. But it is a style of interaction that we are accustomed to it's how drop down hierarchical menus work. And we managed to navigate them. Okay. Not. It's not ever the primary user interface mechanism. I grant you that. But I would like to see how far we can push it. The reason for that is that I think we've all been because the web is so slow and disorienting. We've all been habituated to hesitate to click. For that reason, I think the web actively discourages information exploration at some level. And I would like to sidestep that if at all possible. We're all very comfortable hovering on things hovering is a safe thing to do. And what I'd like to see is whether we can build a whole interface. It's based exclusively on this very same thing that we're all comfortable doing. And perhaps in that way, encourage information exploration. I apologize for not having mentioned this before. It's something that's I've always had it in the back of my mind. I've only gradually articulated myself, but now I am. Actually, I think you've, if you haven't articulated it before, I've certainly got that impression. It's been systematically there. I do have to say, I am still unclear on what you're looking for. It really sounds as if what will be happening is that the years. And the months that are used to navigate the forums would actually change altitude. Yes. As you move the forum. Yep. Interesting. So what, well, suppose I were down here at J beta, let's say. Yep. The year would be right here where. Yep. And then what would be above it? You could, I'm not sure. At this point, I'm thinking I don't have anything to put in above it. I'm, it's, it's, it's dead space right now, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be used for something if we thought something might be useful to put above it. What would be below it would be what you're selecting, you know, year by year and then below that would be months. I want to return to something you're all said, I think there are two use cases. Or hovering on the forums. The first case is what's the latest. And we should support that. And I tried to, so you always select the most recent year and the most recent month where you pick a forum so it's always to right now it's April of 2023. And that's, that's one case that I think should be supported and is right now. And then the second case is historical browsing. And that's really how you would search. This is how you would leave through a magazine where you're sitting on the couch, which is another image I like to have. And that also I think is supported by this approach because you can in fact go directly from selecting a forum in the margin to taking a year or a month. Like, is there another use case that I'm missing here that isn't covered by the interface. Well, if you're in the forums. The issue is that they're that the information structure doesn't really support other use cases, you know, we have search, and we have dates, but we don't have a designed hierarchy other than that. Unless maybe we go take, maybe we can do something with titles I don't know titles across all time and, and look for common words and build a cloud out of that or something. We don't really have it's not really organized for browsing it's it's a time, it's a time series thing. When my mom, when my son looked at this interface and over the Easter weekend he came and visited and he's got a background in UX and then some design stuff. He was really impressed with it he was super impressed with how fast it was. And when when I showed him the search he said, Well, that's what people are going to use. Just done like I mean, that's what you would use. The other stuff he said, and you've kind of pushed it back on me is the other information you've got there is all the categories, you're going to have to be really clear about what categories you're choosing and choose categories that allow people to naturally navigate. He says that's a tricky process, but he says the search is exactly what everybody would use. It's just, it's so quick and it didn't zeroes in so when we get back to talking about the forums. The fact that the forums show up in the search means that you're going to do a text search and those forums, that's what you're going to be looking for. Most of the time, I don't think you're going to browse the forums because I don't think as Rob puts out there's so much information and it's organized by year and month, and maybe a title of a thread. But past that it's really not organized because it comes in as it comes in. The threads are useful though. Often when you're reading a message, you need to see earlier and later messages in the thread to understand what they're talking about. And you have access to that this way. And you would have access to that as well on a search. But you don't, in fact, and that's actually a really interesting point. When you do a search and you find a forum post in J programming, I mean, if the rest of the thread, it posts from the rest of the thread also match the search that you get them and that's nice. But if there are posts in the thread that don't match, they're not going to show up. Gotcha. Right. So maybe there's something that could be done here somewhere. I'm not sure where. I would say that's a feature, not a bug, because if I do a search, I don't want to go to a part of a thread that doesn't mention what I'm looking for. Sure, but there may be some context early on in the thread. That's of interest. What problem was what problem were they trying to solve. In fact, a lot of that actually shows up in the thread so they'll, it just so happens that the way people reply that includes the earlier posts. So maybe this isn't really a problem. But if you do get a post where somebody doesn't set that up so the previous post isn't there, when you go down to the bottom of the thread, you can then actually by clicking on the, on the web view itself, go back or forward through the thread because that's always there. Right. That's true. But that, that, that's the clicking thing that I'm so. Yeah, but I think by the time you move over to the web view, you're, you're in the zone where you are clicking. Right. I think you kind of have to give that. What I wonder is, couldn't come up with an experience. Couldn't come up with the experience where we made the entire thread available within the search results. In such a way that it wasn't intrusive or annoying. In other words, these are not in fact search results, but you do have access to them if you want it, easy access to them if you want it in the context of the left side of the interface. So, if I understand what you're saying is what would happen is if you had a text search that matched something in that thread, what you would do is put the thread in instead of the specific posts that mentioned that text. You put the specific post in because you do want to be able to zero in on the hit. But somehow I know not how there would be immediate easy access to the entire thread as if you were. Even even here on the standard one you don't have the entire thread you just had the thread within that month. So, it's buggy, but I do try to grab them all. Okay. Yeah, so I'll occasionally. This one looks like it's working but I do get all of the authors. I'm having a little trouble occasionally the URL that I build is inaccurate in the month that it selects so you'll get a, you'll get no hit loaded in the browser. But the framework is there to show the entire thread and that works and to load any element of thread and that's fun, but I will fix it. I would actually also dispute the notion that people won't browse old forum posts. I find myself doing it when I should be programming. It is easy now. They just go from month to month or year to year and run your own item posts and maybe there's something interesting. Often there is in my period. And actually I think your format now works quite well for that. You can see the titles of the thread and other than, you know, expanding what that text is, which actually I don't see a vantage view because if you hover over it, it's going to show up in the in the web view. So, I mean, I don't. I'm sorry. Yeah, no, no, I know I got distracted by that too because I was wondering what was going on with that too. But yeah, so what I'm saying is I think your format right now works well for browsing. Because you're seeing the the information as much information as you're going to see on a thread without going into the individual postings is down your left side, and the individual postings are on your right side. And when you hover over that thread it's going to grab. I think usually the top of the thread doesn't it most recent. Yeah, exactly. And that's and that's what you're going to want to do if you're browsing and then you can move over to the individual post. But you see what the advantage is there you can just hover over the thread title, and you're going to see the post in your web view. So, yeah, you'll see that. Yeah, you're going to it's going to be there so you don't need to put it in place else. Oh, I'm sorry. What I'm saying is in your columns for your your your hover area. You don't have to have any more information because your column for your thread is going to take the top of that thread and show it to you in your web view. So there's no need to put more information in the column. That is probably true. Yeah, I'll go along with that. Yeah. So in that way your your view here is fairly uncluttered. I would. I appreciate that. And I think I would agree. I'm still struggling a little bit with the idea of movie. I do like this notion of malleable user interfaces. I think I wrote to you about that at some point passing Bob. And I, I would like to experiment, or at least think about the notion of moving the years in response to where you're hovering, which, which forum you're hovering on because of treating the idea. I'm going to need to think about it some more. I'm a little concerned about losing the real estate above. Well, I have, I've been thinking about I have a comment on Raul solution, which is to click and hold down. And then the, the changes aren't responsive while the mouse is held down until you release on another point and then it's responsive again. I think the challenge with that is quite often that's used as in the language is dragging something and we're not going to be dragging anything. So that's one thing that would be different in this interface to somebody who's used to clicking on something and dragging it across clicking would basically cause your mouse not to trick on the hover until you go up and release it and then it would be hovering again. But the other thing I'm thinking is the, the other way around it is still our one second delay so that if we're over a part less than a second, it doesn't register or probably less than that say less than a half a second. Yeah, I've got it down to I think a quarter second now, which made me to short. Well, I believe it. That's the idea. Yeah, yeah. So if you're on essays permutations and Bob I did use that air gap mechanism that you mentioned where I added an extra view in between. And it works most of the time. It picks up the mouse event. So, you'll notice I went actually selected scripts, cards generator, but we're still looking at essays permutation. So it was on scripts cards generator for less than a quarter second, got selected, but I wasn't on it long enough to load up a page so we're still in the page that I picked from over here. And, and so what I guess I'm wondering is on each of your buttons. If you could, if you could stop your timer when an enter the area of for the mouse happens. So you're not concerned about leaving the area. You're concerned about entering the area and then you would start the timer again. It means that you don't have to wait for a second or a quarter of a second. Do you don't have to be over the site for a quarter of a second to tell it. I don't want this one. If by the time you hit the next site you enter the next site restarts the timer. It's just it's oh you didn't want that one. And now it restarts the timer if you stay over that one it's going to change to that site. If you're moving through it's going to it's going to I guess in terms of what the computer is seeing is it's going to see enter not interested and as you enter the next column is going to go you weren't interested in the previous one. Oh, you weren't interested in the previous one. And then if you stop and hover for more than a quarter of a second or whatever it's going to say, Okay, I'll switch to that one. Well, I think he's triggering it on the timer being over the button for his length of time and if it's less than that, it doesn't pick it up. But if you go through it, it has to realize that it's gone through it seems to be very quick on picking up entering. And my guess is because we're not doing any timers with entering. And so what I'm thinking is if we reset a timer on entering, it'll just be just as quick, and we'll, we'll know what's happening. That's what's happening. When you enter, when you touch a label, yeah, we start a quarter second. Yeah, every time you move to another label, we restart that time. Right. Okay. And it's only when you pause for at least a quarter second. Yeah. That we load up before finding things. So if we get that, if we tune that time maybe a bit, because if you think about it, because it's it's not, it's not dead in the time that you're moving between because each time you do an enter it restarts the timer. If you go say from J programming when you're in your forums, and you go across to do your, your year say you go up and through it shouldn't change anything. Right. It's as you enter the new year. It's it's going to go okay you didn't want the last one you didn't want the last one the same way. If you came down it should do the same thing with the months you may not have to move the months out of the way. Oh, because you're not on them for that long. There are two different things happening. Maybe that's a source of confusion. There's selecting structure, which is instant. And there's selecting content, which takes a quarter second. So the left side of the screen is instantly responsive that's your structure. The right side of the screen, because we're dealing with the web and it's slow is has got that quarter second timer on it. I'm a little reluctant to have the left side of the screen become unresponsive. I want it to be like a video game. I live with the fact that the right side of the screen is unresponsive. That's just like in the big city just nothing we can do about that. Yeah, yeah, about this about this for the top nav, instead of it being a two layer thing. Have it be a horizontal accordion, which combines month and year. And it's still it's still a vertical thing for year over month but it's accordions just like on the left side except for it's a horizontal accordion, so the vertical accordion. So it would be. If I had, if I hovered over 22. There would be between 22 and 21. Right there would be 1222s with a with a with a month label underneath it. Got it. And then if I wanted to move rapidly from 23 to 14, would I have to go through. It's, yeah, but it's an accordion, just like you have on the left side, except for it's a horizontal accordion so the ones that aren't close you just see a little, little, a little bar indicating that it's there. And you have a magnifying glass showing the ones that are near where your mouse. Isn't that interesting. So let's see so that's 2518 times 12. So that's a couple of hundred for J programming that would probably be a couple of hundred elements to scroll through. And that I think that might be too many. The same thing that drove us to put some categories in tags, which was that there were a couple of hundred subcategory type categories, 200 type categories. Would it help to have two levels of magnification. Like you have in effect is what we've got now. But I mean, instead of it instead of being here, it's, it's, it's two levels, but it's not magnification it's one level that's a accordion. And another level that's a different kind of hierarchy. Right. As opposed to what I was thinking or trying to, trying to think or trying to say is have two levels of accordion up at the top you have the, the, a near horizon and a far horizon and the far horizon is just the lumps. Right. I guess that my response was trying to get to the idea that we have a far horizon in the top. Now, in the form of years and a near horizon in the bottom months. Maybe I'm not fully seeing what it is that you're describing, which I apologize. Maybe it's a bad idea. But you said you're talking about on the order of a couple of thousand elements in the accordion, you know, exposed elements. Well, time. Yeah. Okay. And I was thinking, have you maybe six that are current. And then a, a pictograph representation of the nearest 2030 60 whatever something nearby and then just a blank space outside of that for ones that are not that are not close. I like the idea. I mean, the nice thing about some sort of magnification accordion scrolling mechanism is that we couldn't get it down to one dimension. And that would mean that you could more easily move through time. You could move through time across a single line, rather than having to go from top to bottom and have a game. And that's, as you point out, role exactly what we're doing here and that based on a user group of exactly two people seems to work. Okay. What about what about if what we did instead of showing every year over its month, you would see 23 and then centered under 23 would be, you know, well, 22 would have 12 months under it. But you would, I'm just trying to think of how you would do this, you'd have to have them spaced out more so you would still do an accordion effect. But you're only going between 23 and 22, but there would be a gap between 23 and 22. So you could actually have the months expand underneath you. And you might not see all the months, but within the range of between the space between 23 and 22, you could have enough space that going one direction would pull you all the way back, say from January to April. And going the other way towards 21 might give you all the ones between August to September. I think I see what you're saying. I'm struggling a little bit with the problem that we're solving at this point. Well, I think it what I think it gets around is that you might be able to leave your months and your years at the top. Because as you go over, as you go over your hover, you're not going to be switching things all over the place. And you may not need to move your months around. If when you're on that section of the years, you've got the months that you want underneath you, and you can move to those months without, without moving off them essentially. But I had a problem still where I see something that I was interested in because I was hovering on 21. So I'm interested in the bug report, for example. Does moving down go through a month? Yes, but my way of thinking, and we may not have the sensitivity and positioning to do this, my way of thinking is by moving the mouse from one side to the other while you're over a year, will allow you to put the months that you want under that, under that number. Underneath your mouse. Yeah. And then you would just drop straight through that mouse to the bug report. That, that in effect is Rolls solution where the entire months and the years are effectively on a single line. Right. The different months in the second line. But you wouldn't actually need to merely by being at the right distance between 22 and 21, you would have picked August. Exactly. The touch below. That's right. I think from two directions, we've come to a similar, similar solution. The difference from Raul solution is mine would only have 18 entries at the top line. No, no. It would have 18 visible entries on the top line. Right. And so that's where I'm saying we may not have the gradation, we may not have the sensitivity to be able to control that easily. You just need them to space them enough apart that you could move back and forth between while you were hovered on something and have the months float back and forth for you. And they would be on an accordion underneath you. Right. Right. Yeah, I don't know if we've got enough pixels to make that work for the day ranges. We have to support. Yeah, no, no, I agree that that that would be the question. It's sort of a parallel to what I would say to me it's sort of a parallel of what we've got on the furthest left table of contents, where now when we go up and slide up and down. Or when our mouse is over something. That's what it's, that's what's going to be highlighted. That's what it's focusing on. We don't need to go out to the white section. Right. No, that's, that's true. The only, the only reason you and I have talked about going back and forth like this. Yeah, the only reason for the white section is that I think of the scroll stripe as being your course navigation. And the white section is being your fine navigation. And I think the longer the list gets the more appreciative you'll be that there are two different navigation mechanisms in the slow list. So you can get into the neighborhood you're interested in. But you know it is very sensitive it's very easy to pick the wrong thing as you're moving to the right. I think that depends on how magnified you are when you make when you do. Yeah, yeah. And you don't need to see like what you're seeing now I think is great that number I think that gives you some variety but if it doesn't give you the scrolling you need. I think you could magnify in a bit more. Because what happens when you get to the top is you reach your level but then you can still go up and get NuVoc. Right. I really like that interface. Good. I'm glad. And so I guess what I'm saying is what I'm going to go ahead. No, I was telling I was asking that you go ahead because I'm still a little bit confused. Well, the same thing that I'm seeing on the left most table of contents. If you think about that same thing happening across the years. Except that you know that same sort of thing would happen so your your year would expand what would be expand below would be the months of that year. Right. Yeah. I think it could be done the only open question is on a typical screen can we support 12 months out of the year for, you know, 05 to 23. And I don't know why my intuition is that we can't easily but it will be too frustrating to finish. But I could be wrong about that. I'm going to submit to that for sure. I think from what I've got in my mind's eye, I think we'd only need to expand to four months out of any group. And as you moved to side to side that four months would shift through the year. And the rest would be just lines. No, because the presumption there is a problem then is that I will clobber when I moved down from the year through that four month segment. I have a three and four chance of picking the wrong month when I do that. But you should depending again, I think the challenge is how how finally we can we don't want to get so fine with the mouth moves movement that nobody can do it. And I think that's what I'm bouncing up against. I'm going to position it so the right month is under the right year, and then I just dropped straight down. But I don't know that it's easy enough to different differentiate between the months when I'm on a year. Even if they're expanded, I'm not sure I can do that. Yeah, here's another very is complete different way of tackling this problem that doesn't accordion at the top, which is whatever month is selected. It is the month that is directly underneath the year, when you first select the year. Right. And when you can go down you're not changing anything going down and moving horizontally if you want a different month. Right. I guess the reason to be a little nervous about that would be if I'm trying systematically to go through the posts. Either picking a year and then going through by month or picking a month and then going through by year. Right. If you lose the ability to pick a month and then pick a year, and you lose that with the accordion also. Yeah, true. The question is how important is that that approach. Maybe not very. Yeah, that's true. Interesting. Yeah. I think that's the month that's correctly beneath you. You have a gap or a tempting to open gaps so that you could go straight down, I guess. Well, that was the idea was to make it safe to avoid the clover problem by changing the power a little bit selection power a little bit. In fact, arbitrarily picking December for you every time you move to a new year. So I'm violating my own notion there. Probably shouldn't be doing that if you pick August of 13 and then you go to 14 it should probably remain August. Right. I've got a lot to think about now and I appreciate that. I'll let that simmer and see what I can come up with. Are there any other? Oh, Bob, I did ask you and you responded positively, but I wasn't sure whether anything, whether there was any chance that anything might happen with it. If it's not obvious to everybody concerned, I am not a visual person. And I wondered about the prospect of getting some sort of graphic design help. I can talk to Stephen about it and have him run through and take a give to a survey of it and see what he thinks he's he's got a good eye. He's he does a lot of design for what he does. So I think he at least is a first pass. If we wanted to go further than that, we might have to try and pull somebody in who is a professional willing to put, you know, a fair amount of time in on it. Having said that, I was going to say having said that I help pay for his his education. So I think he kind of, you know, owes me. Yeah, absolutely. I need maybe six colors, you know, I've got maybe six things happening on the screen. I've got fonts. I've got, you know, electric rectangles, the scroll stripes, and the histograms. I just, I can't juggle that many colors, and maybe somebody would have better I could. Yeah, no, I think that's something. I guess the question I've got is, is that where you are right now, do you think that that design is getting in the way of your functionality, or do you think it's something you do when you're working on functionality is more. Oh, I'm sorry. I, at this point, you'll like. And maybe I'm misguided. We're pretty close. I don't see the design making major changes. It's entirely possible that we'll come up with a different approach to the time navigator performance. I think we're pretty close on everything else. If Stephen could just spend. I'm not looking for a redesign. What I'm looking for is colors for the elements that I'm pretty sure we're going to have that I feel are pretty solid. Probably a way to use the style and the color to draw you through the right process. So that if there's a way to link things by color, that would make more sense and those kind of things. Yeah, although even that might be a little too ambitious. I would be happy just with something that didn't assault the eye, which is where I think we are now. Just better colors. And if he feels more ambitious, if he liked to take if he's got suggestions on layout and interaction, I would love to hear them for sure. But I'm not looking to take up a lot of this time. Yeah, just something so that so that when you see a screenshot of the thing, your first reaction isn't what the hell is that what's going on there, which is the reaction that I have to it at this point. One thing that I did draw from his initial look at it was currently the way it's set up. We're not focusing on search enough. Well, we do have a whole field dedicated to it. Although we do, but that's something where I think if we were to look at design, we might highlight that area. It might be a slightly bigger field. It might be a more prominent color that kind of stuff. Just because I think that that's how most people use it. All right. Yeah, as I say, any suggestions whatsoever would be extremely welcome. Yeah. But the point of departure for me is better colors. Yeah. But any additional thoughts that you might have, I would be very grateful for. And I'm guessing the frames per second is just a diagnostic really more than anything else, right? It's going to disappear. Yeah, I would. I don't think we would need to keep it. I have it there to keep me honest. Yeah. So as things see that number start to drop. Yeah, I become concerned. But yeah, the frames per second would probably go in the final version. The other thing I'm thinking about. So the way this works is there's a database that happens to be simple light in the background and it's got the table of contents and all of the, all the rest of the structure. It's got all the forms in it and so on. And then as you do searches, it's augmented. So that database which you downloaded from jsoftware.com at some point presumably and which I send you occasionally Bob. Yep. It's been augmented on disk. And when you, when you visit pages, your history is automatically being augmented that's kept in the database to everything is kept in the database. The problem is, if you download a new version of the database, it's going to clobber your searches, your recently visited pages, and I'm also going to do bookmarks I think at some point to clobber those as well. So I'm trying to figure out how to migrate and I, I have thought that I would start to use us somehow start to juggle an additional file or additional database. It's kind of full of search results and recently visited pages and bookmarks and merge them on the fly. And so you have to be in memory, you have your memory database that was emerging the two. I don't know, maybe that's the right answer. I'm not sure. What's the, what is the etiquette on juggling files in the temp directory. This database that I've described would live on the person's temp directory. If you're going to start creating files on their file system on the fly. Do you ask for permission for that is that not something one does. What are my options here. It's something similar to this in the very first iteration I did of my, my video lapses. I thought it'll be useful if people could make notes as they're watching these things. And those notes would be permanent on their computer in, in, as it worked out, I was, you know, overthinking the whole thing and I was doing too much work and nobody was going to use them. But I did, I figured if I asked permission at the initial making of notes that I was going to write to their file. And it was going to be them writing their stuff to their file. That's the one difference to what you're going to be doing, although if it's bookmarks, they're going to want to put those bookmarks in. I'm trying to think of anything else. It's essentially giving the permission to create a cookie file, except that we're doing it in J. And that's the information you're going to use in the future right. Okay. Let me think about that. This morning it occurred to me that I might be able to do it without a separate file. There will be a button somewhere to download the latest cache image. And I think what you might do is, within the application, grab all of the ancillary data out of the database, put it in memory, download the new cache, and then write all that data to the new cache database that was just downloaded. So if you were swinging through behinds, you're letting go of one by and before you've actually grasped the next one, because if the application crashes at an awkward moment, you're going to lose all that information. But what it would let me do is avoid creating separate files on their hard disk entirely. Well, okay, so there would only ever be one database file. I see three issues that to think about there. One is, is just whole issues, which we generally don't have a lot of insight on because we don't have access to that part of the OS from J very well. One is namespace issues, you know, somebody wants to go and clean stuff up manually, knowing what's cleanable. And I guess there was a recovery issue that you just mentioned, the, the, if things go bad, being in a, in a good, in a quick, quick to start state when you come back. And at some point, you know, because of our limited abilities to anticipate what the user intends and what their machine is like, we're going to mess up in some cases. You want to minimize those. Did you say more about the namespace issue is if you have more than one file that you're working with, how do you show to the user that any other files are connected with it or how does the user decide that that file is going to stay or go. So it's that kind of issue. If they're coming at this from outside of the application, looking at it from the operating system, how does it, how do they make sense of what they're seeing. Right. Good point. And then you might use it. You can give it one file, you can also create a subdirectory and do all your stuff in there. You can use a common prefix, which is kind of similar to a subdirectory. Because a lot of it's just about having good names for things. Okay. What about if, you know, using the subdirectory, you create one folder. But in the folder, there are two files once the DB file that everybody would get that's from the J site. The other file is the personal stuff for that person. If you go to update, you're only going to update the database from the J site. The other one wouldn't be touched. And it sits in one folder that might be labeled J wiki browser or whatever. So that they'll know that's where it is. It's not going to be moving all over the place. It's one folder, but it'll have to be two files, once for personal stuff. And the other is for, you know, the stuff that will be updated as the wiki changes. So that's where I started, or where I found myself at some point. I really like the single file solution for debugging purposes. So, if they do run into a problem, if the application exhibits inappropriate behavior of some sort. I can just say, send me the database file. Everything. In addition to it's got the original data that they downloaded. It's got all their searches all their recent stuff all their bookmarks. And it's got a log that I write an activity log in a crash log table, to which I write constantly as the application is running. Yes, Bob, your activity is being monitored. And if you ran into something really peculiar, the first thing I would do is ask you to send me the data file, the database file. I really like that model. I like the simplicity and robustness of it. And would prefer to stay away from directories and from juggling multiple files, if I can avoid it. Do you prefer just to ask not for the database file, because that's not changing. Ask for the file is changing, which would be the personal file. That's where the the the log would be. Two points on that. First, the database file could be any one of a large number of versions of that database file. I don't know which one they've got. And secondly, it's precisely the interaction between the personal and the server cash database file that might be of interest. It would be really nice if they were all, you know, if I merge them in memory, I then I lose that if the application crashes, I don't know what was going on. But if it's all sitting on a single file on desk, I can get a copy of that. You have to compromise. You're going to update it with a complete replacement. You have to compromise on the old version versus a new version, either have to there at the same time or you have neither of them there at the same time. The Windows way of doing things favors the zero of them at the same time and the UNIX way of doing these favors to the same time. And the other way of doing it, though, is instead of replacing the whole file, if you want to maintain a database represent the file is basically a database. What you'd be doing is it is you never delete the file you update parts of it. Yeah. So you sequester a chunk of the file and the update. Yeah. Yeah, then that gets you into very many issues and allocations and regions and stuff like that, but that's where you wind it. How about this row? Suppose what I did was when you press the update cash button, I extract all of the personal information as Bob calls it, which I think is accurate. Pull it into memory and write it to a J file. That was a three bank colon one, I think. And then I download the new cash and I clobbered the old one. And then I write that personal information into the new database. Then then most of the time you have one file and it's only if it happens during that transition that you'd have to file. That's probably right about where you want to be, I think. If you finished that right process, you would you would erase that that file again so it's not there. You're back to the database. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Yeah. So Bob, I have taken up more time with this than I intended to. What else we can defer anything else on this to the next to the next meeting. What else would you like to cover and I apologize for me to use so little time go ahead. I, I think the time spent on this is much in advance of anything. The only thing I was going to talk about is whether we wanted to approach how we were going to look at templates for pages. If we're going to guide people to make a certain type of a page. But I don't think that's key right now. I think this is much more important. One question I've got is that NUMB button. What does that do the number. I mean, I set your note on that and I guess I probably wasn't as clear about it as I should have been. If you haven't played with it, you should. We talked about whether the white stripe versus the gray stripe whether the white stripe should be separate should act differently. So I talk about horse grain navigation versus fine grain navigation. Yep. It's all, it's not working now. That's interesting. Well, when I first sent it to you, apparently I broke something. It turns off the white stripe. Oh, okay. All navigation becomes course grain navigation. I'll fix that in the next version I sent you. But you had, you had mentioned that particularly when you're down at the bottom. Yeah. And you want to get to something on the top. It's very easy as I just did. Yeah. To clobber it as you go. And that's absolutely true. And that's, that's typical of hierarchical menu style interfaces. Would it make sense to change the label from NUMB to course? Oh, this was just for Bob. Yeah. And this is often the case to it right by me. Yeah. You know, I'll fix that, take an experiment. Yeah. The bigger your screen, and I have the impression from other things you've said that you have a fairly large screen. I'm just operating on a laptop. The bigger your screen, the more course grain navigation feels okay. I think because you're not magnifying. I bet you that's true. It's good seeing you. I will see you again. Thank you, Devin. Oh, no, NUM is working. Oh, that's interesting. Oh, no, that's right. It's just not supposed to do anything. Yeah. So you get your course grain navigation. And then when you're numb. Yeah. When numb is on, nothing happens. But if you turn the normal off. Yeah. Selecting again. Yeah. Yeah. So experiment with that. See how you feel. But again, I think your screen is probably big enough that course grain navigation is fine for you. Yeah. I'm on a 24 inch screen and I think that would make a big difference for sure. I should get on my laptop and try it or or my. Oh, we haven't tried it on iPads and stuff. I don't sure. I'm not sure how you know how to approach that. But anyway, yeah, I can do it on my laptop too. Give it a shot and see whether you still feel that you only need course grain navigation. Yeah, no, I will.