highlighting function

[Brent Nelson]

When I click on “Person” (the first occurrence) in the tree, the corresponding text is highlighted in the Raw Text “Test Document.” But if I click on the child, “source,” no text is highlighted. Why is this? Is it because it is an annotation of an annotation? This is a problem. Can we have the highlight function applied to any document in the tree, whether parent or child?

Btw, in relation to the other thread on highlighting, are we going to pursue the idea of a single-click highlight, so that we don't have to open a document in order to activate the highlighting?

[Jefficus (jeff-smithicus)]

The purpose of the target highlighting is very specific: show me where this
annotation is attached. What you need, on the other hand, is the ability to
visualize the entire attachment hierarchy.

The simplest solution would be to extend the target highlighting so that it
highlighted the target, as usual, in a bright yellow, but then also
highlighted any ancestral attachment points in a pale yellow. Would that
work for your needs Brent?
--
Jeff Smith
Computer Science Dept.
University of Saskatchewan
Phone: [phone]

[Brent Nelson (brent-nelson)]

It is the "source" annotation attached to "person." Nothing happens when I click on "source." (see attached jpg for reference).

You are right, it would be lovely to see as well all the children in another colour or shade of highlighting. But even so, I should be able to go directly to "source" and see the targeted text, which in this case would be a lighter shade of yellow. This would be nice, because it would be a reminder that this "tag" is embedded, in a sense, or subordinate to another tag (sorry, I know you hate this sort of hierarchical language, but sometime hierarchy is telling).

Does that make sense?

While we are at it, let me make another suggestion. Forgive me if this is in play somewhere, but I can't keep track of all the potential changes we have discussed. At present, when one clicks on a word in the document, it turns green. I believe you decided this is not useful and that you would like to get rid of it. What I would like to see instead is all of the annotations in the tree that are associated with that word highlighted. In other words, to use a highlighting function in the other way, to make connections from the document to the tree, as well as from the tree to the document.

Should I add this as a bug?

-b

[Jefficus (jeff-smithicus)]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Brent Nelson <email address hidden>wrote:

> It is the "source" annotation attached to "person." Nothing happens
> when I click on "source." (see attached jpg for reference).
>

I know that nothing currently happens in this case.

> You are right, it would be lovely to see as well all the children in
> another colour or shade of highlighting. But even so, I should be able
> to go directly to "source" and see the targeted text, which in this case
> would be a lighter shade of yellow. This would be nice, because it
> would be a reminder that this "tag" is embedded, in a sense, or
> subordinate to another tag (sorry, I know you hate this sort of
> hierarchical language, but sometime hierarchy is telling).
>

There's nothing wrong with talking about hierarchy, as long as we continue
to remind ourselves that this is just one way to use the tag system, and
that other users may want to visualize things differently.

You may have misread my comment, because I'm talking about doing exactly
what you're suggesting here: click on source and see all parent targets in
pale yellow, with the immediate parent target in bright yellow. I'm not
suggesting lighting up all the children.

> While we are at it, let me make another suggestion. Forgive me if this
> is in play somewhere, but I can't keep track of all the potential
> changes we have discussed. At present, when one clicks on a word in the
> document, it turns green. I believe you decided this is not useful and
> that you would like to get rid of it. What I would like to see instead
> is all of the annotations in the tree that are associated with that word
> highlighted. In other words, to use a highlighting function in the
> other way, to make connections from the document to the tree, as well as
> from the tree to the document.
>
> Should I add this as a bug?
>

Don't add it as a bug just yet. I've written a "Highlighting Manifesto" that
I intend to circulate for discussion, but first I need to modify it to
address these "ancestral highlighting" ideas.

--
Jeff Smith
Computer Science Dept.
University of Saskatchewan
Phone: [phone]

[Brent Nelson (brent-nelson)]

Good.