Javascript and Microsoft Windows

P

Peter Olcott

Stephen Kellett said:
Peter,

Screen Readers and other assistive technology for vision impaired and blind
computer users have been doing this for years. Also, many automated
user-interaction test software suites (such as WinRunner), on various computer
operating systems have also been trying to do this resolution-independent
method.

None of them, I repeat, none of them have succeeded. They've been at it longer
than you and I guess know more about the problems associated with these
particular topics than you do. They all have solutions that work some of the
time, or most of the time, at a level acceptable by their customer base. None
of them are 100% accurate AND are resolution and GUI independent.

My technology is operational and has 100% accuracy at real-time speeds.
 
S

Stephen Kellett

Peter Olcott <[email protected]> said:
(1) There are three different products that can be implemented with this
technology.
A universal scripting language and a generic software component are two.
(2) I am going for market penetration pricing so the price of the
software will
be really affordable.
(3) I am implementing the original Borland marketing model, top quality, and
very low prices.

Sounds just like the fractal image format. That was a good product, with
good results (the images looked OK, scaled well and compressed
exceedingly well). The royalty was low. Eventually the royalty was done
away with, with a fee for the software development kit instead (or
something like that). Fractal Image Format (*.fif) is an image format
that most people don't even know existed.

For universal scripting language I can think of 3 existing languages
that run standalone or embedded in another product. All three are
dynamic languages, very easy to use and very similar (although their
various proponents swear blind their language is best).

They are Python, Ruby and Lua. All three have the ultimate penetration
pricing fee - zero cost to get the source code, a prebuilt runtime and
all 3 have reasonably large, passionate, helpful user communities.

Generic software component? What is that? Its a pretty meaningless
phrase that means its a generic software component. See recursion.

Stephen
 
S

Stephen Kellett

Peter Olcott <[email protected]> said:
My technology is operational and has 100% accuracy at real-time speeds.

And is it resolution independent? I doubt you very much. If you were
serious you wouldn't be asking these questions about JavaScript as you'd
know already if you could identify the buttons/whatever on screen.

Stephen
 
S

Stephen Kellett

[QUOTE="Peter Olcott said:
Define control.

Control is meant to mean the ability to simulate the effects of a human user.[/QUOTE]

In which case the answer is No.

Stephen
 
S

Stephen Kellett

[QUOTE="Peter Olcott said:
Matching pixel patterns won't work. You can't tell the difference between a
screen shot of an input button and an input button based on pixel patterns.
But, when is this ever a problem is actual GUI scripting?[/QUOTE]

When you are trying to control the GUI components created by the GUI
scripting language of choice, as you have been clearly trying to do, as
evidenced by your questioning elsewhere in this thread. You need to be
able to locate these controls. This is particularly a problem when such
controls are not native controls but created by the host (Firefox just
draws them as it sees fit) or by a host runtime (the Java runtime just
draws them as it sees fit, and Swing under Java does it a different
way), etc.

If you can't locate them, you can't do what you are proposing. Hence my
comments in other replies.

Stephen
 
I

Ian Collins

Peter said:
Control is meant to mean the ability to simulate the effects of a human user.
Sounds like you are describing rational Robot, a software testing tool.
 
P

Peter Olcott

Stephen Kellett said:
Sounds just like the fractal image format. That was a good product, with good
results (the images looked OK, scaled well and compressed exceedingly well).
The royalty was low. Eventually the royalty was done away with, with a fee for
the software development kit instead (or something like that). Fractal Image
Format (*.fif) is an image format that most people don't even know existed.

For universal scripting language I can think of 3 existing languages that run
standalone or embedded in another product. All three are dynamic languages,
very easy to use and very similar (although their various proponents swear
blind their language is best).

They are Python, Ruby and Lua. All three have the ultimate penetration pricing
fee - zero cost to get the source code, a prebuilt runtime and all 3 have
reasonably large, passionate, helpful user communities.

Generic software component? What is that? Its a pretty meaningless phrase that
means its a generic software component. See recursion.

I stated that within the context of the abstract of my patent.
 
P

Peter Olcott

Stephen Kellett said:
And is it resolution independent? I doubt you very much. If you were serious
you wouldn't be asking these questions about JavaScript as you'd know already
if you could identify the buttons/whatever on screen.

Here is what I know. I know that I can match thousands of pixel patterns from
millions of alternatives in a fraction of a second for the entire screen all at
once. Although GUI controls may vary quite a bit across differing technologies
and applications they rarely vary for the same program on the same platform.
Because of this my technology can be easily programmed to "see" most any of
these sort of things.
 
R

Randy Webb

Peter Olcott said the following on 8/16/2006 8:18 PM:
Here is what I know. I know that I can match thousands of pixel patterns from
millions of alternatives in a fraction of a second for the entire screen all at
once. Although GUI controls may vary quite a bit across differing technologies
and applications they rarely vary for the same program on the same platform.
Because of this my technology can be easily programmed to "see" most any of
these sort of things.

And my point, in my other reply, is that I don't believe that. Not for
one second, and for the reason I stated. It is not enough to "see"
something by visual recognition. Especially not by comparing pixels.
Create a test page and put a button on it:

<button>This is my button</button>

Then, take a screenshot of that button and place it on the page:

<img src="theButton.jpg">

And then please, oh please, tell me how you propose that you can tell
the difference between those two simply by comparing pixels. The answer
is simple - you can't.

Nor can your "program" know what clicking it is going to do so you can't
"control" it without clicking it first and by then it may be too late to
try to "control" it.

If your program is combining the code of the page (which it can't always
do) and the visual representation, then it still won't be enough (and
yes, I can prove that also).
 
P

Peter Olcott

Stephen Kellett said:
[QUOTE="Peter Olcott said:
Matching pixel patterns won't work. You can't tell the difference between a
screen shot of an input button and an input button based on pixel patterns.
But, when is this ever a problem is actual GUI scripting?

When you are trying to control the GUI components created by the GUI scripting
language of choice, as you have been clearly trying to do, as evidenced by
your questioning elsewhere in this thread. You need to be able to locate these
controls. This is particularly a problem when such controls are not native
controls but created by the host (Firefox just draws them as it sees fit) or
by a host runtime (the Java runtime just draws them as it sees fit, and Swing
under Java does it a different way), etc.

If you can't locate them, you can't do what you are proposing. Hence my
comments in other replies.[/QUOTE]

As long as they are consistent for one application within a platform, even if
they vary willy nilly pell mell across applications and platforms, my technology
can easily "see" it all. There are also facilities for adapting to dynamic
changes to the look and feel of an application or platform.
 
P

Peter Olcott

Randy Webb said:
Peter Olcott said the following on 8/16/2006 8:18 PM:

And my point, in my other reply, is that I don't believe that. Not for one
second, and for the reason I stated. It is not enough to "see" something by
visual recognition. Especially not by comparing pixels. Create a test page and
put a button on it:

<button>This is my button</button>

Then, take a screenshot of that button and place it on the page:

<img src="theButton.jpg">

And then please, oh please, tell me how you propose that you can tell the
difference between those two simply by comparing pixels. The answer is
simple - you can't.

In this case I can tell, can you see how I can tell?
Nor can your "program" know what clicking it is going to do so you can't
"control" it without clicking it first and by then it may be too late to try
to "control" it.

I am not saying that my programming language is all knowing, merely that it is
compatible with every application. It will still take a programmer to write the
programs. The type of things that it is intended for is to automate tasks that
previously required a person. If someone puts a dummy screen shot on the screen
that looks like a real screen, but, is really fake, my language can know that
something is wrong because it did not get the expected result in the expected
timeframe. With buttons one of the expected results is seeing the depressed
state of the button. If it pushes a button and does not "see" the depressed
state, then it will know that something is wrong and email or phone the
programmer.
If your program is combining the code of the page (which it can't always do)
and the visual representation, then it still won't be enough (and yes, I can
prove that also).

My language will be able to automate anything that does not require human
judgment.
 
R

Randy Webb

Peter Olcott said the following on 8/16/2006 8:34 PM:
In this case I can tell, can you see how I can tell?

You or your program? And, based merely on visual appearance by
"comparing pixels", no, you can't.
I am not saying that my programming language is all knowing, merely that it is
compatible with every application. It will still take a programmer to write the
programs. The type of things that it is intended for is to automate tasks that
previously required a person.

Ahhh, now I think I understand. I have one of those programs, well I did
before I uninstalled it, it's called a keystroke macro program and I can
automate anything with it. So, how is your "patented technology" going
to help with that? And yes, the macro program I had had a built in logic
mechanism for it. It was rudimentary but it had one. And, it didn't
require the "pixel comparison".

So, how is yours better than that?
If someone puts a dummy screen shot on the screen that looks like a real screen,
but, is really fake, my language can know that something is wrong because it did
not get the expected result in the expected timeframe.

That's nothing new and can be handled even in javascript. In fact, it's
the basis of programming. Try something, if you get the results you
wanted, fine, if not, then something went wrong.
With buttons one of the expected results is seeing the depressed state of the button.

So, what is the "expected results" of clicking this image?

<a href="http://www.google.com" onclick="goSomeWhereElse()" id="myLink">
<img src="bigButton.jpg">
</a>

<script type="text/javascript">
document.getElementById('myLink').onclick=someOtherFunction;
function someOtherFunction(){
return false;
}
If it pushes a button and does not "see" the depressed state,
then it will know that something is wrong and email or phone the
programmer.

But only if the programmer programs that. So it's nothing more than
error control.
My language will be able to automate anything that does not require human
judgment.

My keystroke macro program could do that. How is your new scripting
language going to be better than that?
 
P

Peter Olcott

Randy Webb said:
Peter Olcott said the following on 8/16/2006 8:34 PM:

You or your program? And, based merely on visual appearance by "comparing
pixels", no, you can't.


Ahhh, now I think I understand. I have one of those programs, well I did
before I uninstalled it, it's called a keystroke macro program and I can
automate anything with it. So, how is your "patented technology" going to help
with that? And yes, the macro program I had had a built in logic mechanism for
it. It was rudimentary but it had one. And, it didn't require the "pixel
comparison".

So, how is yours better than that?


That's nothing new and can be handled even in javascript. In fact, it's the
basis of programming. Try something, if you get the results you wanted, fine,
if not, then something went wrong.


So, what is the "expected results" of clicking this image?

<a href="http://www.google.com" onclick="goSomeWhereElse()" id="myLink">
<img src="bigButton.jpg">
</a>

<script type="text/javascript">
document.getElementById('myLink').onclick=someOtherFunction;
function someOtherFunction(){
return false;
}


But only if the programmer programs that. So it's nothing more than error
control.


My keystroke macro program could do that. How is your new scripting language
going to be better than that?

Keyboard macro programs can not be programmed. They have no intelligence at all.
They simply mindlessly repeat a sequence of keystrokes when one keystroke is
typed. Even if they had intelligence they would not be able to use it because
they are entirely blind. They could not take different actions based upon
different results, because they have no way to "see" any results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripting_language
 
R

Randy Webb

Peter Olcott said the following on 8/16/2006 10:38 PM:
Keyboard macro programs can not be programmed.

Are you that gullible? My keyboard macro program was *very* programmable.
They have no intelligence at all.

What good is "intelligence" when you want to automate things that "does
not require human judgment"? You don't. Its a simple click and go.
They simply mindlessly repeat a sequence of keystrokes when one keystroke is
typed.

When you are automating things that do not require human judgment (your
criteria), there is no need for intelligence. None at all.
Even if they had intelligence they would not be able to use it because
they are entirely blind. They could not take different actions based upon
different results, because they have no way to "see" any results.

You really are that gullible......
 
T

The Magpie

Peter said:
When anyone asks the question "Is X possible?" this logically entails the
universal set of every possible assumption. How about this, under any possible
assumption to what extent is it possible to make a universal scripting language
that can control every program that will run under modern operating system
versions?
While I disagree with your figures on PC ownership (try looking at the
figures for Singapore some time), the above gets us closer to being able
to answer your question - a little.

The answer? It isn't possible - and what is more, if you do not have a
prototype or a demonstration of it in operation, then your patent is not
valid anyway.
 
P

Peter Olcott

The Magpie said:
While I disagree with your figures on PC ownership (try looking at the
figures for Singapore some time), the above gets us closer to being able
to answer your question - a little.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-208.pdf
Page 12 table F, the number of people using computers at work 76,570 million.
The number of people using computers either at work or at home is 126,937
million. The PC ownership figures are different. There were 69,912 million
households in 2003 with at least one computer, representing about 62% of the
households. Since some of these households would have more than one computer,
this is not the number of computers.
The answer? It isn't possible - and what is more, if you do not have a
prototype or a demonstration of it in operation, then your patent is not
valid anyway.

That is not how patents work. Legally filing a patent is equivalent to building
a prototype, the legal term for this is constructive reduction to practice.
 
S

Stephen Kellett

Peter Olcott said:
That is not how patents work. Legally filing a patent is equivalent to
building
a prototype, the legal term for this is constructive reduction to practice.

No, thats not how it works. I've done this. You must have a proof of
concept that works as well as the idea. The original poster was right.

Stephen
 
T

The Magpie

Peter said:
That is not how patents work. Legally filing a patent is equivalent to building
a prototype, the legal term for this is constructive reduction to practice.
Actually, it isn't and any patents *without* prototypes are considered
"pending" by most offices until demonstrated. I am aware that in the USA
they have made a practice of allowing such patent claims and this has
led to a disaster in patent law there... which is why so many nations
are in patent dispute with the US.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top