[MG] Difference bridge layout proposal

[Michael Allan]

(1) http://whiletaker.homeip.net/mockups/diffbridge/4/DifferenceBridge4.xht
(3) http://whiletaker.homeip.net/mockups/diffbridge/2/DifferenceBridge2.xht

> > I still prefer (3) because I think the loss of flowing, readable
> > text in (1) is confusing.  To be sure, (3) doesn't come to grips
> > with the difficult edge cases and therefore isn't realistic, but
> > it's cleaner and easier to grok.

conseo wrote:
> Could you explain more what you mean with "flowing"? How is reading
> text confusing? I could also show the last sentence and then add a
> show more (instead of "... show common part ...". ...

In (3), it's clear that the text on either side (left or right) is a
continuous whole.  Each side looks like a page.  In (1), it's not so
clear.  The text flow is inconsistent between the grey areas (common)
and the hot pink areas (differences).  In the grey areas, I read from
left to right across the screen.  In the hot pink areas, I am tempted
to do the same, and that's wrong.  It confuses my eye.

Also, the big gap between "lorem" and "Ipsum" is a problem.  There is
no such gap in the actual text.

PS, instead of this:

  ii) A hunk with a whole paragraph inserted on one side, and a
      single word changed just above and below it.

      Alignment of the single word pairs between the two sides
      is problematic here.

I should have said "a single word changed *a little further* above and
below it".  So there should be common text *inside* of the first hunk.
This might break your layout.

Anyway, I think the horizontal layout is a lower priority than the
other beta work, as we discussed in IRC today.  I'll post some mockups
that use the existing vertical layout, soon.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/