Javascript and Microsoft Windows

[Stephen Kellett]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

In message <9WMEg.895$Tl4. 547@dukeread06> , Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
writes

>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.

Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting

[Ian Collins]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

Peter Olcott wrote:

"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
news:6PTGEKYlC5 4EFw9V@objmedia .demon.co.uk...
>

>>In message <ZMLEg.868$Tl4. 385@dukeread06> , Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
>>writes
>>

>>>I came here for the purpose of the question turned around. Can any possible
>>>program take complete control of every possible JavaScript application? That
>>>was
>>>my reason for being here.

>>
>>Define control.

>
>
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.
--
Ian Collins.

[Peter Olcott]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows


"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
news:usYz8AZLE6 4EFwNi@objmedia .demon.co.uk...

In message <l_MEg.896$Tl4. 91@dukeread06>, Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net writes

>>(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.

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

>
Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting

[Peter Olcott]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows


"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
news:pcuyQZZQF6 4EFwvt@objmedia .demon.co.uk...

In message <P0NEg.897$Tl4. 797@dukeread06> , Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
writes

>>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.

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.

>
Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting

[Randy Webb]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

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

"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
news:pcuyQZZQF6 4EFwvt@objmedia .demon.co.uk...

>In message <P0NEg.897$Tl4. 797@dukeread06> , Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
>writes

>>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.

>
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).

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Peter Olcott]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows


"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
news:XMP9ERaVJ6 4EFwo4@objmedia .demon.co.uk...

In message <9WMEg.895$Tl4. 547@dukeread06> , Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
writes

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.

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.

>
Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting

[Peter Olcott]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows


"Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome @aol.comwrote in message
news:1_2dnfDKDp EvK37ZnZ2dnUVZ_ vadnZ2d@comcast .com...

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

>"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
>news:pcuyQZZQF 64EFwvt@objmedi a.demon.co.uk.. .

>>In message <P0NEg.897$Tl4. 797@dukeread06> , Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
>>writes
>>>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.

>>
>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.

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.

>
--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

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

"Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome @aol.comwrote in message
news:1_2dnfDKDp EvK37ZnZ2dnUVZ_ vadnZ2d@comcast .com...

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

>>"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
>>news:pcuyQZZQ F64EFwvt@objmed ia.demon.co.uk. ..
>>>In message <P0NEg.897$Tl4. 797@dukeread06> , Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
>>>writes
>>>>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.
>>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
>>technologie s 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.

>
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.

>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.

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="goSome WhereElse()" id="myLink">
<img src="bigButton. jpg">
</a>

<script type="text/javascript">
document.getEle mentById('myLin k').onclick=som eOtherFunction;
function someOtherFuncti on(){
return false;
}
</script>

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.

>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.

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

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Peter Olcott]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows


"Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome @aol.comwrote in message
news:TKWdnbY3BJ eGSX7ZnZ2dnUVZ_ v6dnZ2d@comcast .com...

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

>"Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome @aol.comwrote in message
>news:1_2dnfDKD pEvK37ZnZ2dnUVZ _vadnZ2d@comcas t.com...

>>Peter Olcott said the following on 8/16/2006 8:18 PM:
>>>"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
>>>news:pcuyQZZ QF64EFwvt@objme dia.demon.co.uk ...
>>>>In message <P0NEg.897$Tl4. 797@dukeread06> , Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
>>>>writes
>>>>>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.
>>>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>Thi s 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?

>
You or your program? And, based merely on visual appearance by "comparing
pixels", no, 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.

>>
>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="goSome WhereElse()" id="myLink">
<img src="bigButton. jpg">
</a>
>
<script type="text/javascript">
document.getEle mentById('myLin k').onclick=som eOtherFunction;
function someOtherFuncti on(){
return false;
}
</script>
>

>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.
>

>>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.

>
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

>
--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

Peter Olcott said the following on 8/16/2006 10:38 PM:

"Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome @aol.comwrote in message
news:TKWdnbY3BJ eGSX7ZnZ2dnUVZ_ v6dnZ2d@comcast .com...

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

>>"Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome @aol.comwrote in message
>>news:1_2dnfDK DpEvK37ZnZ2dnUV Z_vadnZ2d@comca st.com...
>>>Peter Olcott said the following on 8/16/2006 8:18 PM:

<snip>

>>>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.

>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.

Are you that gullible? My keyboard macro program was *very* programmable.

They have no intelligence at all.

What good is "intelligen ce" 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......

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[The Magpie]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

Peter Olcott wrote:

>
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.

[Peter Olcott]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

"The Magpie" <usenet@mpresto n.demon.co.ukwr ote in message
news:ec1gdm$ai6 $2$8300dec7@new s.demon.co.uk.. .

Peter Olcott wrote:

>>
>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.

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.

[Stephen Kellett]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

In message <TA0Fg.1163$Tl4 .175@dukeread06 >, Peter Olcott
<olcott@att.net writes

>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
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting

[Peter Olcott]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows


"Stephen Kellett" <snail@objmedia .demon.co.ukwro te in message
news:vxGjbDE0VQ 5EFwER@objmedia .demon.co.uk...

In message <TA0Fg.1163$Tl4 .175@dukeread06 >, Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net >
writes

>>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.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7046848.PN.&OS=PN/7046848&RS=PN/7046848

Apparently I know more about this process than both of you. Its a good thing
that truth is not a democracy, otherwise mediocrity would rule!

>
Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting

[The Magpie]

Re: Javascript and Microsoft Windows

Peter Olcott wrote:

"The Magpie" <usenet@mpresto n.demon.co.ukwr ote in message
news:ec1gdm$ai6 $2$8300dec7@new s.demon.co.uk.. .
>

>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.
>

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.