GENWiki

Network Working Group Ira W. Cotton Request for Comments: 178 MITRE NIC: 7118 June 27, 1971

                 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING

1.0 INTRODUCTION

 Discussions of network graphic protocols have thus far primarily
 dealt with protocols for the description of graphic data to be
 displayed.  RFC 86 proposed a Network Standard Graphic Data Stream
 (NGDS) which would serve to convey graphic images expressed in the
 Network Standard Display List (NGDL).  RFC 94 expanded on this
 proposal, and pointed out some shortcomings of the original scheme.
 RFC 125 also replied to RFC 86 with comments and extensions, but also
 recognized that a protocol for graphic display alone is insufficient
 to support an interactive graphic system.

1.1 TOPICS COVERED

 The present paper addresses itself to this requirement.  The process
 of attention handling is briefly described, various graphic
 configurations are discussed, input devices are surveyed to identify
 the types of data which they produce, and an attention protocol is
 suggested.

1.2 VIEWPOINT

 It should be made clear at the onset that the discussion which follow
 will be from the viewpoint of a graphics user or a graphic
 application program serving one or more users.  Our concern is with
 third-level protocols only.  We assume the network is capable of
 delivering arbitrary bit streams from terminal to graphic application
 program, but don't care how this is accomplished.

2.0 ATTENTION-HANDLING

 In order to demonstrate the need for an attention protocol, we must
 first define what is meant by "attention" and "attention-handling."
 We therefore begin by borrowing the definitions given in a recent
 survey of this area(1).

Cotton [Page 1]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

2.1 DEFINITION

 Graphic attention handling refers to the processes and techniques
 whereby human inputs to a computer graphic system are serviced.  An
 attention event, or simply "attention," is a stimulus to the graphic
 system, such as that resulting from a keystroke or light pen usage,
 which presents information to the system.  Servicing includes
 accepting or detecting the hardware input, processing it to determine
 its intended meaning, and either passing this information to a user
 routine or taking some _immediate_ action related to the display
 and/or its underlying data structure, or both.  The emphasis is on
 "immediate."  Attention-handling is not intended to include any
 detailed, application-oriented processing which the attention
 information may indicate is to be performed.  Thus, attention
 handling may be considered separately from any particular
 application.

2.2 INDEPENDENT FROM DISPLAY CONSIDERATIONS

 Not only may attention handling be considered separately from any
 application, but attention generating hardware may be considered
 separately from display hardware.  Oftentimes, it is only
 coincidental that they come in the same package.  Indeed, in some
 configurations an input be processed locally (by the terminal) to
 provide the appropriate response.  For example, a keystroke may or
 may not cause a character to be displayed on a terminal, and the
 logic causing the display may or may not be local (within the
 terminal).  The keystroke might be immediately displayed locally, as
 in the case of an alphanumeric display terminal which buffers
 keystrokes and transmits messages of many characters or it might be
 transmitted to the host computer and "echoed" back for display as in
 teletype-like terminals.

 The question is not limited to such simple input devices as
 keyboards.  So-called "intelligent terminals" with integrated
 programmable logic or even complete small computers can process more
 sophisticated attentions locally, and even alter a local distillate
 of the central (host) data structure without central knowledge.  This
 raises the problem of insuring that the display and the graphic
 application program do not get "out of sync," and requires a more
 expressive protocol from terminal to host processor.

Cotton [Page 2]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

3.0 SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS

 We now turn to a consideration of the evolution of system
 configurations for computer graphics.  Our intent is to demonstrate
 that just as display generation has evolved from the output of device
 dependent codes to a generalized protocol, so too should attention
 generation evolve.

3.1 STAND-ALONE CONFIGURATION

 Figure 1 illustrates the stand-alone graphic configuration which was
 the first and is still the most common.  As we have stressed, input
 and output are entirely independent, and are shown as separate
 devices.  In this configuration, display code generation and
 interrupt processing are both done within the graphic application
 program in the host processor.  The graphic application is very
 device-dependent.

3.2 STAND-ALONE CONFIGURATION WITH STANDARDIZED FORMATS

 The significant conceptual change occurs when the input and output
 processors are removed from the graphic application program.  The
 graphic application program then generates output and accepts input
 in a generalized form, as illustrated in Figure 2.  The important
 fact to note is that in order to accommodate additional (different)
 input and/or output devices, only these input/output processing
 routines must be replaced or altered.  Graphic application programs
 may be designed without regard to which particular processing routine
 will be used.  So far as the application program is concerned,
 device-independence has been achieved.

Cotton [Page 3]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

Figure 1 Stand-Alone Graphic Configuration

 +----------------------------+
 |                            |                _______
 | +---------+-----------+    |               /       \
 | |         |OUTPUT     |    |              /         \
 | |     /-->|PROCESSOR  |----|------------>|           |
 | |    /    +-----------+    |              \         /
 | |    |                |    |               \_______/
 | |    |                |    |             OUTPUT DEVICE
 | |    |    +-----------+    |              ______
 | |    \    |INPUT      |    |             |      \
 | |     \---|PROCESSOR  |<-- |-------------|_______\
 | +---------+-----------+    |
 |     Graphic Application    |             INPUT DEVICE
 |         Program            |
 +----------------------------+
 /SERVING\ HOST
 \USING  /

Figure 2 Stand-Alone Configuration with Standardized Input and Output

 Formats

+————————————-+ | | /—→/ \ | +———–+ |DEVICE-DEPENDENT/ _/_ \ | +———–+ |–|—————/ / \ | | STANDARD | OUTPUT | | |DISPLAY LIST / \ / | +—–+DISPLAY LIST|PROCESSOR |-+ | | |/

+————————————-+ /SERVING\ HOST \USING /

Cotton [Page 4]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

3.3 NETWORK CONFIGURATION

 When the stand-alone configuration with standardized formats is
 implemented on a network, the organization illustrated in Figure 3
 results.  In the network configuration, the graphic application
 program and the input and output processors may be in different
 hosts.  The standardized formats become network standards, and now
 any using host with input/output processors conforming to the
 standard can access the graphic application program in the serving
 host.  The network is transparent to the graphic configuration.

3.4 NETWORK CONFIGURATION WITH INTELLIGENT TERMINAL

 The case of an intelligent graphics terminal configured in the
 network is illustrated in Figure 4.  Here, input and output
 processors are located within the terminal itself.  The using host
 serves only to connect the terminal to the network, and in the case
 of a terminal IMP, is dispensed with altogether.  Any type of
 intelligent terminal may access any graphic application program if
 its (the terminals) input and output processing routines conform to
 the network standard.  As before, the network is transparent to the
 graphic configuration.

 Figure 3 Network Configuration (Omitted due to complexity)

 Figure 4 Network Configuration with Intelligent Terminal (Omitted due
 to complexity)

4.0 INPUT DEVICES

 We now turn to a survey of graphic input devices as suggested in RFC
 87.  The survey will concern itself with the characteristics of the
 attention information presented when the device is used (rather than,
 for example, human factors considerations).

 We wish to stress at the onset that we consider all devices
 equivalent in capability.  By this we mean that with appropriate
 programming, any device can simulate any other device.  Throughout
 the survey we will illustrate typical data conversions which might be
 performed, and at times discuss how various devices may be simulated.

 It is convenient to consider the characteristics of classes of
 devices.  Information about particular commercial devices may be
 found in reference 5 and elsewhere.  Table I presents a device class
 summary.

Cotton [Page 5]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

4.1 PUSHBUTTONS

 Perhaps the first and most primitive class of input devices is the
 pushbutton, which presents some unique code to the system when
 depressed.  In the simplest case, the code is equivalent to the
 knowledge that the button has been pushed, and may be just a flag.

 Beyond the basic pushbutton, more advanced key devices have been
 designed in a variety of ways.  For example, each key may be
 associated with a single bit in a word or with a complex pattern
 (character or byte), multiple keys may or may not be able to be
 struck simultaneously (if so, their codes being combined in some
 defined way).

 The salient feature of the function key is that it presents two
 pieces of information to the system: the fact that a keystroke has
 occurred (which may be implicit), and some unique code related to it.

 More elaborate keyboards, be they teletypes or solid state devices
 with elaborate "overlays", are merely special cases of function keys.
 They present the same information, attention source plus a unique
 code.  The fact that such a code may be associated with a displayable
 character is at this stage only incidental.

 Since keyboards permit the entry of arbitrary codes, particular
 sequences of codes may easily be defined to simulate other devices.
 If local logic permits, codes may be accumulated until a complete
 sequence is entered and then be reformatted to exactly the same
 format as the device being simulated would have produced.

 Pointing devices such as light pens and tablets may be simulated by
 associating particular keys with screen directions (up, down, right,
 left) and using them to position a pointer on the screen face.  This
 facilitated on terminals with a hardware connection between keys and
 cursor symbol.

4.2 ANALOG DEVICES

 The next most basic class of input devices are those which consist of
 analog to digital converters.  These include simple shaft encoders,
 mouse and trackball.  These devices all produce a digital output
 proportional to an analog input, in this case, the rotation of a
 shaft.  Several of these inputs may be presented together, as in the
 case of the mouse and trackball.

Cotton [Page 6]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

 These devices all present as input a device identification (which may
 be implicit depending on the hardware method of input) together with
 a number of digital codes from the same number of analog devices.
 The length of the code is arbitrary and may or may not relate to such
 measures as the maximum raster count of the display screen.

 Analog devices are often used as pointing devices by using the input
 to control the movement of a cursor on the screen face.  This method
 is superior to the use of a keyboard, since very smooth and rapid
 movement may be obtained.

4.3 TABLETS

 A tablet consists of a flat surface on which (X,Y) position may be
 indicated with a stylus.  If position changes can be registered
 rapidly enough, arbitrary curves may be digitized by tracing them.

 There are a variety of devices utilizing a variety of techniques
 comprising this class.  Included are such diverse techniques as
 variable resistance, variable capacitance, and ultrasonics, to
 mention a few of the devices on the market.  The surface may be
 horizontal or vertical and may even be superimposed on the screen
 itself.  A variety of styli have been used, including the operator's
 finger.  A device (the Lincoln Wand) has also been demonstrated which
 may be manipulated in space to yield a position in three dimensions
 (X,Y,Z).

 These devices all present a device identification (which may be
 implicit), and a position value, which is most often a coordinate
 pair, but which may be a triple.

4.4 LIGHT PEN

 Light pens are devices which relate the occurrence of an attention to
 the time in the refresh cycle when a particular point is illuminated
 on the screen.  The display generators are generally stopped when the
 attention occurs, to permit either the display list "P" register or
 the (X,Y) beam position registers, or both to be presented as
 attention data.  Often times this is not enough, as what is desired
 is some value which serves to identify the image which the pen
 detected.  In such cases local hardware and/or software is utilized
 to obtain this information, which may be as simple as a single
 identification code or as elaborate as a genealogical push down list.

Cotton [Page 7]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

 Light pens present as input a device identification (which may be
 implicit) and at least one of the following:  memory address, (X,Y)
 position, item identification.

 Light pens may be used to simulate keyboards by displaying "light
 buttons" on the screen associated with particular physical buttons.
 Detecting on a light button is logically equivalent to pushing the
 related key.

4.5 INTERNAL ATTENTIONS

 Internal attentions are stimuli arising not from operator action, but
 from various sources within the terminal such as a screen edge
 violation (overflow) or a programmed trap.  Such attentions present
 information in much the same way as the operator input devices
 already discussed.  This information consists of an attention source
 identification (equivalent to device identification, and which may
 again, be implicit) and appropriate data, which, for the two examples
 given, will generally be a memory address.

 Programmed traps are often used to permit mode changes (e.g., enable
 or disable light pen operation) during the execution of the display
 list.  Edge violation might occur when an image is being relocated in
 response to operator input.  We must provide for describing such
 attentions, since then cannot always be handled locally in the
 terminal.

4.6 LOGICAL ATTENTIONS

 We may generalize the concept of an attention from a stimulus from a
 physical source to a logically generated stimulus resulting from some
 program condition which may or may not cause an interrupt.
 (Programmed traps were classified as internal attentions because, by
 definition, they cause an interrupt or set a hardware flag).  Logical
 attentions are generally "input" by setting a software flag which
 some control program can periodically inspect.  For example, logical
 attentions may be designed to detect when a software-defined edge
 violation occurs (of a region less than full screen) or when a light
 button is picked.  There is no general form for the information
 generated by logical attentions, since they are programmable, rather
 than hardware-bound.  The best we can do is to say they consist of an
 identification and appropriate data.  Actually, logical attentions
 most often simulate physical attentions, and so each may be placed in
 one of the classes already described.

Cotton [Page 8]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

                              TABLE I

                        INPUT DEVICE SUMMARY

DEVICE CLASS DEVICE EXAMPLES TYPICAL OUTPUT

Button Teletype 1 Character

                 Function Key with Overlay     1 Character and
                                               overlay code
                 Buffered Keyboard             n Characters

A/D Converter Shaft Encoder delta a

                 Mouse                         (delta a, delta b)

Tablet Rand Tables and (X,Y)

                 Lincoln Word                  (X,Y,Z)

Light Pen Light Pen P (memory address)

                 Light Pen                     (X,Y)
                 Light Pen and Local Software  Item Name
                 Light Pen and Local Software  Item name stack

Internal Program Trap P (memory address)

                 Screen Overflow               P (memory address)

Logical Attention Any of the above Any of the above

5.0 INTELLIGENT TERMINALS

 As has been indicated, the question of what data results from which
 inputs is complicated when "intelligent terminals" are considered.
 An intelligent terminal has the ability to modify the data presented
 by the input device hardware.  In a sense then, all of the outputs of
 an intelligent terminal may be considered as logical attentions.  The
 logical complexity of such attentions may be very great indeed.  For
 example, such a terminal might be programmed to perform sketching
 functions, so that the net effect of a keystroke and a light pen hit
 might be the deletion of a portion of the picture together with some
 coded message to the effect.  A technique has even been developed
 which permits the light pen operator to simulate the use of a shaft
 encoder by twisting his wrist which holding the pen over a tracking
 symbol (7).

 Some intelligent terminal systems have been developed which permit
 the terminal operator to modify the picture and the local data
 structure independently.(2)  Thus, the need for a very expressive
 protocol from terminal to central computer becomes apparent, so that
 notice of such local processing may be communicated to the central

Cotton [Page 9]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

 program.

6.0 NETWORK PROTOCOL GUIDELINES

 We now suggest a format for a (third level) network protocol from
 terminal to serving host which is sufficiently open-ended to permit
 any type of attention to be communicated.  It is not the intent here
 to formally propose such a protocol down to the level of "this bit
 means that."  When such details are decided, a Network Standard
 Attention will have been defined.

 The attention protocol has three basic elements:  device
 identification, data identification, and data.

6.1 DEVICE IDENTIFICATION

 The device identification field must be sufficiently large to permit
 the unique identification of any TYPE OF DEVICE in the network.  If
 two or more identical input devices exist at different nodes in the
 network, it is not necessary to distinguish among them in this field.
 However, if a keyboard, for example, has keys which are logically
 different, such as typewriter keys and function keys, the distinction
 should be made in the identification field, rather than requiring an
 analysis of the data.  Further, if two different devices are
 logically equivalent, as a physical keyboard and light buttons, they
 may be so treated by NOT having identification codes different from
 each other.

 Somewhere in the network (and possibly at each host supporting a
 graphic application) a table should be kept of the input device types
 and their characteristics.  It may be convenient to organize the
 device identification field so that a subfield identifies the device
 CLASS, as discussed previously

6.2 DATA IDENTIFICATION

 The device identification field is intended to contain a description
 of the data field which follows.  Information which might be provided
 here includes number of units (bits, words, bytes) of data which
 follow, qualitative description of the data (character code, memory
 address, cartesian coordinates, item name, etc.), and data format
 information.  It may be desirable, for the sake of uniformity, to
 include this information even when it is somewhat redundant.

Cotton [Page 10]  RFC 178 NETWORK GRAPHIC ATTENTION HANDLING June 1971

6.3 DATA

 Lastly comes the data itself (perhaps an anticlimax at this point!)
 which, as should be clear by now, may be of arbitrary length and
 organization.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

    1. Cotton, I. "Languages for Graphic Attention-Handling." Proc.
    Computer Graphics 70 Symposium, Brunel University, 197.

    2. Cotton, I. and F. Greatorex "Data Structures and Techniques for
    Remote Computer Graphics," Proc. FJCC, 1968, pp. 533-544.

    3. Crocker, S. "Proposal for a Network Standard Format for a Data
    Stream to Control Graphics Display." ARPA Network Working Group,
    RFC # 86, 1971.

    4. Harslem, E. and J. Heafner "Some Thoughts on Network Graphics,"
    ARPA Network Working Group, RFC # 94, 1971.

    5. Keast, D. "Survey of Graphic Input Devices," MACHINE DESIGN.
    August 3, 1967, pp. 114-120.

    6. McConnell, J. "Response to RFC #86," ARPA Network Working
    Group, RFC #125, 1971.

    7. Newman, W. "A Graphical Technique for Numerical Input,"
    COMPUTER J., May 1968, pp. 63-64.

    8. Vezza, A. "Topic for Discussion at the Next Network Working
    Group Meeting."  ARPA Network Working Group, RFC #87, 1971.

         [This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry]
      [into the online RFC archives by Kelly Tardif,Viagénie 11/99]

Cotton [Page 11]