[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Look and Feel
Re: Look and Feel
Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:59:22 -0800
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
Michael Thaler wrote:
I really like the theme Jesse proposed on
http://jesseross.com/clients/gnustep/ui/concepts/01/ui.png. I think it is
very well done, it is elegant but still simple and easy to use. I would
definitely like to see something like this as the default GNUstep UI.
The floating menu in this theme looks really nice, but I can also imagine a
MacOS like menu at the top of the screen. I don't know which one is better
from a usability point of view, but a menu on the top definitely has the
advantage of being more familiar to most users because most UI's today a the
menu on the top (like MacOS) or a vertical menu at the top border of the
window. Also, while a scroll bar on the left of the window might be better
then a scroll bar on the right from a usability point of view, users are more
familiar with the scroll bar on the right because every UI I know has the
scroll bar on the right.
Blahblahblah, this distills into "MacOS does it that way and we should
too!" I do /not/ want GNUstep to be branded a MacOS clone. We can't win
that resource war. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. We need to go our own way.
Hopefully you realize that if we were to implement horizontal menus *by
default* in GNUstep (which will *NEVER* happen, for heaps of reasons
why, search in the mailing list archives), but for the sake of this
discussion, if we /were/ to, theoretically, we would immediately be
branded a Mac Clone and from that point on, we've dug ourselves into a
hole we'll never be getting out of. I don't think you realize the
severity of the implications of this. Or maybe you do, and a mac clone
/is/ what you want.
I think it is very important that GNUstep has a UI which offers users from
MacOS/Windows/KDE/GNOME some familiarity. Designing a radically different UI
will just stop people from using GNUstep because most people do not bother to
relearn how to use an UI.
The UI design considerations don't allow for it. Do you understand this?
I don't think you do. And honestly, there's not so much to "re-learn" as
you claim. This is just hype.
Also good looks are very important if GNUstep wants to attract users. I am a
KDE user since before KDE1.0 and I also have done some coding with Qt/KDE.
Personally I think the Qt/KDE API is quite nice and the underlying
technologies are well designed.
Except for the fact that it's written in C++, I agree :) I also agree
that looks are important if GNUstep wants to attract users, but where we
differ is the point at which you think we should sacrifice many of the
things that makes GNUstep fundamentally what it is in order to get more
people on board. I simply don't think that's necessary, and I think it
shows a lack of understanding on your part as well.
rest. If GNUstep wants to attract users, it has to offer a visualy pleasing
UI which is familiar to the users.
And I'm not arguing with you on this point. What I /am/ arguing is that
your proposed method of going about it is asinine, because you're not
just proposing a new look, you're proposing we blow away most of our UIG
as well. Bad idea.
Plenty of people would disagree with you on this point. I like OS X, and
I use it, but I don't think it's the be-all, end-all in UI design.
MacOSX is probably one of the best UIs around today.
I don't think GNUstep
should clone the MacOSX UI
Your opinions up 'til here strongly imply otherwise.
but I think something like the theme Jesse
proposed, but a little bit more MacOSX like (menubar on top, scrollbars on
the right) would be perfect.
You can do all this with third party bundles, if it's so terrible that
you can't be bothered to learn how to use something that's so obviously
simple that a child could learn. I just think you're lazy, frankly.
Apple had some good reasons why they changed the
Next UI to a more MacOS Classic like UI. Most of their users were familiar
with the MacOS Classic UI and it is not a good idea to force people to
abandon everything they learned and start learning things from scratch.
It was a commercial motivation, pure and simple. I'd have done the same
thing. We don't have commercial interests, and we shouldn't be expected
to do the same types of things just because we want more people.
The same goes for GNUstep: Most new GNUstep users will probably be former
KDE/GNOME/Windows users and they don't want to throw all their UI knowledge
away and do everything differently.
Hyperbole alert! THEY DO NOT HAVE TO! This is so perposterous, that it
actually made me laugh. You act as if we're some UI from mars, when
Win95 itself was strongly influenced by the NeXT appearance, and the
difference between in-window menus and horizontal ones is negligible at
best. I suspect you've never actually used a GNUstep app lcation for any
extended period of time, because your arguments reek of n00bness.
That said, there are of course other important issues with GNUstep. I think
it is still too hard to install GNUstep and there are essential programs like
a webbrowser missing.
We can all agree on this. but "it's still too hard to install GNUstep"
isn't actually true, if you're using Debian, for instance, or Arch
Linux, or FreeBSD, or Windows, or any other platform for which there are
GNUstep packages. GNUstep is not a desktop environment. It's a
collection of things that allow you to make applications, and allow you
to make desktop environments. This is the most common misconception of
GNUstep. Why else would there be desktop environments which are *BASED
I thank you for your opinions, but I think you need to ask yourself why
you think these things, because you're not thinking very critically at
Re: Look and Feel,
Alex Perez <=
Look and Feel, Michael Thaler, 2005/02/14
Look and Feel, Michael Thaler, 2005/02/14
Re: Look and Feel, MJ Ray, 2005/02/14
Re: Look and Feel, MJ Ray, 2005/02/15
Re: Re: Look and Feel, jhclouse, 2005/02/16