[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Uniform look-and-feel on GNU/Linux

From: Fabio Pesari
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Uniform look-and-feel on GNU/Linux
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:49:32 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.0

On 04/08/2016 11:38 PM, Will Hill wrote:
> Multiple tool kits with long term continuity that work well together are a 
> free software strength.  I regularly use best of class applications from KDE, 
> Gnome, Trinity, Window Maker, and others on E16.  I'm able to share 
> information between these programs, on multiple computers, in ways that are 
> impossible on non free platforms.  UI and toolset whiplash is something I 
> hate and is regularly forced on non free software users.  Those other 
> platforms are hardly more consistent and are almost always less functional.  
> Free software has given me both beautiful new things and UI continuity with a 
> time scale of decades.  Here, have a look,
> Please do not call the software I love "ugly" or say that I do not care.  I'm 
> going to some effort to keep things stable for myself.  Your goals are better 
> than those negative terms.  Talk about things you consider beautiful and tell 
> people specific things you consider helpful to people with disabilities.  

Sorry Will, I did not want to offend anybody or make generalizations - I
didn't mean that all GNU/Linux users don't care about their GUIs, but
more along the lines that they are more tolerant of visual inconsistencies.

I can only speak from my own experience as a user of many music
production programs, and the average UI is not only what I would
consider "ugly" but also offers zero accessibility:

Many music programs have quite pleasing UIs but they still not conform
to any existing standards and draw their own widgets:

I don't think we should sweep this issue under the rug - I frankly think
that it is an obstacle to the adoption these programs.

And beauty was never something I cared about in programs: I regularly
use a pretty minimalist i3 setup which most people would consider
"ugly".  What I care about is consistency, predictability, usability and
accessibility, so when I say "ugly" I don't mean it as the opposite of
"beautiful", but as a violation of those four parameters.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]