--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: Camaelon <-> GNUstep |
|
Date: |
Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:40:59 +1000 |
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 03:01 +0200, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
> Am 04.09.2006 um 01:22 schrieb phil taylor:
>
> >
> > Themes would make a lot of difference to the appeal. Isnt that what a
> > GUI is all about? Looks?
>
> That's what most cursory watchers think. The feel (e.g. how a GUI
> behaves vs. how it looks) is much more important. For the same reason
> OS X like looking skins for KDE, GNOME, Windows etc. just don't cut
> it. This is a fact most users of those GUIs don't realize.
>
> regards, Lars
I dont think that how a GUI looks is more important than how it behaves.
I was refering to the fact that the prinicpal behind the GUI is to
present information in a visual rather than a textual fashion, and
anything visual can look either appealing or unappealing. To make a GUI
acceptable, it needs to look good.
In principle I would prefer a highly functional bad looking GUI over a
poorly functioning one that looked good, but in reality if a GUI looks
very bad, then I just dont bother with it, no matter how functional it
is.
Also, in what way is GNUstep more functional than most other GUI's? It
seems to behave much the same. Hierarchical menus are old hat, and
"open", "save" and "quit" options are nothing revolutionary. I failt to
see the difference in functionality to the end user. The only real
difference is under the hood in the api.
Phil T.
--- End Message ---