On 2-Aug-05, at 11:20 AM, Philippe Marschall wrote:
- It might be a good idea to rethink the position and icons of the
window icons. I don't find it very intuitive how it's done
right now,
and I'm not alone with that. Perhaps do it more like
Windows, both in
terms of icons (hyphen, caret, X) and position (all on the right, minize, maximize, close).
There simply isn't any such thing as 'intuitive' here. Left, right, middle, X or red-blob, it's not intuitive. It might be _intuitable_ once you've been given a decent clue. If you're lucky.
The fact that Windows does it some way is not a reason to make Squeak do it that way, any more than copying OSX is "the right way". A simple, logical set of controls, with an
Actually, it is. It's not unreasonable to say that almost "all" computers run windows. Windows has over 90% of the market, so most people will feel that windows style is more intuitive because it's what they're used too, that doesn't mean it's better, but it is more intuitive.
understandable way of acting and icons that are not too ugly is the best approach. If people do have strong attachment to their platforms way of doing things then someone with time
Windows is not "their" platform, it's almost "everyones" platform, like it not, that is reality.
and interest needs to work on a framework to handle that. If you're _really_ into platform furniture, start making use of the Areithfa Ffenestri code to provide platform windows (and potentially, menus).
The real question is what's the goal of LookEnhancements, if it's to make squeak prettier to make it more popular, then it needs to try and look more like windows, plain and simple, because that's the target market, that's where "most" programmers are. If the goal is to look cool, then make it look like Mac, it's much prettier, but that isn't where the programmers are.
Hello Ramon,
RL> Actually, it is. It's not unreasonable to say that almost "all" RL> computers run windows. Windows has over 90% of the market, so most RL> people will feel that windows style is more intuitive because it's what RL> they're used too, that doesn't mean it's better, but it is more RL> intuitive.
due to market forces an everyday Windows user since 3.11 I'm still not used to many things. One thing is single click in the Web, double click in Win, which I changed. There are many other things which don't get intuitive even after two decades. Eating up Monitor real estate in XP being a younger nuisance that doesn't need to be copied.
RL> Windows is not "their" platform, it's almost "everyones" platform, like RL> it not, that is reality.
No doubt and I'm sure Tim doesn't argue against this but it does not mean people like it and don't want any changes in usability or the look. This is not an OS discussion.
RL> The real question is what's the goal of LookEnhancements, if it's to RL> make squeak prettier to make it more popular, then it needs to try and RL> look more like windows, plain and simple, because that's the target RL> market, that's where "most" programmers are. If the goal is to look
Win can easily be tweaked quite a bit and especially programmers do that a lot so it would be hard to even define the target market.
Cheers,
Herbert mailto:herbertkoenig@gmx.net
Hi all,
On 8/2/05, Ramon Leon rleon@insario.com wrote:
<snip />
The real question is what's the goal of LookEnhancements, if it's to
make squeak prettier to make it more popular, then it needs to try and look more like windows, plain and simple, because that's the target market, that's where "most" programmers are. If the goal is to look cool, then make it look like Mac, it's much prettier, but that isn't where the programmers are.
As the primary developer (of late) of LookEnhancements both I and Ben Schroeder (original developer) have shared a common simple goal with Look Enhancements. Goal -> "Let's make Squeak more enjoyable to use by making it look better". To quote Donald Norman: "Attractive things work better" ( http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/CH01.pdf) and I believe Mr. Norman very much so.
I can also state what our goal is not. It has not been (to date) to model a specific platform look and feel. We certainly have been influenced by various design elements of Mac OS and Windows and have integrated them where we saw fit. Maybe Squeak OS should be the next trend setter on look and feel for others to clone / copy? Maybe our Look Enhancements aren't the full embodiment of that goal, but I feel we should set our sites higher than Windows or Mac OS (just a thought) and not be afraid to diverge when it makes for a more elegant and attractive interface. Certainly we have a long way to go.
For the moment I plan on continuing down the path of our goal stated above.
Regards,
John
On 2-Aug-05, at 12:00 PM, Ramon Leon wrote:
Actually, it is. It's not unreasonable to say that almost "all" computers run windows. Windows has over 90% of the market, so most people will feel that windows style is more intuitive because it's what they're used too, that doesn't mean it's better, but it is more intuitive.
I think that is wrong on several levels. Firstly, it is claimed (apply whatever pinch of salt you feel applies to such claims) that although the new-machine market is dominated by windows machines the actual deployed-machine population is rather different. Supposedly there is more in the 20% realm for Mac, plus of course the nominal windows machines that are actually running some OSS linux/freeBSD/netBSd/etc. That would probably put windows down in the 75% region. Then there are the large number that are still win2k and even win95. WinXP might even be below 50% deployed base! Now consider how different the UIs are between 95/2k/xp.
Not to forget that even if winXP were close to 100%, that wouldn't mean it was the 'right thing'. If we took that approach we'd be sticking with DOS or even CP/M etc.
Personally I find the windows, mac and linux UIs with which I have any familiarity to be dismal in the extreme. I tolerate the RISC OS UI just barely enough to prevent me throwing the machine out of the window. I've not seen any of the more fringe UIs such as Be so I can't comment on them.
tim
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:50:47 -0700, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
I think that is wrong on several levels. Firstly, it is claimed (apply whatever pinch of salt you feel applies to such claims) that although the new-machine market is dominated by windows machines the actual deployed-machine population is rather different.
In addition, a lot of those machines act as a platform for a single app or small set of apps which, even when they're all MS products (Office, Outlook, IE), do not agree among them how things should be done, nor how they should look.
Not to forget that even if winXP were close to 100%, that wouldn't mean it was the 'right thing'. If we took that approach we'd be sticking with DOS or even CP/M etc.
And programming in C.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Blake -
Herbert König -
John Pierce -
Ramon Leon -
tim Rowledge