> >I join Peter in his suggestion to add some screenshots to the Squeak page.
> >
> >However, I also agree with Bert's assessment.  We should show
> >screenshots of what Squeak, when downloaded, actually looks like, not
> >what others think, in time, it should become.
> >
>
>
>I think this is a mistake. We have heard from a number of posts that
>new users are at least sometimes put off by the interface.

I think this is overstated, or at least too vaguely put to suggest 
that the "a number" is large.  By the same analysis, we should long 
ago have abandoned the antiquated Smalltalk syntax, adopted a purely 
C++ style of coding and documentation and undertaken a host of other 
things by which "a number" of "new users" are put off.

I do agree that a few are screaming loudly, but I'm not sure this 
translates to a compelling need for change.  Since its first release, 
folks have been releasing high quality and clever variations on the 
Squeak user interface, none of which have taken a deep hold in the 
community as a whole.

>I think Squeak is one of those environments that looks fairly vanilla
>and mundane, but is incredibly powerful underneath.

Agreed that Squeak underpromises and overdelivers.  This is one of 
its most refreshing traits in this world where EVERYTHING ELSE is 
enormously overhyped.  I'm not sure that the best response is to join 
the others, just because this is what "is done."  Python has recently 
received astonishing success lately without overhyping, though it was 
mere "hacker's fodder" barely a year ago.  I say, let things take 
their course.  We don't yet have a clue what Squeak will look like in 
a year or so -- let's not pitch what it really isn't in lieu of what 
it is.

>The problem
>with this is that new users may not stick around long enough to find
>out how good Squeak really is.

As has been noted more than a few times in these letters, Squeak is 
not yet ready for prime time.  This isn't to say that it isn't great 
-- its just that it is a work-in-progress barely in its adolescence.

Squeak central hasn't come close to formulating a near-final 
architecture for Morphic, frequently foreshadowing imminent 
significant change, and the underlying system architecture is still 
being changed fairly substantially from version to version.

Unlike Python, which has been very stable for quite some time; Squeak 
really isn't ready for new users with thin skins -- those guys are 
bound to be disillusioned with each major change, and get in the way 
of necessary changes that need to be done.

The worst thing that could happen is to develop a community of 
marginally committed newbies who become an excuse for Squeak to 
ossify in the interest of "upward compatibility."  At this time, this 
open source project appears to be looking for committed innovators 
rather than "customers."

>No matter what anyone says, looks
>ARE important - especially to new users. Perhaps we could put
>up some screenshots of both. The standard environment,
>and some shots showing how customizable Squeak is.

Looks are important only for marketing.  Real techies appreciate what 
it is from the spec sheets.  Right now the community doesn't need 
people who aren't real techies.

Elitist though it may sound, I'm not sure the Squeak community really 
needs a raft of eyes-agog newbies who won't or can't dig deep enough 
to see Squeak for what it is.  There's plenty of use for such people 
later, but let them be the second and third generation, after things 
have settled in a bit.

As I noted above, I'd far prefer Squeak continue to underpromise and 
overdeliver, than vice versa, at least for the near future.

While Peter's points are well-taken: Squeak as a product really isn't 
marketable yet to the unsophisticated user, except that those who can 
immmediately apprehend an exquisite development environment.

I'm not sure that's really a big deal, however.  Squeak doesn't need 
new users who would be turned off, but rather great minds who will 
make it what Peter envisions it can be.

>Anyway, I have attached a screenshot of one potential Squeak...
>(8 bit color to save space)

Why not add images of exotic dancers?  :-)

Seriously, compare this screenshot with the one used by Wired in its 
recent article.  I'd FAR prefer to use the product depicted in Wired, 
which actually displays real functionality, than the one depicted 
here, which to me really doesn't suggest that Squeak is anything 
materially different.