Native GUI Squeak?

Karl Ramberg karl.ramberg at chello.se
Tue Feb 20 17:50:22 UTC 2001



Alan Kay wrote:
> 
> Jeff --
> 
> I like your two points below, especially the first. I have said a few
> times on this list that we haven't started on a "real Squeak UI" yet,
> but plan to. This is why I don't have any qualms at saying the
> current Squeak UI is not worth much -- or to criticize the current
> commercial UIs.
>       Part of the master plan was (and is) to get a lot of different
> powerful functionality going with temporary UIs, and then do a
> consolidated design that was driven by several factors including
> "omniuser scripting". This is why there is both a ctrl-click menu and
> a cmd-click halo handles menu (and neither are great).
> 
> We hoping that enough of the base functionality of Squeak will be
> done and revealed by the end of March to allow some serious UI
> thinking, design, and implementation. We would like to enlist all to
> help make it, as you said below, to "be among the best UIs available".

Sounds like there is lost of fun to anticipate:-)
Squeak is the first system I have used that is good both as a user and 
developer. But there is plenty of room for improvements. 
A refactoring of the existing widgets would be nice. 
I count more than 20 different buttons in the system, it can be hard to
choose 
get the right one. The same is the chase for most other widgets.
A good place to start thinking about the new GUI would be to 
list all the different widgets it should contain. 
Like :
 Buttons
   Radio button
   CheckBox button
   'Normal' button
 Menus
 TextPanes
   ListPane
 ProgressBars
   ScrollBars
   Sliders
 
 Etc.

I think if one defines really good widgets that are flexible 
the assembly of them could be experimented with in lots of ways
more easily. 
Instance assembly mirrored back in classes would be really nice.

Karl
   
 

> At 10:58 AM -0500 2/19/01, Jeff Szuhay wrote:
> >Okay, I can't stay quiet any longer.
> >
> >Before the rise of the "modern GUI" (if there is such a thing),
> >everyone was inventing their own UIs. For many games,
> >this is still the case; for DVDs, and small devices this will likely
> >always be the case.
> >
> >To me, the most valuable thing the ersatz standard interface
> >provided was a level of consistency for the user, despite most
> >shortcomings. Even the browser interface works within the
> >context of a fairly consistent browser. I can certainly imagine
> >a "better" UI, graphical or otherwise, but I can't imagine how
> >we can get there from here.
> >
> >And so, it seems a bit arrogant to say, this UI sucks so we'll just
> >use our own (which sucks, too, BTW) and end up making life
> >difficult for our user. "But, I'm so important, _I_ don't have to
> >stop at the traffic light ..."
> >
> >On the Squeak UI
> >
> >It seems to me that Squeak has two rather large UI roles:
> >One as a complete system on devices which have no native interface,
> >and the other  as an application on top of another OS system.
> >
> >In the first case I think Squeak should strive to be among the best
> >UIs available. In the second case, I think Squeak should strive
> >to "fit in" so that it uses the widgets of the native system in a sensible
> >way across all platforms. Of course, there is a lot of work here and
> >a lot of thorny issues to resulve but for the user, it would provide
> >a heretofore unknown level of consistency and comfort. Even a
> >low level of consistency is better than spotty excellence.
> >
> >This brings me to  "A Pattern Language for UIs" -- where is it?
> >Is anybody working on such a thing?
> >
> >Lastly, given the many ways people think (seven levels of intelligence),
> >perhaps icons _should_ become more like ideograms in that they are
> >more closely linked to language. Icons/pictorgrams fail, in my opinion,
> >when they are used in isolation of text, lose their meaningful
> >association,
> >and try to be too cute or complicated.
> >
> >The example of Chinese is useful but goes too far in that the sounds of
> >the
> >words are separate, independent from the pictograms. The closest thing
> >  is perhaps calligraphic Arabic where the letters make up the pictures
> >providing visual, auditory, and literal redundancy. Unfortunately, the
> >Roman alphabet does not provide a similar level of shape variation as
> >Arabic.
> >
> >Jeff Sz.
> >
> >
> >--
> >    **************************************************
> >    Jeff Szuhay              A randomly-directed
> >    www.szuhay.org           chaotical wetware pattern
> >    jeff at szuhay.org          recognizer/generator.
> >
> >
> >    Life is a comedy to those who think,
> >    and a tragedy to those who feel.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list