"Richard A. O'Keefe" wrote:

> I've been using Squeak rounded windows since I first downloaded 3.0.1.
> But recently, I've switched them back to the "square" look.  They USED
> to serve a purpose, reminding me that I was in Morphic rather than MVC.
> These days that's not something I need to know.

Richard;

The above could be an argument for *keeping* rounded corners as the default.
Remember, after all, that we're discussing only what new users will see
until they discover how to change the preferences -- Squeak's *capability*
wouldn't be changed, just its "out of the box" appearance.  If rounded
corners served a useful purpose for your initial work in Morphic, perhaps
the same would be true for others as well.

Gary



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: rounded corners (was: Re: straw-man 3.2 default preferences)


> Bert Freudenberg <bert at isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
> Rectangular windows are the result of "programmer's aesthetic". It's the
> most straight-forward thing to do. Adding roundness makes the interface
> just a tad friendlier.
>
> I have this mental picture of DEATH asking the jeweller "Is this diamond
> friendly?" and the jeweller saying "I personally would go to bed with it."
> (misquoted from memory of Reaper Man).
>
> When you're talking about things that people can bump into (doors, for
> example), rounded corners are _kinder_ than sharp ones (my three-year-old
> could testify to that).  But I am somewhat at a loss to understand what
> "friendly" can mean when applied to rounded corners on a text window.
>
> To make three obvious points:
> (a) they reduce the amount of screen area available for content
presentation
> (b) they create confusion in users' minds as to whether the transparent
>     "gusset" is part of the window or part of the background, which
decreases
>     the area of the screen to which they can confidently point.  This is
>     particularly bad as the corners are particularly nice places to point.
> (c) when a window is mostly covered by another window, the rounded corners
>     reduce the visible area of the window underneath, making it harder to
>     notice and to grab.
>
> I've been using Squeak rounded windows since I first downloaded 3.0.1.
> But recently, I've switched them back to the "square" look.  They USED
> to serve a purpose, reminding me that I was in Morphic rather than MVC.
> These days that's not something I need to know.
>
> I have tried to think of some way in which round corners on a screen could
> be "friendly", and the only reading I can come up with is "gives <speaker>
> a warm fuzzy feeling".  The only books we have in our house (and we have a
> LOT of books) with rounded corners are ones intended for very small human
> beings.  Perhaps rounded corners tap into warm memories of childhood?
>
> Regarding "amateurism" in the context of rounded windows (I
> agree that most other visual aspects of Squeak's GUI are at best
> "amateurish"): The two most recent major GUIs both have rounded
> window corners.  I'm sure they pay a lot for professional
> designers.  On a related note, Macs have had rounded screen
> corners for ages, but surely not for any usability reason.
>
> I have vigorously refused to have MacOS 9 installed on my Mac.  At least
up
> until MacOS 8.6, the rounded corners of the _screen_ were not reflected in
> rounded _window_ corners.  (And the rounded screen corners always had me
> looking for the CRT controls to "fix" this obvious "warping".)  Never
> underestimate the ability of the computer industry to copy bad ideas
> enthusiastically.  Never overestimate the abilities of highly paid
experts,
> either.  (For example, the Maori TV channel that's being set up paid some
> "experts" to find them a CEO.  The one they found pleased them well, until
> they discovered that his credentials were (allegedly) faked...)
>
> It's a bit like democracy.  The voters are NOT experts on "what is the
right
> thing for this country to do".  But they ARE experts on "have recent
policies
> been hurting ME".  Any Squeak user can speak with unchallengable authority
> on whether he or she finds some aspect of the interface helpful/usable/&c,
> and not all the experts in the world can naysay it; BUT by the same token,
> "it works for me" is never a good enough argument for saying "everyone
> should do the same", and if human interface people are happy to give us
> advice, we should at least listen.
>