On Jun 18, 2005, at 8:44 PM, John Pierce wrote:

>
> Now, as for look and feel stuff for Squeak, the suggested  
> LookEnhancments-jrp.
> 12 is quite reasonable as a small but definite improvement. I  
> certainly prefer
> the black text on white background.  A lot of the following  
> commentary is not
> specifically the 'fault' of the suggested improvements, so please  
> don't think
> I'm blaming Ben & John.
>
> Keep in mind that we worked up these look enhancements to meet the  
> following critieria:
>
> 1. Stay within the current SystemWindow framework and, as such, we  
> did not focus on addressing problems with all the UI widgets and we  
> did not focus on makiing a complete overhaul to the visual style.
> 2. Make a few high impact changes to give a new look and feel while  
> modifyng the least amount of code since we were modifying  
> SystemWindow and other Morphic objects.
>

Both of which make it a more manageable chunk to incorporate into  
Squeak.

> The window frame is ok in general.
>
> Window moving. Morphic seems to assume that if you grab something  
> in a place
> that does nothing else you obviously want to move it. I really hate  
> that for
> windows. Especially since there seem to be small but too-easily  
> touchable
> places in every window.
>
> Agreed.

I haven't experienced this difficulty myself, but if you say that it  
annoys you then I believe you.  What's the alternative behavior that  
you would find more comfortable?

>
> Roundedcorners. Yuck. So utterly passe and kindergarten-winXP.
>
> This one is quite interesting. Seems that everyone wants to  
> implement round corners on web sites these days (even gmail has  
> em). So I am not quite so sure they are utterly passe. Isn't  
> everyone tired of the same ole' boring square windows that come out  
> of the box on windoze? I am. Square windows are utterly passe!
>

I say "Passay schmassay"; I simply find rounded corners to be more  
aesthetically appealing (more organic?).

> <snip />
>
> I'm sure I can extend the critique if anybody is interested - and  
> as I said
> above, this is mostly not aimed at Ben & John but at the general  
> state of the
> Squeak UI.

No problem, Tweak will take care of everything ;-)  I'm sure that  
these opinions have already been noted, evaluated, and incorporated  
into the code (or maybe I don't live in Wish-Come-True Land).

>
> Agreed. We need to overhaul the Squeak UI. I still believe this is  
> primarily what holds us (Squeakers) back from getting serious  
> attention by the development community. Ben and I (mostly Ben)  
> built the Look Enhancements on the cheap to make Squeak more  
> pleasant to work in. We didn't want to solve all the problems with  
> the Squeak UI -- just make it a place that I want to work in. That  
> it has done for me and Ben. I would be happy to join others on  
> revamping the Squeak UI widget set to be more modern if we could  
> get a group of us working on it.

I don't have time to involve myself in this effort, but if I did I  
would definitely be interested in what the Tweakers have to say.  My  
instinct is that relatively quick'n'easy improvements to Squeak's  
look (even if not its feel) are very worthwhile, but a more  
fundamental overhaul of Morphic window UI behavior would be misplaced  
with Tweak on the horizon.

Cheers,
Josh

>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> -- 
> It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a  
> simple idea. -- Carver Mead
>
>