Bill,

I generally agree with you that out-of-the-box, Squeak's feel (and look) are 
different than what users are used to. And this is a concern for deploying 
applications quickly. We have the unique opportunity to change most of 
these "feel" issues to our heart's content. The 'look' is a bit harder, but 
can be done, too.

I don't worry too much about the 'feel' because it's easy to change.

Having said that, I agree that it would be nice to have a consistent feel 
out-of-the-box for Squeak that travels along all of the releases and bug 
fixes.

Maybe we should have a UI team that addresses that issue. That would be one 
area that I could help on and would surely join the team. There is 
a "Morphic" team, but I don't think they are too active. I wouldn't think the 
morphic team addresses the overall concept of Squeak's UI. It may be a  
matter of setting some guidelines that can be followed that address we we 
collectively agree is the "standard" feel of Squeak. Those guidelines can be 
violated, of course, and should be when one wants to go beyond or even invent 
a better method (which could then be incorporated into the guidelines.) But, 
if developers follow the guidelines, it would keep Squeak UI consistent.

Do guidelines, or some such list, exist today?

brad


On Sat August 11 2007 3:30 pm, Bill Schwab wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> Fair enough.  I am mostly thinking of my users.  Suppose I display a
> menu, they click in one of the magic spots, and instead of doing
> something or nothing (which would cause a reflex to click again), it
> gets attached to the hand.  I can hear it now: the menu is "stuck to the
> mouse".  The file/directory picking "dialogs" are not really that at
> all.  They are inconsistent, do not provide a clear way to show/hide
> hidden files (at least on Linux).  As long as Squeak has been in use, it
> seems that there should be a lot more polish in the interaction with the
> user.
>
> The behavior of input focus is a lot better than it once was, but it is
> still not consistent.  I hate to think about putting a clerk in front of
> Squeak-based form.  If they have to touch the mouse, the software is
> broken.  Why care what clerks think?  They enter data that can be turned
> into serious money, but one has to make life easy for them, or they find
> ways not to cooperate.  It can be hard enough when it is easy.  Squeak
> is starting to show some respect for tabbing, but it is again not
> consistent.  It might be far enough along that one could build something
> robust for end users.  For example, in a deployed app, one would not use
> a system window; the main window would be app's shell (MDI fans will see
> it differently of course), and an alignment morph would likely cover the
> entire world, with the widgets living inside it.  I have yet to actually
> do this, but I can imagine that it would hide many of the IDE's
> annoyances.
>
> One of my favorites is the method finder.  Especially with an optical
> mouse (the kind that moves the cursor even when still), one has to
> "balance" the cursor in the selector field, lest the focus fly off to
> some other widget.
>
> Workspace menus: the browse-it command should be on the first menu, near
> inspect, debug-it, and friends.  Many other ergonomic annoyances have
> been posted recently.
>
> The Linux vm will shutdown w/o warning.  It could do a better job with
> virtual keys.  Some of that is Linux culture, but I notice that other
> apps respond as expected to keypad vk messages.
>
> Again, it is mostly feel: how it reacts to keyboard and mouse input.  I
> am of the opinion that Microsoft is losing their collective grip on
> reality, but they did some really good usability testing - what, 20
> years ago??  Scary.  Much of what they learned watching "idiots"
> interact with computers has become widely adopted.  If I am giving them
> too much credit, I apologize, but there is a mechanical vocabulary of
> interaction with computers, with a fine line between being responsive
> and fragile.  I argue that Squeak as packaged is in the latter camp.
>
> Please note that I am trying to remove a barrier to use of Smalltalk.  I
> believe there is nothing one can do to make the masses leave the
> sharp-infested waters(TM) for the power and elegance of Smalltalk.
> However, we can help those who "get it" make their would-be users' life
> as easy as possible, making it just that much easier to apply Smalltalk.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Fulmer wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 04:20:21PM -0400, Bill Schwab wrote:
> > At the risk of becoming a broken record: my complaints about the
>
> Squeak
>
> > GUI are not about look, they are about feel. I can sell funny looking,
> > but I cannot sell clumsy.
>
> Squeak is easy to get used to, so we usually forget what makes
> it clumsy. The only things I can think of is using the Alt
> (rather than Ctrl) key for modifiers (on Linux and Windows), and
> the lack of support for one-click copy/paste (under X11). What
> else bothers you about it? We are not conspiring to make a
> clumsy user interface. I got used to the interface after 1 week
> and never saw it as clumsy.
>
> I want to know. Really. What don't you like?
>
>
> Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
> University of Florida
> Department of Anesthesiology
> PO Box 100254
> Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
>
> Email: bschwab at anest.ufl.edu
> Tel: (352) 846-1285
> FAX: (352) 392-7029