[UI] What's next?

Tue Sep 4 15:32:08 UTC 2007

There is quite a bit of feel in there too, just not obvious (tab/shift-tab
field switching, Alt-left/right window switcher etc.). As for mouse over,
I'd got used to it... Odd now it can be "normal"!

-----Original Message-----
From: ui-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:ui-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Bill Schwab
Sent: 04 September 2007 4:22 pm
To: ui at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: RE: [UI] What's next?

Gary,

That was quick!  I will certainly check it out.  I am negligent in not yet
finding your previous emails listing some assumptions about the image.
Reasons aside, I had problems until I downloaded the Squeak-dev image, at
which point implementors... etc. worked.  I noted some problems with "lost
clicks" but I assume that pre-dates your recent changes and/or is specific
to 3.10.

Are there any tricks to updating that image to contain your new work?

As an aside, I am surprised you have put so much attention into look w/o
worrying (much) about feel.  If you don't mind describing it, who are your
users?  If not specifically, what type of tasks, what level of expertise?  I
am curious because I find it difficult to envision people who would be
attracted by your appearance enhancements and not lost due to the feel
problems.

THANKS!!!

Bill

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

>>> gazzaguru2 at btinternet.com 09/04/07 10:48 AM >>>
I have uploaded a new version of Widgets to SqueakSource. Hopefully adds
"click to focus" functionality. Untested properly at the moment so holding
off updating the Universe. Perhaps some brave people would like to have a
go!

Two extra preferences added: mouseClickForKeyboardFocus and
windowsActiveOnFirstClick. The first covers the changes for making the
#mouseEnter behaviour (i.e take keyboard focus) optional for most basic
morphs. The second, with a bit of a fix, allows the first click on an
inactive window to properly propagate to the clicked morph after activating
its containing window.

I find it a bit strange to have to assume "normal" behaviour with these
options! (Have go used to the Squeaky/Motif way of focus handling, in a
(using Squeak) modal way!).

Feedback always appreciated!

Gary.

-----Original Message-----
From: ui-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:ui-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Bill Schwab
Sent: 02 September 2007 12:11 am
To: ui at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [UI] What's next?

Brad,

Good point about the task bar - there are other solutions to that problem,
but none as slick.

More generally, if you want to start with specifications, that is fine;
count me in.  I suspect they will be completely ignored, just as Squeak's
deficiencies have been ignored.  Whether by preferences or perhaps themed
feel, we might have a chance to break through the "please don't break our
toy" resistance by producing something nice enough that there will be some
backlash against any who attempt to blackball it. 
For those who genuinely prefer the motif behavior, we should offer it from
the beginning, but we should also provide a way to meet the demands of end
users who have learned that they can freely "shove the mouse out of the
way."

In short, however we get there, I think our ultimate product should be
working code with enough appeal (and I think Gary has the basics to make it
work) to get the average Squeaker (if there is such a person) to want it.

Bill

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

>>> bradallenfuller at yahoo.com 09/01/07 5:37 PM >>>
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Schwab <BSchwab at anest.ufl.edu>
To: ui at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 9:48:34 AM
Subject: [UI] What's next?

> Do any of you have any regrets about installing Gary's packages? I am
> tempted to load them into my working 3.9 image.
> Any reports of bad experience would be appreciated.

I haven't found a problem except the one I mentioned to Gary, and it must
have been my fault, so no need to elaborate on my errs ;-)

> Without any implied lack of gratitude, the changes are thus far simply

> eye candy.

perhaps, with the excepttion of the taskbar at the bottom, which may be
helpful to some for auto-arranging the desktop. 

Gary's work is much appreciated and I can't wait until he finishes it!

>  As impressive and helpful as the changes are, I will stick to my
long-standing assertion
that Squeak's real GUI problems are feel related.

I don't agree that it's exclusively feel related. There are many "look"
issues as well. I contend that "look and feel" go hand-in-hand and maybe we
should approach it this way?

>  Does this group want to tackle that problem?

YES!

>  How?

I still push the idea that we need guidelines first. But, i wanted to hear
from more on this discussion topic before I said anything else (plus, I've
been swamped too!)

> Do we want to adopt Gary's work as a foundation?

Foundation for what? 

> I am tempted to vote in the affirmative on the latter, and hope that
> we will go further by taming the mouse-over activation and focus 
> madness.

This could be easily remedied by first agreeing upon a keyboard focus
rule(s) and then implementing the rule into the standard image (maybe for
3.10?.) With the rule in place, software authors will at least know what the
rest of the community believes to be best practice. They can violate it if
they want in their own apps, but at least it's stated.

Maybe this could be our first project. 

> Preferences are fine: I would not want to force
> convention on others any more than I want to subject my users to (what

> would appear to them as) random behavior as they move the mouse.

Preferences settings has been a long standing feature in Squeak. Frankly, I
don't know how good it is. I like it, but there are some good arguments
against this (see Raskin.)

> Gary's work is yet another illustration that native widgets are not
> necessary to achieve any particular look, and I am confident we can 
> illustrate the same re feel.

Sorry, I always get confused on what "native" means. Does it mean native to
the hosting OS, or native to Squeak?  Maybe we should not use the word
"native" and use "Host" or "OS" and "Squeak": e.g.: OS-widgets,
Host-widgets; Squeak-widgets, Host-derived widgets -- ???

To comment on your comment, I believe that Squeak-derived widgets forces
easy portability between hosts. 

brad

_______________________________________________
UI mailing list
UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui

_______________________________________________
UI mailing list
UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui

_______________________________________________
UI mailing list
UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui

_______________________________________________
UI mailing list
UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui