OT - Squeak and the Broader Software Community

Dan Shafer dan at shafermedia.com
Fri Jul 7 20:55:20 UTC 2006


On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Chris Muller wrote:

>> Why, after 30 years, does Squeak still appear to be a non-standard,
>> almost toy-like user experience in the IDE? Is it the case that
>> changing that would be far too complex to undertake? Or is it that
>> the community of Squeak users just isn't largely motivated to worry
>> about this subject? Or is the absence of an economic incentive the
>> problem? Or IS there a problem?
>
> 1.  What does that really mean, looks toy-like?  What's it gonna take,
> please tell us?  A manly "gray metal" look like we've seen before or
> some more rainbow gradients like we've seen before?

I can see I touched a sore spot here. First, please remember I'm  
passing on reactions from others, not expressing my own views here.  
I'm trying to figure out how to make it possible for me to get  
projects and contracts using Squeak from people with pre-conceived  
ideas about what an application looks like.

Short of true native platform widgets, I think it's safe to say that  
the vast, vast majority of computer users are accustomed to certain  
kinds of shapes for certain kinds of objects and that when we vary  
from those standards, we'd better have a really good reason for  
asking them to pay attention to our interface rather than to the task  
they are trying to accomplish. I don't know if that's "manly" gray  
metal or rainbow gradients or just round-cornered rectangles with  
default buttons flagged somehow. The point is that it is NOT the UI  
one finds in Squeak today.

> 2.  What is THE "standard"?  Microsoft?  What, then, when Microsoft
> changes its look again?  Are they then "non-standard" or their
> followers?

Again, I think it's less an issue of choosing a standard than it is  
of choosing a UI experience that maps to the user's established  
expectations.

> 2b.  Do you remember this rubbish, "All windows programs look alike
> therefore once you've learned one you've learned them all.."?

Yeah, only I heard it said about Mac programs. Same rubbish, though.

> 3.  Even if it can be "offically" labelled "toy like," what is wrong
> with that?  Too wimpy-looking?  What's wrong with wimpy-looking as  
> long
> as its easy and functional?

Sorry to keep beating the dead horse here, but the issue is that it  
is toy-like *compared to user expectations* set up by other programs.  
I find the EToys UI refreshing. My potential clients and colleagues  
whom I wish to interest in Squeak just don't.

> 4.  Speaking of wimpy, someone (not you) once suggested "Squeak" was a
> wimpy-sounding name, what do you think of "KA-POW!"?
>
LOL. I think Squeak is a weird name for a programming language. But  
not weirder than C or Java or Ruby.

>> Thanks for any wisdom you can share. This is one of the two big
>> objections I *always* get when I recommend someone look at Squeak as
>> a possible solution to a problem for which it appears to me to be
>> ideally suited linguistically and architecturally.
>
> So I guess this group sets its priorities to building something, as  
> you
> said, "ideally suited linguistically and architecturally".  They
> haven't spent as much time playing endlessly with colors, shadows,
> gradients, only to please the latest group of popularist
> superficialites who'll be gone as soon as the next Wired article tells
> them where they need to go next to be cool.  Whew, sorry to say that,
> at least you have my honesty.
>
I am at least somewhat sympathetic to your thinking here, Chris. All  
I'm really trying to do is find answers that will satisfy and/or make  
sense to the great majority of people who've had their user  
experience expectations shaped by the market.

Dan



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list