Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:49:16 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, terry@lambert.org, alk@Think.COM, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lesstif (motif compatible) package. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960412104438.1803A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199604120222.TAA00504@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > > One thing people also frequently neglect is that Tk is a *much nicer* > > environment than Motif! I can't count the number of times that I've > > had my interface 98% complete and then run smack into the boundry > > cases where I've got something I want to represent graphically but > > none of the available objects are going to do it for me. I either end > > up writing my own Motif widget, which is a real pain in the butt and > > can easily take twice the time it takes me to write the code that USES > > the damn thing, or I construct an inferior interface that makes a best > > effort attempt with the existing stuff. Tk gives me a very nice > > "canvas" widget which allows me to create very arbitrarily rendered > > interface objects and bind actions to them just like the higher level > > objects. Don't knock this one until you've tried it, seriously! > > I have tried it. > > The problem is that new widgets are a bad idea, in general. "Compatible > with extensions" is a bad thing, and all you really succeed in doing > is violating style guidelines. > > In theory, your users are trained to use programs that conform to > the style guidelines, not particular programs by name. > > Yes, I know that apps developers want to make their applications > "value added" so they stand out and aren't just commodity items. > > For a word processor (for instance), IMO, you do this by making > the spell chack run faster, not by adding "cool colored shadows" > or "page flipping frobs" different from the ones supported by > Motif 2.x already. > > > > I know, you're now going to come back with the argument that one can > > trivially write a blah blah blah widget in Motif (probably using the > > word "virtualize" at least once :-) but that's not the point - I don't > > WANT to have to write custom frobs for Motif each time I want to > > display a triangular button or a flipping-page widget or whatever, nor > > do I want to have to reinvent the generalized canvas widget there. > > Wrongo. I'm going to say that using custom frobs is bad, and that > if you need a triangular button, your user interface design is bad. > If you succeed in creating your little triangle, where in the users > previous training does the information on how to use it come from? > No. Triangular (and round and square) buttons are all the same. In some places the triangular ones should be used (in an application which presents the user with a real world like remote control thingy?). What do you think the scrollbar buttons have arrows on them? I don't think a triangular button makes the usage any harder if it used it in a place which wins from it. > The name of the game for a software buyer is making users productive, > not getting "hackerware" with "neat frobs". A user is most productive > if they do not need additional training. > > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. > Sander Eat good food, preserve nature, be nice to all nice people :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960412104438.1803A-100000>