67 lines
3.1 KiB
Plaintext
67 lines
3.1 KiB
Plaintext
From: bruce.adams at rmc-ltd.com (Bruce S. O. Adams)
|
|
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:30:11 +0100
|
|
Subject: The Future of Tk?
|
|
References: <371E964F.C531C2A@istar.ca> <371F11C2.3162025@ciril.fr> <4fv$ECA+JyH3EwbN@jessikat.demon.co.uk> <XtJT2.124$fQ1.12097@burlma1-snr2> <371F6C8E.6631E8F1@channelpoint.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <37203DA3.42B86115@rmc-ltd.com>
|
|
Content-Length: 2757
|
|
X-UID: 1296
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Oakley wrote:
|
|
|
|
> Barry Margolin wrote:
|
|
> >
|
|
> > In article <4fv$ECA+JyH3EwbN at jessikat.demon.co.uk>,
|
|
> > Robin Becker <robin at jessikat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|
|
> > >I take this completely differently; least astonishment for me is if
|
|
> > >program X looks and behaves the same way no matter what keyboard, mouse
|
|
> > >and screen I'm using. As a 'user' of the program X it shouldn't matter
|
|
> > >what OS/WM is executing the code. I certainly don't want vi or emacs to
|
|
> > >be different on the mac why should I treat word or excel differently?
|
|
> >
|
|
> > I would be very surprised if Netscape on the Macintosh presented a
|
|
> > Windows-like user interface, rather than adopting the standard Macintosh
|
|
> > user interface. Most end users don't switch between platforms much, so
|
|
> > it's more important that all the programs on their system conform to their
|
|
> > expectations, than that a particular program work the same across different
|
|
> > platforms.
|
|
>
|
|
> I would have to agree with that statement. While there are those who
|
|
> think retaining the same look and feel across platforms is necessary, I
|
|
> would wager they are in the distinct minority. That's not to invalidate
|
|
> their position, but merely to put it in context. _Most_ users of
|
|
> software want a package to look and feel like the other packages on a
|
|
> given system. I hate, for example, the artsy (-fartsy) graphic programs
|
|
> that have some weird UI instead of a more traditional UI.
|
|
>
|
|
> On the other hand, to some degree this is application-dependent rather
|
|
> than user-dependent. For example, if I were to have a requirement to
|
|
> write a air traffic control program that had to run on BeOS, MacOS, NT
|
|
> and *nix, I would think there would be significant advantages to keeping
|
|
> it 100% identical across all platforms. So, to some degree it depends on
|
|
> the application, or the targeted user base.
|
|
>
|
|
> My point being, there's a need in the world for both models. Only, the
|
|
> model where applications should adhere to native conventions is (I'm
|
|
> guessing) far and away the most commonly expected model by most users.
|
|
> Which is why I think using native windows on Tk is a win -- it meets the
|
|
> needs of the majority (though definitely not all) of the users in the
|
|
> world.
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
The two models need not be mutually exclusive. Though I have not had the
|
|
pleasure of using SWING for JAVA myself, I believe it offers the ability
|
|
to switch look-and-feel at the touch of a button. A configuration option that
|
|
would surely please everybody. I would think this kind of configurability is
|
|
a good design goal. Of course there are trade offs which are worthy of
|
|
discussion. Would some kind soul with experience in this arena care to shed
|
|
some light?
|
|
Regards,
|
|
Bruce A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|