Re: Look and Feel

[Nicolas Roard]

Le 13 févr. 05, à 18:29, M. Uli Kusterer a écrit :

> At 15:15 Uhr +0000 13.02.2005, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> > I do find it convincing enough to say we should have options to 
> > customise
> > things (themes) at the behavior layer as well as pure appearance.
> > While I have no desire for an ms-windows theme myself, I strongly 
> > believe
> > that the system should allow others to build such themes if they 
> > wish, and
> > would support the inclusion of a them engine and a variety of themes 
> > as
> > part of the gnustep core.
>
>  The problem with certain advanced degrees of theme-ability is that it 
> can make it very hard for application developers to provide a 
> consistent user interface if each one of them is using a theme that 
> behaves differently. While algorithmic consistency from the code's 
> side is possible, themeing can really become a hindrance when help 
> files and documentation describe certain UI elements and your users 
> can't recognize them in their theme.

Yes, that's why we need a default theme, or at most, two 
(classic/modern)

As I advocated on the gnustep-ui list, I really think GNUstep should 
focus on the toolkit part; other projects -- desktop based on GNUstep, 
like Garma, Backbone, étoilé.. -- could have the liberty of choosing 
another theme than the default NeXT theme, as it seems many core 
GNUstep devs don't want to change the NeXT theme to something like
http://jesseross.com/clients/gnustep/ui/concepts/01/ui.png ...

Ideally, I'd like that all the desktop projects that don't focus on the 
NeXT theme (Garma, étoilé) will use the same theme, or join efforts in 
a common project..

Bluntly, I think there is two kind of people here -- the ones that want 
a NeXT desktop, and the ones that wouldn't mind improving on it. Why 
not then just leave that to different projects... as one said earlier 
in the thread, let's the public pick the winner. Anyway most of the 
code (and probably will) could be reused among projects.

GNUstep's role should only be to provide an easy way to change the 
theme -- and that's already the case.

>  Still, a certain degree of customizability is a good thing, and I 
> think a good theme engine should be flexible enough to implement a 
> simple GUI like, say, the Atari ST's just as well as a graphically 
> fancy one like MacOS X. Similarly, making sure things stay flexible 
> enough to have both a top-menu-bar, window-local menu bars or 
> palettized main menus are definitely of benefit to the theme engine.

not a problem.

>  On the other hand, do you really want a Windows theme, or a Mac 
> theme? I don't think so. If it looks like Windows but behaves like 
> GNUstep, it will confuse users more than it'll help. If a third party 
> wants to create a Windows GUI, sure, they can do that, but I think 
> that the defaults that ship with GNUstep should be similar enough to 
> recognize one based on pictures of the other.

Yes, and no. We *want* a windows theme and a mac theme -- because 
GNUstep is cross-platform (ok, for the mac theme it's not as important, 
for obvious reasons  ;-) but a windows theme is something we want. Not 
for using it on Unix, of course..)

>  The theme engine will be there, so if users want to shoot themselves 
> in the foot by installing "Mahogany black woodwork with blue LEDs", 
> don't stop them (heck, they may be advanced users who know enough to 
> actually cope with the new UI). But provide sensible defaults and make 
> it clear what the recommended "official party line" is. That way, even 
> beginners or end-users who aren't programmers and geeks like all of us 
> here will have a consistent, usable experience.

agree..

--
Nicolas Roard
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 -Arthur C. Clarke