What's native?
[1/18] from: carl::cybercraft::co::nz at: 22-Jun-2004 10:14
From here...
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/45326.htm
When Java applications are constructed with Eclipse's Standard Widget Toolkit (SWT) and
deployed to different operating platforms, they adopt native window manager look and
feel. On Linux Motif or the GTK, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Photon, AIX, HP/UX platforms,
and other supported platforms, Eclipse users can develop applications in Java with the
true look-and-feel of the platform.
One of the complaints I receive about REBOL is it doesn't adopt the look-and-feel of
the OS it's running on, though if it did, my complaint would be the program I'm using
isn't consistant across platforms. So, I've come to believe the user should be given
a choice in the matter, and ideally for each program they run.
Skins written in View offer a way to achieve this, though they'll always be playing catchup
as the various platforms' native GUIs get improved, or completly re-written. This'll
need to be attempted though, if REBOL is ever to catch on in a reasonably big way.
And while we (well I am, anyway:) are talking about catching on, this makes for interesting
reading...
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
And especially for those who think Microsoft got where it is today mostly through dodgy
business practices.
-- Carl Read
[2/18] from: pwawood:mango:my at: 22-Jun-2004 8:12
Carl
Whilst Eclipse's SWT can make applications look more native, it is
still very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a single version of
an application with the true look-and-feel of the platform. This is due
to fundamental differences in the desktop metaphor between the various
operating systems.
One good example is the difference in menu bars between Mac and
Windows. Macs have a system menu displayed at the top of the screen
used by all applications that conform to Apple's human interface
guidelines. Windows applications each have their own menu displayed in
its own window. There are others.
I think that there is a paradox for RT in whether REBOL is a
cross-platform tool with it's own user interface metaphors or a tool
for developing "write once, run everywhere" applications.
Regards
Peter
On Tuesday, Jun 22, 2004, at 06:14 Asia/Kuala_Lumpur, Carl Read wrote:
[3/18] from: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 22-Jun-2004 4:12
On Dienstag, 22. Juni 2004 00:14, Carl Read wrote:
> From here...
> http://www.linuxworld.com/story/45326.htm
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> platforms, Eclipse users can develop applications in Java with the true
> look-and-feel of the platform."
When they code at that platform. Or when the toolkit can really do magic with
design. Else each item looks very native, but the overall layout: somehow the
things dont fit together. Which is why VB has this visual gui-editor to drag
and size like with a paint-program.
> One of the complaints I receive about REBOL is it doesn't adopt the
> look-and-feel of the OS it's running on, though if it did, my complaint
> would be the program I'm using isn't consistant across platforms. So, I've
> come to believe the user should be given a choice in the matter, and
> ideally for each program they run.
>
My complain is,, i cant optimize the behaviour and interaction of widgets that
easily. But then i know rebol a lot better than other toolkits.
> Skins written in View offer a way to achieve this, though they'll always be
> playing catchup as the various platforms' native GUIs get improved, or
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> And especially for those who think Microsoft got where it is today mostly
> through dodgy business practices.
Aha. Well, i find it a bit confusing. For one Peoples feel forced to upgrade
and upgrade, because Office N is not compatible with Office N + 1. OTOH MS
does everything to run apps from 1983, and Joel says "see, they stay
compatible". Maybe its tricky to be compatible to both.
And then Joel says this:
(Please understand that I'm talking about large trends here, and therefore
when I say things like
nobody" I really mean "fewer than 10,000,000 people,"
and so on and so forth.)"
I guess the MSDN Magazine Camp defines "nobody" similar, and argues nobody is
using such old software. so what?
But he says too: People have no problems with all this web-apps. Which don't
have native L&F. And web-apps rule. So..
> -- Carl Read
-Volker
[4/18] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 22-Jun-2004 6:26
Carl Read wrote:
>>From here...
>
>http://www.linuxworld.com/story/45326.htm
>
>"When Java applications are constructed with Eclipse's Standard Widget Toolkit (SWT)
and deployed to different operating platforms, they adopt native window manager look
and feel. On Linux Motif or the GTK, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Photon, AIX, HP/UX
platforms, and other supported platforms, Eclipse users can develop applications in Java
with the true look-and-feel of the platform."
>
>One of the complaints I receive about REBOL is it doesn't adopt the look-and-feel of
the OS it's running on, though if it did, my complaint would be the program I'm using
isn't consistant across platforms. So, I've come to believe the user should be given
a choice in the matter, and ideally for each program they run.
>
One of the mistakes imo is to bring native look onto Rebol apps. I yet
have to see some user reaction telling me my utils use different UI. My
users easily recognise that "R" icon thing, they read it strangerly -
Rebul
:-), but it is recognised here. So - I think that look does not
matter that much, but what does matter though is widget behavior. If our
combo, tree lists, or other elements are behaving differently, then
we've got a problem. That is why with 1.3 project, we discussed even
focusing system. I would like RT taking no further excuses of
compatibility for keyboard support - no key-up event, no Alt key
support, no ctrl + tab support - pretty essential to those who are used
to use keyboard - I have got complaints already. The worst thing is -
you can't do anything about it, as View kernel simply does not support that.
>Skins written in View offer a way to achieve this, though they'll always be playing
catchup as the various platforms' native GUIs get improved, or completly re-written.
This'll need to be attempted though, if REBOL is ever to catch on in a reasonably big
way.
>
Yes, if you will play a catch-up game, then it may be difficult. I
prefer Rebol look being slightly different and with web becoming native
part of our life, it will become less and less problem for users.
-pekr-
[5/18] from: carl:cybercraft at: 22-Jun-2004 17:04
>Whilst Eclipse's SWT can make applications look more native, it is
>still very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a single version of
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
>guidelines. Windows applications each have their own menu displayed in
>its own window. There are others.
The Amiga's approach was more similar to the Mac's than Windows as well.
I was just using Eclipse as an example though - I have no idea how well it works. The
obvious reason they're attempting it though is they think there's a demand for it. And
going by my experience, there would be, as users just want things to be familiar.
>I think that there is a paradox for RT in whether REBOL is a
>cross-platform tool with it's own user interface metaphors or a tool
>for developing "write once, run everywhere" applications.
Isn't it both?
-- Carl
[6/18] from: carl:cybercraft at: 22-Jun-2004 17:42
>> And while we (well I am, anyway:) are talking about catching on, this makes
>> for interesting reading...
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
>does everything to run apps from 1983, and Joel says "see, they stay
>compatible". Maybe its tricky to be compatible to both.
I thought that too, and know of someone who was stuck with Win3.1 for a while due to
having to wait until a vital piece of software had been converted to Win95. Still, it
does look like they tried to keep third-party apps running, which seemed less important
on competing platforms. I posted the link mainly as an example of how to keep users
using a platform.
>And then Joel says this:
>"(Please understand that I'm talking about large trends here, and therefore
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
>But he says too: People have no problems with all this web-apps. Which don't
>have native L&F. And web-apps rule. So..
Yes. Maybe the Web is changing people's expectations about how apps should behave.
-- Carl Read
[7/18] from: carl:cybercraft at: 22-Jun-2004 18:05
>One of the mistakes imo is to bring native look onto Rebol apps. I yet
>have to see some user reaction telling me my utils use different UI. My
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
>to use keyboard - I have got complaints already. The worst thing is -
>you can't do anything about it, as View kernel simply does not support that.
Maybe the way to go is something like they've done with file and port modes, where get-modes
can be used to see what modes are available.
>>Skins written in View offer a way to achieve this, though they'll always be
>playing catchup as the various platforms' native GUIs get improved, or
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
>prefer Rebol look being slightly different and with web becoming native
>part of our life, it will become less and less problem for users.
Yes - living our life on the Web does seem to be the way of the future, so maybe I'm
wrong about supporting the underlying platform being that important. Some aren't going
to like this though. ;-)
-- Carl Read
[8/18] from: pwawood:mango:my at: 22-Jun-2004 16:03
Carl
On Tuesday, Jun 22, 2004, at 13:04 Asia/Kuala_Lumpur, Carl Read wrote:
>> I think that there is a paradox for RT in whether REBOL is a
>> cross-platform tool with it's own user interface metaphors or a tool
>> for developing "write once, run everywhere" applications.
>
> Isn't it both?
In theory yes. A language that could automatically adapt to the "look
and feel" characteristics of different environments would be wonderful.
In practice I doubt it's possible yet.
If you think about browsers they provide their own cross-platform user
interface nicely integrated with the host systems own user interface.
The browser is a form of middleware. REBOL/View could provide a much
richer user interface across many platforms supporting write-once run
anywhere providing it has a distinct well-designed UI.
Regards
Peter
[9/18] from: ed:brittlestar at: 22-Jun-2004 8:38
Petr wrote:
> One of the mistakes imo is to bring native look onto Rebol apps.
I wonder why Eclipse/SWT became so popular if native-like apps are not a
factor? Doesn't Java provide its own built-in GUI libraries (Swing, etc.)?
> I yet
> have to see some user reaction telling me my utils use different UI. My
> users easily recognise that "R" icon thing, they read it strangerly -
> "Rebul" :-), but it is recognised here.
<insert disclaimer: "Your mileage may vary">
Native-app look & feel is important, _if only_ because it seems to be what
many programmers either want or expect. Would the mistake of supporting a
native look & feel might be forgivable if REBOL's user base expands?
Besides the look & feel issue, many /View widgets are not as rich nor as
easy to program as those of HTML. And the fact that we don't have /View on
OSX, well...
Ed
[10/18] from: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 22-Jun-2004 16:45
On Dienstag, 22. Juni 2004 14:38, Ed O'Connor wrote:
> Petr wrote:
> > One of the mistakes imo is to bring native look onto Rebol apps.
>
> I wonder why Eclipse/SWT became so popular if native-like apps are not a
> factor? Doesn't Java provide its own built-in GUI libraries (Swing, etc.)?
>
Java "lacks" a build-in very good "IDE for everything". IMHO thats the main
reason to use Eclipse. Coding own apps with it, well.. How many apps except
of eclipse are there (have long not looked)?
> > I yet
> > have to see some user reaction telling me my utils use different UI. My
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> many programmers either want or expect. Would the mistake of supporting a
> native look & feel might be forgivable if REBOL's user base expands?
Users forgive winamp etc quite easy. And reblets are more in that area,
special purpose small guis. winamp has play/forward,stop, reblet has
read/scroll/send.
> Besides the look & feel issue, many /View widgets are not as rich nor as
> easy to program as those of HTML. And the fact that we don't have /View on
> OSX, well...
>
Agreed.
> Ed
-Volker
[11/18] from: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 22-Jun-2004 17:14
Hi Ed,
On Tuesday, June 22, 2004, 2:38:28 PM, you wrote:
EOC> I wonder why Eclipse/SWT became so popular if native-like apps are not a
EOC> factor? Doesn't Java provide its own built-in GUI libraries (Swing, etc.)?
Because the Java ones just suck? :)
Regards,
Gabriele.
--
Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer
Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --- SOON: http://www.rebol.it/
[12/18] from: hallvard:ystad:oops-as:no at: 22-Jun-2004 19:52
Dixit Gabriele Santilli (17.14 22.06.2004):
>EOC> I wonder why Eclipse/SWT became so popular if native-like apps are not a
>EOC> factor? Doesn't Java provide its own built-in GUI libraries (Swing, etc.)?
>
>Because the Java ones just suck? :)
I don't think that's why. In fact, I don't think they suck, they're pretty good, from
both user and developer perspective. The problem is that Java is a dinosaur. It's too
big, it's too slow. You can have dinner while waiting for a java program to show up with
a GUI.
HY
[13/18] from: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 23-Jun-2004 10:53
Hi Hallvard,
On Tuesday, June 22, 2004, 7:52:04 PM, you wrote:
>>EOC> I wonder why Eclipse/SWT became so popular if native-like apps are not a
>>EOC> factor? Doesn't Java provide its own built-in GUI libraries (Swing, etc.)?
>>
>>Because the Java ones just suck? :)
HY> I don't think that's why. In fact, I don't think they
HY> suck, they're pretty good, from both user and developer
HY> perspective. The problem is that Java is a dinosaur. It's too
HY> big, it's too slow. You can have dinner while waiting for a
HY> java program to show up with a GUI.
More seriously, that's exactly my point --- a good design is never
too big, too slow
. So as good as Java APIs can be, they are not
good enough for me, because they're too big, too slow.
You see, in theory REBOL should be much slower than Java, but I've
seen it being much faster in various cases. This should really
teach them a lesson...
Regards,
Gabriele.
--
Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer
Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --- SOON: http://www.rebol.it/
[14/18] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 23-Jun-2004 16:54
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:14:33 +1200, Carl Read <[carl--cybercraft--co--nz]>
wrote:
> One of the complaints I receive about REBOL is it doesn't adopt the
> look-and-feel of the OS it's running on,
Hi, yep, that's what I hear for xpeers.net as well. We don't need to
discuss if this is really a show-stopper or not, the fact is, people
recognize it and make a decision on this perception. That's the bad thing
about it. The IT guy in a company looks at it and says:
Hmmm... not a standard GUI? Than it's not a standard application and we
don't use it. Have a nice day.
This takes about 15 seconds. It's a problem, and it makes life hard to use
Rebol in the business sector. I don't have a solution for this problem.
IMO emulating a GUI's look & feel to some 80% makes sense. I have done
this with the OpenAmulet project as well. Works quite OK. The other
strategy is to create a highly specialized application the customer can't
get somewhere else...
--
Robert M. Münch
Management & IT Freelancer
Mobile: +49 (177) 245 2802
http://www.robertmuench.de
[15/18] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 24-Jun-2004 0:37
Robert M. Münch wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:14:33 +1200, Carl Read <[carl--cybercraft--co--nz]>
>wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
> Hmmm... not a standard GUI? Than it's not a standard application and we
>don't use it. Have a nice day.
Robert - then they are morons, sorry. Have you ever looked into Lotus
Notes for e.g.? What is so much standard about it? :-) I saw so really
badly designed apps, that you would not believe it. And it uses native
widgets or so I think. But even LN tries to go web way, so we can end
with really strange mixture of two distinct aproaches, if we are not
carefull enough.
Then I saw Delphi apps. Man, what does Delphi do? It is like Visual
Basic. It support bad design from the very beginning. You can easily be
in the same league with rebol Starting with form is bad imo. E.g. CA-VO
started with MDI or SDI window as a top window, then menu and menu opens
other windows. While Delphi (well, last I saw was 5.x family) simply
starts with form. Ppl put buttons directly on form together with menu at
the top. That is really piggy aproach which I would not tolerate in my
team (well, maybe i am crazy enough, I forbig my folks to use windows
registry - our apps are installed by "copy & run" principle - much
better aproach)
So, company you are referring to either has really good guidelines, or
they just have other agenda why they refuse IOS UI and then - they suck.
I would fire programmer telling me IOS is so much different in usage, as
it simply is not. We have Delphi apps, SAP front-end apps, Lotus Notes
apps, web apps. Do you think they share 100% the same usability principles?
Well, sorry for being too stright, but ask those "experts" how is that
they don't complain to possible java apps, as UI wise they may pretty
much suck ...
-pekr-
[16/18] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 24-Jun-2004 12:31
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:37:52 +0200, Petr Krenzelok <[petr--krenzelok--trz--cz]>
wrote:
> Robert - then they are morons, sorry.
Hi, well, we will see...
> Have you ever looked into Lotus
> Notes for e.g.? What is so much standard about it? :-) I saw so really
> badly designed apps, that you would not believe it. And it uses native
> widgets or so I think. But even LN tries to go web way, so we can end
> with really strange mixture of two distinct aproaches, if we are not
> carefull enough.
Yes, I know. But you know the difference between the market leader and a 3
people company? LN doesn't has to be the standard way, it just defines its
own. Rebol isn't in the position to set standars.
On the other hand, if it's that easy to push this non-standard stuff in
the market, why don't we just do it? Why isn't Rebol recognized all over
the world?
> Then I saw Delphi apps. Man, what does Delphi do? It is like Visual
> Basic. It support bad design from the very beginning. You can easily be
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> starts with form. Ppl put buttons directly on form together with menu at
> the top.
Might be. And? What's the message here? Others are doing bad apps but
those apps are used? Well, than there is something they are doing right.
My point is: We don't need to dicuss if people are morons or not, if apps
are bad or not. The fact is, we have to face this situation! And we need a
solutions that works out. If we can't find one, ...
> That is really piggy aproach which I would not tolerate in my
> team (well, maybe i am crazy enough, I forbig my folks to use windows
> registry - our apps are installed by "copy & run" principle - much
> better aproach)
How many have you meat with the same understanding? Yes, I agree. But it
doesn't help, if we both knwe it and all others don't care. Than we have
the problem, not the others.
> So, company you are referring to either has really good guidelines, or
> they just have other agenda why they refuse IOS UI and then - they suck.
Yes, they suck, and? Of course, I can go around and say: "Argh! Why are
all so stupid and don't see the value!?!" But this is wasting time, it
doesn't help to reach my goal. It won't help me to make some money out of
them. What does the best product helps, if you can't sell it? Nothing. I
always say: I prefer earning 1000 EUR than 2000 EUR not.
> I would fire programmer telling me IOS is so much different in usage, as
> it simply is not.
Are you in the position to do this? If so, go for it! I would be
surprised, if this decision will not show up other problems. It's not only
functions & features, these are multi-level problems.
> We have Delphi apps, SAP front-end apps, Lotus Notes
> apps, web apps. Do you think they share 100% the same usability
> principles?
No. Do you think RT plays in the same league like Borland, SAP, IBM?
> Well, sorry for being too stright, but ask those "experts" how is that
> they don't complain to possible java apps, as UI wise they may pretty
> much suck ...
Because it's not the technology criteria that made them choose this tool.
Robert
[17/18] from: carl:cybercraft at: 24-Jun-2004 23:48
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:14:33 +1200, Carl Read <[carl--cybercraft--co--nz]>
>wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
>Rebol in the business sector. I don't have a solution for this problem.
>IMO emulating a GUI's look & feel to some 80% makes sense.
Have you followed all the posts my original one generated? As to a certain extent they've
changed my mind, in that Web apps are probably the way of the future and they may have
who-knows what kind of GUI showing up in the browser window. Meaning people will get
used to dealing with different kinds of GUIs.
That's the future though. As to emulating GUIs, I think some see it as such a large
job because they think of emulating the whole native GUI and not just a subset of it.
To me it means creating styles that have the look and feel of the equivilent native
widgets, be it buttons, fields, panels or whatever. Some features might have to be
left out, but finding things you can do in one native app that you can't do in another
native app is not that unusual for users.
The biggest problem I think would be text-handling. Being restricted to one font, one
style and one size of text per face is a pretty big restriction. I would guess a style
could be created that'd get around this by using a variable number of faces, but I'm
not too sure how good a performance you could get out of it.
-- Carl Read
[18/18] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 24-Jun-2004 14:17
>>Then I saw Delphi apps. Man, what does Delphi do? It is like Visual
>>Basic. It support bad design from the very beginning. You can easily be
<<quoted lines omitted: 10>>
>are bad or not. The fact is, we have to face this situation! And we need a
>solutions that works out. If we can't find one, ...
OK, this is what you wrote:
Hmmm... not a standard GUI? Than it's not a standard application and we
don't use it. Have a nice day.
The message here is simple - now I do look as a moron :-) You started
with claim that it was Rebol non standard compliant UI which is show
stopper. So why do you ask me here, how is that even other bad apps are
used? It is not fault of Rebol technology, nor of IOS as a product
itself. What does it have in common with RT being 3 ppl company? It
simply contradicts itself - so what is the REAL reason why they told
no-go for IOS? Excuse me, but what does have Borland size and track
record in common with app usability? You did not mention they may be
scared of tech support issues, consultancy available etc. - that is of
course very different issue and you know that I will be first who will
criticise current situation - RT, nearly non existant consultancy, OEM,
VAR networks, job offerings etc. all being a weak decision point here.
>>That is really piggy aproach which I would not tolerate in my
>>team (well, maybe i am crazy enough, I forbig my folks to use windows
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
>doesn't help, if we both knwe it and all others don't care. Than we have
>the problem, not the others.
Yes, we have the problem. I was a programmer - not a good one probably,
but I belonged to such groups, now mainly participating on some
projects, but in non-programmer way. I know that IT ppl suck. They all
have their tools of choice. It is the same with all of us - we want to
do everything using Rebol. You would have to see some inner fightings of
our Delphi, LN, SAP groups. To them Rebol or anything not currently
already used in their company is an alien which should be blown from the
planet earth by Ripley :-) So - IIRC this discussion started about
Rebol, its UI and the question if Rebol should mimick native UI or not.
I can bet that even with WinXP skin you would still have problem selling
IOS to such company. As Steve said - find some responsible managers and
never talk to IT ppl - they will refuse anything new, as they will think
they can do it using their already existant tools ....
-pekr-
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted