MacOS X

I see where you're coming from, our fat client is also the kind of
application that users couldn't care less how it looks visually so long
as delivers functionality they crave, we only deploy it internally with
no sales pressure whatsoever. But if I were building, say, a contact
management application for much wider markets hoping to sell hundreds of
thousands of copies to users who are spoiled by slick looking
applications on Mac OS X and Vista, I would much rather see a polished
uniform non-native UI instead of 95% native 5% emulated mix.

-Boris

--
+1.604.689.0322
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5
http://tinyurl.com/r7uw4

[hidden email]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
attachments.

Thank you.
still

From: "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]>
>So this (attached) would look okay, you think?

Why would an emulated widget be using a Mac L&F when running Windows XP, or
vice versa?  When I use an emulated TextPane in my application, it looks
very much like the native Windows widgets.  It doesn't look like a Mac
widget, and why should it?

-Carl Gundel
http://www.libertybasic.com

On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:04:18 -0700
"Boris Popov" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see where you're coming from, our fat client is also the kind of
> application that users couldn't care less how it looks visually so
> long as delivers functionality they crave, we only deploy it
> internally with no sales pressure whatsoever.

Yay for fat clients :-)

> But if I were building,
> say, a contact management application for much wider markets hoping
> to sell hundreds of thousands of copies to users who are spoiled by
> slick looking applications on Mac OS X and Vista, I would much rather
> see a polished uniform non-native UI instead of 95% native 5%
> emulated mix.

+1

s.

Sigh, exactly. The point I was making is that if you want to put two
widgets next to each other where one is native and one is emulated, your
emulated look better match the native one exactly, otherwise it just
won't look right to the user. In which case, why even both with native?
;)

-Boris

--
+1.604.689.0322
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5
http://tinyurl.com/r7uw4

[hidden email]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
attachments.

Thank you.
XP,
> or
> vice versa?  When I use an emulated TextPane in my application, it
looks
> very much like the native Windows widgets.  It doesn't look like a Mac
> widget, and why should it?
>
> -Carl Gundel
> http://www.libertybasic.com
>
>

From: "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]>
>Sigh, exactly. The point I was making is that if you want to put two
>widgets next to each other where one is native and one is emulated, your
>emulated look better match the native one exactly, otherwise it just
>won't look right to the user. In which case, why even both with native?
>;)

Why?  Because then you can support the things that users expect on the given
platform and do this using the widgets they are used to seeing.  A user is
running XP?  The widgets will look like XP without compromise.  When the
user upgrades to Vista the app will look like Vista without compromise with
no extra work because the OSs' window manager draws everything.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  To me native widgets are
essential.  Emulated widgets are only a "nice to have".  Are there times
when an emulated UI is the better choice?  Perhaps.  ;)

-Carl Gundel
http://www.libertybasic.com 

But didn't you want both because native looks consistent with the host
OS and emulated allowed you to customize behavior in Smalltalk? All I'm
trying to say is that so long as you have two models (and I don't see
any way of going 100% native and denying developers an option to create
custom widgets), implementing native widgets just seems like a waste of
cycles and I am yet to see one good reason why it's such an invaluable
thing if one could implement better skinning (hopefully procedural with
Cairo, not current pixmap-hell) of emulated widgets with less cycles.

-Boris

--
+1.604.689.0322
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5
http://tinyurl.com/r7uw4

[hidden email]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
attachments.

Thank you.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Gundel [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:36 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
>
> From: "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]>
> >Sigh, exactly. The point I was making is that if you want to put two
> >widgets next to each other where one is native and one is emulated,
your
> >emulated look better match the native one exactly, otherwise it just
> >won't look right to the user. In which case, why even both with
native?
> >;)
>
> Why?  Because then you can support the things that users expect on the
> given
> platform and do this using the widgets they are used to seeing.  A
user is
> running XP?  The widgets will look like XP without compromise.  When
the
> user upgrades to Vista the app will look like Vista without compromise
> with
> no extra work because the OSs' window manager draws everything.
>
> So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  To me native widgets are
> essential.  Emulated widgets are only a "nice to have".  Are there
times
> when an emulated UI is the better choice?  Perhaps.  ;)
>
> -Carl Gundel
> http://www.libertybasic.com
>

... and by 'procedural' I mean 'pure awesomeness of tiger stripes', see
attached as well as the following,

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/xshots

;)

-Boris

--
+1.604.689.0322
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5
http://tinyurl.com/r7uw4

[hidden email]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
attachments.

Thank you.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Popov [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:49 PM
> To: Carl Gundel; [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
>
> But didn't you want both because native looks consistent with the host
> OS and emulated allowed you to customize behavior in Smalltalk? All
I'm
> trying to say is that so long as you have two models (and I don't see
> any way of going 100% native and denying developers an option to
create
> custom widgets), implementing native widgets just seems like a waste
of
> cycles and I am yet to see one good reason why it's such an invaluable
> thing if one could implement better skinning (hopefully procedural
with just
> > >won't look right to the user. In which case, why even both with
> native?
> > >;)
> >
> > Why?  Because then you can support the things that users expect on
the
> > given
> > platform and do this using the widgets they are used to seeing.  A
> user is
> > running XP?  The widgets will look like XP without compromise.  When
> the
> > user upgrades to Vista the app will look like Vista without
compromise
> > with
> > no extra work because the OSs' window manager draws everything.
> >
> > So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  To me native widgets
are
> > essential.  Emulated widgets are only a "nice to have".  Are there
> times
> > when an emulated UI is the better choice?  Perhaps.  ;)
> >
> > -Carl Gundel
> > http://www.libertybasic.com
> >

Stefan Schmiedl wrote:
> Function wins over Form for my serious users.
>  

Form is a vital part of the interface to function.

A good UI is required to be reponsive and intuitive enough to cope with
quickly entered user input (typing, keyboard-invoked menus, shortcuts,
...). There are many applications out there being quite different from
the laid back think-first-and-then-click approach that we developers so
easily get used to.

Andre

...... Original Message .......
On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:49:09 -0700 "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>But didn't you want both because native looks consistent with the host
>OS and emulated allowed you to customize behavior in Smalltalk?

It's best to have both, sure.  However given a choice between one or the
other I would choose the native widgets.  In any case right now we have
only emulated widgets.  I hope that this will be rectified sometime in the
not too distant future.

-Carl Gundel
http://www.libertybasic.com

Doesn't Cincom need to finish Pollock first before this conversation
gets any further? ;)

-Boris

--
+1.604.689.0322
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5
http://tinyurl.com/r7uw4

[hidden email]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
attachments.

Thank you.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Gundel [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:14 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
>
> ...... Original Message .......
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:49:09 -0700 "Boris Popov"
<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >But didn't you want both because native looks consistent with the
host
> >OS and emulated allowed you to customize behavior in Smalltalk?
>
> It's best to have both, sure.  However given a choice between one or
the
> other I would choose the native widgets.  In any case right now we
have
> only emulated widgets.  I hope that this will be rectified sometime in
the
> not too distant future.
>
> -Carl Gundel
> http://www.libertybasic.com

...... Original Message .......
On Tue, 29 May 2007 15:23:15 -0700 "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>Doesn't Cincom need to finish Pollock first before this conversation
>gets any further? ;)

This conversation doesn't stop Cincom from finishing Pollock/Widgetry, so I
think the answer is no.  ;)

-Carl Gundel
http://www.libertybasic.com

>Why?  Because then you can support the things that users expect on
>the given platform and do this using the widgets they are used to
>seeing.  A user is running XP?  The widgets will look like XP
>without compromise.  When the user upgrades to Vista the app will
>look like Vista without compromise with no extra work because the
>OSs' window manager draws everything.

Maybe.  ObjectStudio 8 uses native Widgets.  ObjectStudio relied on the MFC.

Whoops.  Looks like we have the same problem as emulated widgets.

>So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  To me native widgets
>are essential.  Emulated widgets are only a "nice to have".  Are
>there times when an emulated UI is the better choice?  Perhaps.  ;)
>
>-Carl Gundel
>http://www.libertybasic.com

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView

Well, only if we don't take the time to read it all. If we do, we might
not have time to finish anything.  :)

Dave

Carl Gundel wrote:

Boris,

> So this (attached) would look okay, you think? If you are serious  
> about
> UI, mixing native and non-native wouldn't fly most of the time, in  
> which
> case Cincom would either have to drop emulation and do it all  
> native or
> end up supporting both, which isn't "less work going forward" in my  
> book
> unless there's some magic piece that I'm missing.

Nothing magic. Just thoughtful design.

                                 And So It Goes
                                      Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Right, isn't 1 + 1 still more than 1 though? All I'm trying to find out is what problem this solves exactly if you need to maintain and improve emulation anyway. I think I'm going to retreat now, personally I would much rather see more solid printing support, font system cleanup, dllcc improvements, widgetry completion and tools, and few other things before taking on native widgets, but I don't work for Cincom and I'm not even in the top 10 clients, so this converstion is nothing more than a rant, really.

Cheers!

-Boris
(Sent from a BlackBerry)

----- Original Message -----
From: Samuel S. Shuster <[hidden email]>
To: Boris Popov
Cc: Stefan Schmiedl <[hidden email]>; [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue May 29 18:30:21 2007
Subject: Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X

Boris,

> So this (attached) would look okay, you think? If you are serious 
> about
> UI, mixing native and non-native wouldn't fly most of the time, in 
> which
> case Cincom would either have to drop emulation and do it all 
> native or
> end up supporting both, which isn't "less work going forward" in my 
> book
> unless there's some magic piece that I'm missing.

Nothing magic. Just thoughtful design.

                                 And So It Goes
                                      Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Boris,

> All I'm trying to say is that so long as you have two models (and I  
> don't see
> any way of going 100% native and denying developers an option to  
> create
> custom widgets)
...

There is no reason that both 100% native can't coexist with custom,  
either custom "native" widgets or custom "emulated" widgets.

                                 And So It Goes
                                      Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Boris,

> Doesn't Cincom need to finish Pollock first before this conversation
> gets any further? ;)

Widgetry is just weeks away from 1.0.

That said, discussion does not and never has delayed it.

                                 And So It Goes
                                      Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

So what's next? I was assuming ui building tools and transition path for people to move from wrapper to widgetry, no?

Cheers!

-Boris
(Sent from a BlackBerry)

----- Original Message -----
From: Samuel S. Shuster <[hidden email]>
To: Boris Popov
Cc: Carl Gundel <[hidden email]>; [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue May 29 18:46:19 2007
Subject: Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X

Boris,

> Doesn't Cincom need to finish Pollock first before this conversation
> gets any further? ;)

Widgetry is just weeks away from 1.0.

That said, discussion does not and never has delayed it.

                                 And So It Goes
                                      Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

I didn't say it can't coexist, all I'm asking is 'why' and all I'm hearing is 'why not', that's the only reason for this thread :)

Cheers!

-Boris
(Sent from a BlackBerry)

----- Original Message -----
From: Samuel S. Shuster <[hidden email]>
To: Boris Popov
Cc: Carl Gundel <[hidden email]>; [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue May 29 18:43:51 2007
Subject: Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X

Boris,

> All I'm trying to say is that so long as you have two models (and I 
> don't see
> any way of going 100% native and denying developers an option to 
> create
> custom widgets)
...

There is no reason that both 100% native can't coexist with custom, 
either custom "native" widgets or custom "emulated" widgets.

                                 And So It Goes
                                      Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?