UI Discussions and possible UI Team

UI Discussions and possible UI Team

Hi Brad,
Are you working on a new UI for morphic?
If that’s the case or even partially so, why not host
your topic on the morphic list?

It could use the traffic, and eventually the UI stuff
will overlap or conflict with the morphic stuff
anyway. Might just as well deal with it as a morphic
issue.

And I am interested in seeing progress made and issues
defined.

Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace

***
>Brad Fuller bradallenfuller at yahoo.com
>Mon Aug 20 19:05:40 UTC 2007
>
>Hi All,
>
>A number of us have been discussing Squeak's user
interface issues and would
>like to ask others interested to chime in with their
thoughts. Because it's
>such a wide topic, the consensus among us was to
start a separate Squeak UI
>mailing list to discuss issues and also open the
floor with ideas of possible
>next steps. If there is sufficient interest, we would
propose a team to SqF
>and ask for team volunteers and commitment.
>
>If that is acceptable, I'd like to ask for a mailing
list (already sent a
>message to Squeak's mailman and Ken) and ask those
who are interested to join
>the list.
>
>Comments please!
>
>brad
***





       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/

On Tue August 21 2007, Jerome Peace wrote:
I thought about that. But, I feel that user interface issues go beyond
morphic. There is also MVC (don't know who uses it today, though) and native
hooks such as wxSqueak. My first suggestion to the group was to decide on UI
heuristics or guidelines that applications would follow to help make Squeak
more consistent for the user. Some agreed, some didn't say anything.

In any case, that's why I think it's a separate team. But, if others feel it
is not, I'd like to hear their thoughts.

brad

On 21-Aug-07, at 8:30 AM, Brad Fuller wrote:

>
> I thought about that. But, I feel that user interface issues go beyond
> morphic. There is also MVC (don't know who uses it today, though)  
> and native
> hooks such as wxSqueak. My first suggestion to the group was to  
> decide on UI
> heuristics or guidelines that applications would follow to help  
> make Squeak
> more consistent for the user. Some agreed, some didn't say anything.

Morphic  - or bitblt, or ffi calls to directXplode, or plugin calls  
to Cairo - are implementation of graphics. UI is the *use* of both  
graphics and input information to provide the user environment. I  
guess one ought to include sound as well as graphics to be more  
complete. Haptics might even come into the picture sometime.

I think a good discussion of UI would be very useful. The current UI  
in squeak is almost as bad as most other systems; time to improve it.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Close your eyes and press escape three times.

On Tue August 21 2007, tim Rowledge wrote:
I see it as the I/O to the user for all the human senses.. Audio, as it deals
with giving the user interactive clues to the interface should be included.
I'm pleased that Squeak originally used audio as feedback. Unfortunately,
some of the sounds were not appropriate. But, that can be easily remedied.

brad