looks evolution
Locked
12
12
 
|
What do folks think about each major Squeak release having slightly
different appearance? It seems to have happened, perhaps "naturally," with every version since Squeak 2.9, at least. I think it's great for each release to have its own "personality". A different background is a great place to start for keeping things fresh with new looks. Is 4.1 using a small tiled picture of some kind? Here is an alternative which I think looks kind of like rough construction paper. 12K though.. - Chris |
finegragrain.png (16K) |
|
On 21.04.2010, at 22:51, Chris Muller wrote:
> > What do folks think about each major Squeak release having slightly > different appearance? It seems to have happened, perhaps "naturally," > with every version since Squeak 2.9, at least. I think it's great for > each release to have its own "personality". > > A different background is a great place to start for keeping things > fresh with new looks. Is 4.1 using a small tiled picture of some > kind? Here is an alternative which I think looks kind of like rough > construction paper. 12K though.. > > - Chris > <finegragrain.png> Needs some 'shopping to make it perfectly tileable. One oversight we had in 4.1 is that the buttons still have an ugly font - was that intentional? - Bert - |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
Hi,
now I really don't want to poleaxe you, but backgrounds textured like this make me really nervous. Literally, the first thing I did *immediately* after starting up the 4.1 image for the first time was to change the background. Shouldn't progress be about, like, y'know, functionality, robustness, documentation (me talking), performance? Yes. It *is* a matter of taste, partially. But you asked for opinions. I'm an engineer. GUIs I design would probably make you die of interface poisoning. :-P Sorry, Michael On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > What do folks think about each major Squeak release having slightly > different appearance? It seems to have happened, perhaps "naturally," > with every version since Squeak 2.9, at least. I think it's great for > each release to have its own "personality". > > A different background is a great place to start for keeping things > fresh with new looks. Is 4.1 using a small tiled picture of some > kind? Here is an alternative which I think looks kind of like rough > construction paper. 12K though.. > > - Chris > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On 4/21/2010 1:51 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
> What do folks think about each major Squeak release having slightly > different appearance? It seems to have happened, perhaps "naturally," > with every version since Squeak 2.9, at least. I think it's great for > each release to have its own "personality". > > A different background is a great place to start for keeping things > fresh with new looks. Is 4.1 using a small tiled picture of some > kind? Here is an alternative which I think looks kind of like rough > construction paper. 12K though.. Try it with: World color: (InfiniteForm with: (Form fromBinaryStream: (HTTPSocket httpGet: 'http://ftp.squeak.org/trunk/backgrounds/finegragrain.png'))). Set it as default using: MorphicProject defaultFill: (InfiniteForm with: (Form fromBinaryStream: (HTTPSocket httpGet: 'http://ftp.squeak.org/trunk/backgrounds/finegragrain.png'))). - A. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Haupt-3
This brings us back to the question:
- what if i want a different UI skin/theme , what i should do? Lately i started own experiments in this way, where i try to separate look style from functional parts. The dilemma, is how make it convenient and non-intrusive. I think that the way how HTML/CSS doing it is fine. On 21 April 2010 23:57, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > now I really don't want to poleaxe you, but backgrounds textured like > this make me really nervous. Literally, the first thing I did > *immediately* after starting up the 4.1 image for the first time was > to change the background. > > Shouldn't progress be about, like, y'know, functionality, robustness, > documentation (me talking), performance? > > Yes. It *is* a matter of taste, partially. But you asked for opinions. > I'm an engineer. GUIs I design would probably make you die of > interface poisoning. :-P > > Sorry, > > Michael > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >> What do folks think about each major Squeak release having slightly >> different appearance? It seems to have happened, perhaps "naturally," >> with every version since Squeak 2.9, at least. I think it's great for >> each release to have its own "personality". >> >> A different background is a great place to start for keeping things >> fresh with new looks. Is 4.1 using a small tiled picture of some >> kind? Here is an alternative which I think looks kind of like rough >> construction paper. 12K though.. >> >> - Chris >> >> >> >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
My question has nothing to do with anyone's personal taste or
interest. I was simply suggesting that Squeak take on slightly enhanced looks with each new release, rather than looking exactly like the old release. I think the face-lifting brought some energy to the end of the 4.1 release, and people seem to be energized by new eye-candy.. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: > This brings us back to the question: > - what if i want a different UI skin/theme , what i should do? > > Lately i started own experiments in this way, where i try to separate > look style from > functional parts. The dilemma, is how make it convenient and non-intrusive. > I think that the way how HTML/CSS doing it is fine. > > On 21 April 2010 23:57, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> now I really don't want to poleaxe you, but backgrounds textured like >> this make me really nervous. Literally, the first thing I did >> *immediately* after starting up the 4.1 image for the first time was >> to change the background. >> >> Shouldn't progress be about, like, y'know, functionality, robustness, >> documentation (me talking), performance? >> >> Yes. It *is* a matter of taste, partially. But you asked for opinions. >> I'm an engineer. GUIs I design would probably make you die of >> interface poisoning. :-P >> >> Sorry, >> >> Michael >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> What do folks think about each major Squeak release having slightly >>> different appearance? It seems to have happened, perhaps "naturally," >>> with every version since Squeak 2.9, at least. I think it's great for >>> each release to have its own "personality". >>> >>> A different background is a great place to start for keeping things >>> fresh with new looks. Is 4.1 using a small tiled picture of some >>> kind? Here is an alternative which I think looks kind of like rough >>> construction paper. 12K though.. >>> >>> - Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > |
|
|
Yes, indeed. It is more that eye-candy. Squeak starts to look like a
'regular' application while it still preserves the original Squeak GUI elements (projects, flaps etc.) if people want that. You may create an in-house application with it (adding some menus and dialogs) and need not to explain too much to people. --Hannes On 4/22/10, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > My question has nothing to do with anyone's personal taste or > interest. I was simply suggesting that Squeak take on slightly > enhanced looks with each new release, rather than looking exactly like > the old release. > > I think the face-lifting brought some energy to the end of the 4.1 > release, and people seem to be energized by new eye-candy.. > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: >> This brings us back to the question: >> - what if i want a different UI skin/theme , what i should do? >> >> Lately i started own experiments in this way, where i try to separate >> look style from >> functional parts. The dilemma, is how make it convenient and >> non-intrusive. >> I think that the way how HTML/CSS doing it is fine. >> >> On 21 April 2010 23:57, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> now I really don't want to poleaxe you, but backgrounds textured like >>> this make me really nervous. Literally, the first thing I did >>> *immediately* after starting up the 4.1 image for the first time was >>> to change the background. >>> >>> Shouldn't progress be about, like, y'know, functionality, robustness, >>> documentation (me talking), performance? >>> >>> Yes. It *is* a matter of taste, partially. But you asked for opinions. >>> I'm an engineer. GUIs I design would probably make you die of >>> interface poisoning. :-P >>> >>> Sorry, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>> What do folks think about each major Squeak release having slightly >>>> different appearance? It seems to have happened, perhaps "naturally," >>>> with every version since Squeak 2.9, at least. I think it's great for >>>> each release to have its own "personality". >>>> >>>> A different background is a great place to start for keeping things >>>> fresh with new looks. Is 4.1 using a small tiled picture of some >>>> kind? Here is an alternative which I think looks kind of like rough >>>> construction paper. 12K though.. >>>> >>>> - Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> >> > > |
|
|
Hi all,
I am all about improving the visual appearance of Squeak. I would perhaps consider prioritizing a consistent and coherent user interface instead. There are still some needs in this area. An idea of mine may spark some interest, as far as look-and-feel is concerned. Our community could contact DeviantArt and ask if they would be helping us to get contributions for a complete UI from their community. It could be a simple text "Squeak needs your help!" on their main page and we could set up a page with our requirements. See http://www.deviantart.com/ We've got competent developers here. We could get competent graphic artists to help us. It's a fancy idea but we don't get if we don't ask. Then we beat everyone else with the best UI ever. ;) Ian. -- http://mecenia.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
Hi Chris,
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > My question has nothing to do with anyone's personal taste or > interest. I was simply suggesting that Squeak take on slightly > enhanced looks with each new release, rather than looking exactly like > the old release. and basically, I agree. But the background is really just the background, and does not have anything to do with how the GUI feels when it's being used. 4.1 looks "different" anyway. > I think the face-lifting brought some energy to the end of the 4.1 > release, and people seem to be energized by new eye-candy.. But don't you think the eye-candy that energized people is in other places than the background? What I really like about the GUI enhancements is the slick buttons, title bar sizes, and window colouring. That's what people *work* with. Hm. In the end, I realise I really don't care about the background. I remove it and get to work. :-) Best, Michael |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ian Trudel-2
On 4/22/2010 8:21 AM, Ian Trudel wrote:
> Hi all, > > I am all about improving the visual appearance of Squeak. I would > perhaps consider prioritizing a consistent and coherent user interface > instead. There are still some needs in this area. > > An idea of mine may spark some interest, as far as look-and-feel is > concerned. Our community could contact DeviantArt and ask if they > would be helping us to get contributions for a complete UI from their > community. It could be a simple text "Squeak needs your help!" on > their main page and we could set up a page with our requirements. I like the idea. Does anyone have connections into that community? A cold-call probably won't get you very far but if someone who is established in this (or a similar) community would pose the idea it might get more responses. I would definitely support it. Cheers, - Andreas > See http://www.deviantart.com/ > > We've got competent developers here. We could get competent graphic > artists to help us. It's a fancy idea but we don't get if we don't > ask. Then we beat everyone else with the best UI ever. ;) > > Ian. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Haupt-3
On 4/22/10, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 4.1 looks "different" anyway. > >> I think the face-lifting brought some energy to the end of the 4.1 >> release, and people seem to be energized by new eye-candy.. > > But don't you think the eye-candy that energized people is in other > places than the background? What I really like about the GUI > enhancements is the slick buttons, title bar sizes, and window > colouring. That's what people *work* with. > > Hm. In the end, I realise I really don't care about the background. I > remove it and get to work. :-) > I like in fact that Squeak comes with an uncluttered workspace. Like a sheet of paper with which you can work... But what I would like to see is a menu entry in the 'Extras' menu 'Change background' Then people can change it to something _they_ like an feel at home immediately. Hannes |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Andreas Raab wrote:
> On 4/22/2010 8:21 AM, Ian Trudel wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am all about improving the visual appearance of Squeak. I would >> perhaps consider prioritizing a consistent and coherent user interface >> instead. There are still some needs in this area. >> >> An idea of mine may spark some interest, as far as look-and-feel is >> concerned. Our community could contact DeviantArt and ask if they >> would be helping us to get contributions for a complete UI from their >> community. It could be a simple text "Squeak needs your help!" on >> their main page and we could set up a page with our requirements. > > I like the idea. Does anyone have connections into that community? A > cold-call probably won't get you very far but if someone who is > established in this (or a similar) community would pose the idea it > might get more responses. I would definitely support it. > > Cheers, > - Andreas > CG Society would be a good place to ask, also. http://forums.cgsociety.org/ >> See http://www.deviantart.com/ >> >> We've got competent developers here. We could get competent graphic >> artists to help us. It's a fancy idea but we don't get if we don't >> ask. Then we beat everyone else with the best UI ever. ;) >> >> Ian. > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On 4/22/2010 7:22 AM, Chris Muller wrote:
> My question has nothing to do with anyone's personal taste or > interest. I was simply suggesting that Squeak take on slightly > enhanced looks with each new release, rather than looking exactly like > the old release. I think you'll find that this happens naturally. Even at this point the trunk already looks ever so slightly different from 4.1 :-) Cheers, - Andreas > I think the face-lifting brought some energy to the end of the 4.1 > release, and people seem to be energized by new eye-candy.. > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Igor Stasenko<[hidden email]> wrote: >> This brings us back to the question: >> - what if i want a different UI skin/theme , what i should do? >> >> Lately i started own experiments in this way, where i try to separate >> look style from >> functional parts. The dilemma, is how make it convenient and non-intrusive. >> I think that the way how HTML/CSS doing it is fine. >> >> On 21 April 2010 23:57, Michael Haupt<[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> now I really don't want to poleaxe you, but backgrounds textured like >>> this make me really nervous. Literally, the first thing I did >>> *immediately* after starting up the 4.1 image for the first time was >>> to change the background. >>> >>> Shouldn't progress be about, like, y'know, functionality, robustness, >>> documentation (me talking), performance? >>> >>> Yes. It *is* a matter of taste, partially. But you asked for opinions. >>> I'm an engineer. GUIs I design would probably make you die of >>> interface poisoning. :-P >>> >>> Sorry, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Chris Muller<[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> What do folks think about each major Squeak release having slightly >>>> different appearance? It seems to have happened, perhaps "naturally," >>>> with every version since Squeak 2.9, at least. I think it's great for >>>> each release to have its own "personality". >>>> >>>> A different background is a great place to start for keeping things >>>> fresh with new looks. Is 4.1 using a small tiled picture of some >>>> kind? Here is an alternative which I think looks kind of like rough >>>> construction paper. 12K though.. >>>> >>>> - Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:56 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> One oversight we had in 4.1 is that the buttons still have an ugly font - was that intentional? > > - Bert - I actually found that a regression. My buttons used to look fine pretty much up until the release. -Tim |
|
|
On 2010/04/23 12:04, Tim Felgentreff wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:56 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> One oversight we had in 4.1 is that the buttons still have an ugly font - was that intentional? >> >> - Bert - > > I actually found that a regression. My buttons used to look fine pretty > much up until the release. De gustibus non est disputandum! I found Courier a surprise, but I LIKE that font now. It fits in with the "industrial" default look - brushed metal and greys, and mutued colours when present. frank |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Felgentreff
On 23.04.2010, at 12:04, Tim Felgentreff wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:56 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> One oversight we had in 4.1 is that the buttons still have an ugly font - was that intentional? >> >> - Bert - > > I actually found that a regression. My buttons used to look fine pretty > much up until the release. You probably changed them in your image, but not the default. That still uses a fuzzy TTF instead of the pretty bitmap ones. I suggested as much a month ago (see below) but since you were doing the "looks" I did not push my preference. - Bert - Begin forwarded message: > From: Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> > Date: 27. März 2010 13:03:25 MEZ > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] The Trunk: Morphic-ar.395.mcz > > On 27.03.2010, at 12:15, [hidden email] wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Because some people asked for thinner window titles, you can set a smaller font using 'Preferences chooseWindowTitleFont'. I set it to Bitstream DejaVu Sans size 9 which should be available in all images. >> >> Regards, >> Tim > > "Bitmap DejaVu Sans" you mean, and bold I guess :) > > But I agree, that's a better default. Button labels in particular should use the new bitmap fonts, too. Here's my preference: > > Preferences class>>restoreDefaultFonts > self setDefaultFonts: #( > (setSystemFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans' 9) > (setListFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans' 9) > (setFlapsFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans Bold' 12) > (setEToysFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans Bold' 12) > (setPaintBoxButtonFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans Bold' 12) > (setMenuFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans' 9) > (setWindowTitleFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans Bold' 12) > (setBalloonHelpFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans' 7) > (setCodeFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans' 9) > (setButtonFontTo: 'Bitmap DejaVu Sans' 9) > ) > > > To experiment there is also the World menu, "appearance ...", "system fonts". > > - Bert - > > |
|
|
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 12:48 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 23.04.2010, at 12:04, Tim Felgentreff wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:56 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > >> One oversight we had in 4.1 is that the buttons still have an ugly font - was that intentional? > >> > >> - Bert - > > > > I actually found that a regression. My buttons used to look fine pretty > > much up until the release. > > You probably changed them in your image, but not the default. That still uses a fuzzy TTF instead of the pretty bitmap ones. > > I suggested as much a month ago (see below) but since you were doing the "looks" I did not push my preference. > > - Bert - Oops, sorry, that must have gotten lost... Should we keep the defaults as is or should Squeak adopt bitmap fonts all around? I would like to see the DejaVu Sans fonts everywhere... -Tim |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 > I would like to see the DejaVu Sans fonts everywhere... > > -Tim > +1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL0Y7EAAoJEOAfEteLmwSNUSkH+wYzqnv3MNuKUEgdDNrDYc1s +k6uMDD0cdsOnpk0BqhquRAwGzBqyzaWd+ALDCpj9UQGQ2QVuiVSVetwYTejRxsg 8eBXD0g9Fu6l5N288+3A5z7xqCOEsUU23FXVPeqvSAyrf/u+mqK2qPOnFDHXa34L Fr9vkJSx763xjIFClwQIzdhlkmGXjTaOhfc2Vg0w7ZJq+3ntWJbvnwlwdHogRT/6 Zs4q9nUbEO4Dql8dUHlCNEvbltwmEnlv91Otkn26Tnjwoz555pQvlN25yV/5x4bX KZSs5rPyk4GKMu3PukI9YesSIblbZX1fmWRPoQF/5/zXBajJYUlpS+tYogHzF4E= =3eEB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Felgentreff
On 23.04.2010, at 14:08, Tim Felgentreff wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 12:48 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> On 23.04.2010, at 12:04, Tim Felgentreff wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:56 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >>>> One oversight we had in 4.1 is that the buttons still have an ugly font - was that intentional? >>>> >>>> - Bert - >>> >>> I actually found that a regression. My buttons used to look fine pretty >>> much up until the release. >> >> You probably changed them in your image, but not the default. That still uses a fuzzy TTF instead of the pretty bitmap ones. >> >> I suggested as much a month ago (see below) but since you were doing the "looks" I did not push my preference. >> >> - Bert - > > Oops, sorry, that must have gotten lost... > Should we keep the defaults as is or should Squeak adopt bitmap fonts > all around? I would like to see the DejaVu Sans fonts everywhere... > > -Tim Well eventually I'd like us to switch to vector fonts on file, to support more than the latin-1 character set out-of-the-box. Possibly using the FreeType plugin, I think that is now in all VMs. We'd have to bundle some fonts with the release though. The Unicode plugin would be another option (I just got word from John Maloney that we could use it under MIT) which even does glyph-shaping IIUC (necessary for some scripts like Arabic or Devanagari) on Mac, Win, and Unix platforms. Until then, the aa-bitmap fonts are the best-looking we have, so yes, I think that should be the default throughout for now. - Bert - |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
> I think you'll find that this happens naturally. Even at this point the
> trunk already looks ever so slightly different from 4.1 :-) Ok, sure. Sorry for trying to whip up a little fun. I'll tell my fun-side to go away so we can get back to serious work.. BTW, we *really* need to replace the cartoon menu icons! Perhaps the deviantArt folks could help with that? |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |