Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

[squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

57 messages Options

123

Giuseppe

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

Hi Andreas,

El mié, 16-09-2009 a las 00:31 -0700, Andreas Raab escribió:

Andreas Raab wrote:
> David Corking wrote:
>> If the community agrees to get code from somewhere else (in this case
>> from Newspeak) then that code may have an MIT-compatible license.  My
>> question is: does Squeak have a policy to say whether such foreign
>> code may be committed to the trunk?
> 
> All source code committed to the trunk must be available as MIT. In 
> other words, it is not acceptable to commit code to the trunk that's not 
> available under MIT. No exceptions.

PS. I realize that the reasoning may not be obvious so here it is 
spelled out explicitly: Basically, we don't want to make judgments about 
what licenses are compatible with what other licenses. We're not 
lawyers, we have really no clue what the result of combining different 
licenses is. We need a simple story so the quid pro quo is: If you want 
your stuff in the trunk you must make it available as MIT, so that our 
story remains simple and consistent and keeps the lawyers off our 
collective behinds. If you can't do that, well, tough luck, you might 
want to think ahead the next time you choose a license.

But, you must agree MIT license, only if you want code integrated in the image, true? This is not mandatory to packages, or code outside the Trunk.

Probably the answer is obvious, but I think is good to have it clear.

Andreas.Raab

[squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

Giuseppe Luigi Punzi wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> El mié, 16-09-2009 a las 00:31 -0700, Andreas Raab escribió:
>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>> > David Corking wrote:
>> >> If the community agrees to get code from somewhere else (in this case
>> >> from Newspeak) then that code may have an MIT-compatible license. My
>> >> question is: does Squeak have a policy to say whether such foreign
>> >> code may be committed to the trunk?
>> >
>> > All source code committed to the trunk must be available as MIT. In
>> > other words, it is not acceptable to commit code to the trunk that's not
>> > available under MIT. No exceptions.
>>
>> PS. I realize that the reasoning may not be obvious so here it is
>> spelled out explicitly: Basically, we don't want to make judgments about
>> what licenses are compatible with what other licenses. We're not
>> lawyers, we have really no clue what the result of combining different
>> licenses is. We need a simple story so the quid pro quo is: If you want
>> your stuff in the trunk you must make it available as MIT, so that our
>> story remains simple and consistent and keeps the lawyers off our
>> collective behinds. If you can't do that, well, tough luck, you might
>> want to think ahead the next time you choose a license.
>
> But, you must agree MIT license, only if you want code integrated in the
> image, true? This is not mandatory to packages, or code outside the Trunk.
>
> Probably the answer is obvious, but I think is good to have it clear.

Of course! Your code is your code, you own it, you can release it under
any license of your chosing. We require that when you want to put it
into the trunk it must be available as MIT so that everyone gets ONE
license in the image they download but outside of that it's up to you.
Your code, your license.

FWIW, my favorite is the WTFPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL).

Cheers,
- Andreas

Igor Stasenko

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

2009/9/16 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:

> Giuseppe Luigi Punzi wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> El mié, 16-09-2009 a las 00:31 -0700, Andreas Raab escribió:
>>>
>>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>>> > David Corking wrote:
>>> >> If the community agrees to get code from somewhere else (in this case
>>> >> from Newspeak) then that code may have an MIT-compatible license. My
>>> >> question is: does Squeak have a policy to say whether such foreign
>>> >> code may be committed to the trunk?
>>> > > All source code committed to the trunk must be available as MIT. In >
>>> > > other words, it is not acceptable to commit code to the trunk that's not >
>>> > > available under MIT. No exceptions.
>>>
>>> PS. I realize that the reasoning may not be obvious so here it is spelled
>>> out explicitly: Basically, we don't want to make judgments about what
>>> licenses are compatible with what other licenses. We're not lawyers, we have
>>> really no clue what the result of combining different licenses is. We need a
>>> simple story so the quid pro quo is: If you want your stuff in the trunk you
>>> must make it available as MIT, so that our story remains simple and
>>> consistent and keeps the lawyers off our collective behinds. If you can't do
>>> that, well, tough luck, you might want to think ahead the next time you
>>> choose a license.
>>
>> But, you must agree MIT license, only if you want code integrated in the
>> image, true? This is not mandatory to packages, or code outside the Trunk.
>>
>> Probably the answer is obvious, but I think is good to have it clear.
>
> Of course! Your code is your code, you own it, you can release it under any
> license of your chosing. We require that when you want to put it into the
> trunk it must be available as MIT so that everyone gets ONE license in the
> image they download but outside of that it's up to you. Your code, your
> license.
>
> FWIW, my favorite is the WTFPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL).
>

ROFL :)

> Cheers,
> - Andreas
>
>

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Giuseppe

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Michael Haupt-3

El mar, 15-09-2009 a las 15:16 +0200, Michael Haupt escribió:

Hi,

would it not be an interesting idea to make Vassili Bykov's facelift
patches the standard in the trunk? I, for one, really like the lean
appearance of facelifted images.

Obviously, the patches would first have to be made available to the
public, which they are currently not. After that, there might be
issues (Robert Krahn just tells me Polymorph might object to being
facelifted).

Still, the overall look would benefit, at least in my opinion. Maybe
it's even possible to make this a preference ... but the patches apply
some deep changes IIRC.

+1

I like Newspeak look.

Something themeable, and with more widgets, like Polymorph (with only one theme installed and the others as optionals for example), could be interesting to have integrated in the image IMHO. I would like to see SqueakUI Builder working out of the box over Squeak (it depends on Polymorph and is being developed over Pharo).

Casey Ransberger

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

IMH (and undistinguished) O:

End users, once they learn enough about a system, *love* to skin their
favorite apps. It's a creative form of play which is at once technical
and aesthetic.

I feel pretty strongly that there's a powerful generalization
available here: that there should be an architectural separation
between implementation and presentation. This is why I'm in favor of
including Polymorph (or something like it) in a base image, in spite
of a personal leaning toward a minimal base system ala Cuis.

Basically, I think that user interfaces still suck enough that we
should have the best possible tools for the end user to evolve them in
the same way that we have great tools for evolving our underlying
structures and logic.

Simply implementing a "better" look and feel doesn't strike me as the
best approach. It would be much better to find ways to make it easier
for people in the community to make their own aesthetic decisions. I
think that's how we'll get the best look and feel.

But that's just my opinion.

On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, Giuseppe Luigi Punzi
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El mar, 15-09-2009 a las 15:16 +0200, Michael Haupt escribió:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> would it not be an interesting idea to make Vassili Bykov's facelift
> patches the standard in the trunk? I, for one, really like the lean
> appearance of facelifted images.
>
> Obviously, the patches would first have to be made available to the
> public, which they are currently not. After that, there might be
> issues (Robert Krahn just tells me Polymorph might object to being
> facelifted).
>
> Still, the overall look would benefit, at least in my opinion. Maybe
> it's even possible to make this a preference ... but the patches apply
> some deep changes IIRC.
>
>
>
> +1
>
> I like Newspeak look.
>
> Something themeable, and with more widgets, like Polymorph (with only one theme installed and the others as optionals for example), could be interesting to have integrated in the image IMHO. I would like to see SqueakUI Builder working out of the box over Squeak (it depends on Polymorph and is being developed over Pharo).
>
>
>

--
Ron

Andreas.Raab

[squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2

Eliot Miranda wrote:
> Think how nice it would look crossed with the native font support we now
> have :) It's been pointed out to me that actually there's not a huge
> amount of work in Facelift, and since the code is open source there is
> nothing to stop you reimplementing it using the original as a guide, is
> there?

Indeed. What do people think about this little knock-off?

Cheers,
- Andreas

Botox.cs (9K) Download Attachment

Botox.png (61K) Download Attachment

Göran Krampe

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

Andreas Raab wrote:
> Eliot Miranda wrote:
>> Think how nice it would look crossed with the native font support we
>> now have :) It's been pointed out to me that actually there's not a
>> huge amount of work in Facelift, and since the code is open source
>> there is nothing to stop you reimplementing it using the original as a
>> guide, is there?
>
> Indeed. What do people think about this little knock-off?

Very nice! And a hilarious name! :)

I always thought the UI in Stable Squeak was clean and nice, perhaps we
could steal something from there, like say the Window border? The
resizing handles also need some pixel pushing love...

Ah, here is my old article btw with screenshots of StableSqueak:

http://swiki.krampe.se/sqworld

And there is also a trivial utility to do gif captures of Windows inside
Squeak:

http://swiki.krampe.se/sqworld/uploads/1/WindowGIFCapture.cs

Not sure if we already have that today...

regards, Göran

Ian Trudel-2

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab

2009/9/17 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:

> Indeed. What do people think about this little knock-off?

Well, it seems to me that it goes toward the direction taken by Pharo
as far as look-and-feel is concerned. I'm not feeling it. The reason
is that Squeak should have its own visual identity, in my opinion.
Without mentioning that the look is favouring one or another OS,
without being native, and not any better...

Regards,
Ian.
--
http://mecenia.blogspot.com/

Stéphane Rollandin

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab

Andreas Raab a écrit :
> Eliot Miranda wrote:
>> Think how nice it would look crossed with the native font support we
>> now have :) It's been pointed out to me that actually there's not a
>> huge amount of work in Facelift, and since the code is open source
>> there is nothing to stop you reimplementing it using the original as a
>> guide, is there?
>
> Indeed. What do people think about this little knock-off?

a little too cold, hard and heavy for my taste.

my two cents: I would prefer the current look with grip morphs hidden. I
guess my point of view is that stuctural elements in the window
(sliders, resizers, buttons) should not compete for attention with the
actual window contents.

Stef

Stéphane Rollandin

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger

> Simply implementing a "better" look and feel doesn't strike me as the
> best approach. It would be much better to find ways to make it easier
> for people in the community to make their own aesthetic decisions. I
> think that's how we'll get the best look and feel.

+1

Stef

Giuseppe

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

El jue, 17-09-2009 a las 11:40 +0200, Stéphane Rollandin escribió:

> Simply implementing a "better" look and feel doesn't strike me as the
> best approach. It would be much better to find ways to make it easier
> for people in the community to make their own aesthetic decisions. I
> think that's how we'll get the best look and feel.

+1

Stef

And this is done, and, at the moment, working out of the box, with Polymorph.

Göran Krampe

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Stéphane Rollandin

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>
>> Simply implementing a "better" look and feel doesn't strike me as the
>> best approach. It would be much better to find ways to make it easier
>> for people in the community to make their own aesthetic decisions. I
>> think that's how we'll get the best look and feel.
>
> +1
>
> Stef

On the other hand - if we can improve the default out-of-the-box L&F -
that is *still worth doing*, don't you think?

So the question is simple:

- Does it look better than what we have?
- If you do NOT think so, can you present an alternative that you think
looks better?

My personal answer is that it looks better than what we have (presuming
some coloring scheme for different tools is still in effect - I don't
want *everything* to be grey) and I don't have time nor interest in
producing an alternative. :)

regards, Göran

Andreas.Raab

[squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Ian Trudel-2

Ian Trudel wrote:
> 2009/9/17 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Indeed. What do people think about this little knock-off?
>
> Well, it seems to me that it goes toward the direction taken by Pharo
> as far as look-and-feel is concerned. I'm not feeling it. The reason
> is that Squeak should have its own visual identity, in my opinion.

That's why I like the Newspeak look. (it's got nothing to do with the
Pharo Look which was a plain Mac clone last time I checked). The
Newspeak look is quite individual and consistent in its appearance
without looking silly or unprofessional.

> Without mentioning that the look is favouring one or another OS,
> without being native, and not any better...

One of the things to be careful about here is not to make the better the
enemy of the good. Changes in UI are a sign of life and I think we need
one. It had been on my list ever since I came back into Squeak. We got
nicer fonts, now it's time to change the default look enough for people
to recognize that things are improving.

So *unless* you find a particular look so completely unbearable that you
couldn't possibly imagine to launch an image that looks that way I'd
like to ask for a bit of lenience. Simply agree that unless you do your
own, there is no way we can all agree on the "best" look. But that
doesn't have to prevent us from choosing an "acceptable" look. The work
done in Newspeak is nice, consistent, unassuming and done by someone who
actually knew what he was doing.

Cheers,
- Andreas

Edgar J. De Cleene

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger

On 9/17/09 1:31 AM, "Ronald Spengler" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is why I'm in favor of
> including Polymorph (or something like it) in a base image, in spite
> of a personal leaning toward a minimal base system ala Cuis.
-10
If we continuing adding "personal" favorites, the image grow and grow.
I wish less packages which people could choose.
For "look" , fashion change, not ever for best.
This days all seems going to Microsoft look.
I miss the days of the rainbow Apple ...

Edgar

Bert Freudenberg

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Göran Krampe

On 17.09.2009, at 13:45, Göran Krampe wrote:

> (presuming some coloring scheme for different tools is still in
> effect - I don't want *everything* to be grey)

+1

- Bert -

Casey Ransberger

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

To be clear: the default look is showing it's age. And I don't think
the main image needs more than one theme. But I think themability is
worth having in a base image.

Also: +1 to whoever thinks Squeak should have a distinct default look
and feel. We shouldn't try to hide the fact that this is *different*,
as that's part of the appeal.

On Thursday, September 17, 2009, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 17.09.2009, at 13:45, Göran Krampe wrote:
>
>
> (presuming some coloring scheme for different tools is still in effect - I don't want *everything* to be grey)
>
>
>
> +1
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>
>

--
Ron

Andreas.Raab

[squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 17.09.2009, at 13:45, Göran Krampe wrote:
>> (presuming some coloring scheme for different tools is still in effect
>> - I don't want *everything* to be grey)
>
> +1

Unfortunately, the Newspeak facelift is obviously designed as a plainly
colored theme with the only color sprinkled in carefully by the window
buttons and the "dirty marker". There is no good way to mix and match
colors so if you don't like the fact that it's gray then don't use it.

FWIW, I'm attaching what I consider the "final" version of Botox
(meaning I won't spend any more time on it). No screenshots because I
really want people to try it in action instead of judging from a single
screenshot. Hint: It's worth trying it as it looks significantly
different from the previous version for a particular reason which I find
critical to really judging the look.

I recommend loading it into a trunk image, firing up a browser, looking
at some implementors and then opening the test runner. This should give
you a pretty good feel for what it's like.

Cheers,
- Andreas

Botox.2.cs.gz (43K) Download Attachment

Igor Stasenko

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: facelifting the trunk?

2009/9/18 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:

> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>
>> On 17.09.2009, at 13:45, Göran Krampe wrote:
>>>
>>> (presuming some coloring scheme for different tools is still in effect -
>>> I don't want *everything* to be grey)
>>
>> +1
>
> Unfortunately, the Newspeak facelift is obviously designed as a plainly
> colored theme with the only color sprinkled in carefully by the window
> buttons and the "dirty marker". There is no good way to mix and match colors
> so if you don't like the fact that it's gray then don't use it.
>

No need to defend or prove something. UI is always about personal
preference & taste.
Almost in all situations in life, when you making some people happier,
at the same time
you making some other people unhappy, no matter how good you try.
IMO to judge if we doing things right is to make the number of happier
people significantly
more than those who will become unhappy due to our actions.
And i think facelifting is right thing, even if someone wouldn't like
it at all :)

> FWIW, I'm attaching what I consider the "final" version of Botox (meaning I
> won't spend any more time on it). No screenshots because I really want
> people to try it in action instead of judging from a single screenshot.
> Hint: It's worth trying it as it looks significantly different from the
> previous version for a particular reason which I find critical to really
> judging the look.
>
> I recommend loading it into a trunk image, firing up a browser, looking at
> some implementors and then opening the test runner. This should give you a
> pretty good feel for what it's like.
>
> Cheers,
> - Andreas
>
>
>
>

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Casey Ransberger

Re: [squeak-dev] facelifting the trunk?

Let's make it look better than it does now, and then turn toward
discussing a skinnable architecture.

Andreas: does Tweak lend itself to skinning in less ones and zeroes
than Polymorph does?

Juan: Does Morphic 3 lend itself to skinning in less ones and zeroes
than Polymorph does?

On Thursday, September 17, 2009, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/9/18 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17.09.2009, at 13:45, Göran Krampe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (presuming some coloring scheme for different tools is still in effect -
>>>> I don't want *everything* to be grey)
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Unfortunately, the Newspeak facelift is obviously designed as a plainly
>> colored theme with the only color sprinkled in carefully by the window
>> buttons and the "dirty marker". There is no good way to mix and match colors
>> so if you don't like the fact that it's gray then don't use it.
>>
> No need to defend or prove something. UI is always about personal
> preference & taste.
> Almost in all situations in life, when you making some people happier,
> at the same time
> you making some other people unhappy, no matter how good you try.
> IMO to judge if we doing things right is to make the number of happier
> people significantly
> more than those who will become unhappy due to our actions.
> And i think facelifting is right thing, even if someone wouldn't like
> it at all :)
>
>> FWIW, I'm attaching what I consider the "final" version of Botox (meaning I
>> won't spend any more time on it). No screenshots because I really want
>> people to try it in action instead of judging from a single screenshot.
>> Hint: It's worth trying it as it looks significantly different from the
>> previous version for a particular reason which I find critical to really
>> judging the look.
>>
>> I recommend loading it into a trunk image, firing up a browser, looking at
>> some implementors and then opening the test runner. This should give you a
>> pretty good feel for what it's like.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>

--
Ron

Andreas.Raab

[squeak-dev] Polymorph (was Re: facelifting the trunk?)

Ronald Spengler wrote:
> Let's make it look better than it does now, and then turn toward
> discussing a skinnable architecture.
>
> Andreas: does Tweak lend itself to skinning in less ones and zeroes
> than Polymorph does?

No. Tweak actually utterly fails at that. I have a new UI framework that
I'm working on occasionally and which I actually used to implemented
Facelift first - the name Botox only occurred to me when I then started
to poke in all of these dark corners of Morphic to get it to look the
way I wanted ;-)

Polymorph is actually not a bad choice for skinning as far as a
Morphic-like environment goes but it needs work to detach the basic
skinning infrastructure from the actual looks and extra widgets. There
are simply too many dependencies right now.

If anyone wants to move this forward, here is how I would do it:
* Load Polymorph into a trunk image.
* Remove *all* UIThemes outside of the most basic standard Squeak one
* Remove all the unused classes
* Minimize the dependencies to the "extra" widgets that Polymorph has
but where simper stand-ins do just fine
* Repackage the result and push it into Morphic

I suspect (but that's a guess) that the end result is less than a dozen
additional classes and fewer than a hundred extra methods which I would
find perfectly acceptable for the skinning infrastructure. On top of
which additional themes could be loaded. But it's real work that needs
real time to be invested in it.

Cheers,
- Andreas

123