From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-30 14:27:51
From: Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]>
> Suman Cherukuri wrote:
> > If Boost UI can adapt to the native L&F it'd be more useful and will be
> > widely accepted. If we decide on one UI for any and all the platforms, we
> > may face a lot of challenges in acceptance.
> Coming from a Mac background, I used to believe that. Now, I dare
> say that that way of thinking is passe. Sure, one can opt for
> consistency. But DON'T force it! There are those who do not
> agree with the thinking that "you can have any color as long
> as it is black" anymore. That's the model T way of thinking IMHO.
Hmmm. Both sides make reasonable points. Gratuitous differences
are asking for trouble. Ugly and bland interfaces give the sense
of low quality; that's often what I think when I see a Java app.
You cited games and WMP in another post. Neither category is
ugly or bland (at least when considering modern, high quality
games). Still, gratuitous differences cause problems.
Some games require one click to select something and another to
choose what was selected. Some only respond to the keyboard when
choosing an option or making selections, despite supporting the
mouse for other things. Those differences are jarring.
WMP is highly specialized, so it might be forgiven for looking
and acting differently, but when things are not in their usual
places, the user must hunt for them, which increases
frustration. Some apps don't use the same keyboard shortcuts for
the same things. That's frustrating. When they are common
things like cut, copy, and paste, the differences can be
My point, then, is that choosing the non-native route must be
done carefully or it *will* turn off users. Still, an
alternative L&F isn't *necessarily* a turn-off.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk