Re: [boost] Reason for Java's Success

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-30 19:18:46

Rob Stewart wrote:
> 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.

Yes! My point is that it is not really about following a strict
style. The bottomline is usability. Certainly, if I put the
vertical scroll bar horizontally, there will be chaos in the
streets.

> 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.

Agree. Again usability. But then even an app like, say Photoshop,
does things differently from one version to the next. The same
thing happens when you buy a new car. You spend some time to
get used to it.

> 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
> maddening.

Again agree.

> 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.

Yes! And that is also my point.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net