Platform independent GUI

[wysota]

There is a lot of bad things about Microsoft. I wouldn't say their UI is part of them.

I didn't say that. I said Microsoft used to act like they knew better what their users wanted. Fortunately it seems they stopped doing that some time ago.

Indeed, these childrens are lucky they could have a course about Open Office.

They could also have a course on Computer Science, as written in the course name. I don't think the only alternative to teaching Word is teaching another text writing software which children most often know better how to handle than their teachers. To me it would seem Computer Science should be more involved into "how this thing works".

Ahhh... The font size argument, very effective emotionally since it brings your grandparents into the equation :-).

I don't think I got that... I had a friend in high school who was almost blind and he had to have very large fonts and very high contrast of the UI (black and white only in practise) to be able to see anything on the screen. And now who looks stupid? Certainly not my grandparents.

Aside from this, everytime you give a choice to the user, you give him a chance to screw up the experience.

His choice. He might as well improve the experience. Odds are the same both ways. This is what we call Freedom.

It's better to intend creating the very best user experience than skipping it for the sake of "I can customize it anyway".

You can create what you think is best for the users and then let them decide if you were right. You don't have to force them to see your point of view.

The default and customize approach you talked about gives the user 50% chances of making a bad choice for him.

And 50% chances of making a good choice.

Someone said: the biggest problem for human being is: "life gave us choice".

Someone said "640kB of memory will be sufficient for everyone". People say many stupid things.

It's almost a biblical image, Adam wanted to be 100% free, even in his knowledge of good and evil. If you can prevent the user from biting the apple, would you do it ?

Yet, God gave us free will. If God prevented Adam from going astray, Adam would merely be a puppet in the hand of its Creator. Do you want your users to be such puppets? I know I don't - this is something that kills innovation you have brought up earlier.

I see an application as one's vision of what's best to solve a problem in a humainized way. By essence the GUI is a tradeof between possibilities and accessibility, it's a form of art.

Art is subjective. If you think of your UI as art, make a screenshot and post it on your website. But let others make different screenshots. UI is not to be looked at, it is to be used.

A lot of people can customize (and screw up in the process) their user experience.
All of this just for the sake of coolness and being free.

A lot of people can customize sucessfully their user experience. All of this just for sake of usability. And many others stay with default settings happy they don't have to do anything. Both parties are satisfied. If you don't know how to do something and you're not willing to learn - then don't do it. Simple as that.

I'm sorry, but I'll stay away from that apple.

That's your choice. Would you be happy if someone told you you had to do it?

[bunjee]

I didn't say that. I said Microsoft used to act like they knew better what their users wanted. Fortunately it seems they stopped doing that some time ago.

Last time I checked Office 2007 wasn't customizable.

They could also have a course on Computer Science, as written in the course name. I don't think the only alternative to teaching Word is teaching another text writing software which children most often know better how to handle than their teachers. To me it would seem Computer Science should be more involved into "how this thing works".

I have no oppinion on this topic. Aside from the fact that a generic computer science makes no sense to me. It's all about specializing.

I don't think I got that... I had a friend in high school who was almost blind and he had to have very large fonts and very high contrast of the UI (black and white only in practise) to be able to see anything on the screen. And now who looks stupid? Certainly not my grandparents.

From my perspective that's the OS task with the accessibility options.

His choice. He might as well improve the experience. Odds are the same both ways. This is what we call Freedom.

Sounds like the latest Linux campaign.

You can create what you think is best for the users and then let them decide if you were right. You don't have to force them to see your point of view.

You can do that.

And 50% chances of making a good choice.

True. Still those 50% making a wrong choice are disturbing me.

Someone said "640kB of memory will be sufficient for everyone". People say many stupid things.

I suggest taking a look at this : http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwa...of_choice.html

Yet, God gave us free will. If God prevented Adam from going astray, Adam would merely be a puppet in the hand of its Creator.

I agree 100%, we've found one agreement.

Do you want your users to be such puppets? I know I don't

I don't want users to be my puppets.
I think, if you sail on a boat, you should trust the captain.

We should stop blaming ourselves for keeping the user away from customizing and start learning what they really need.

- this is something that kills innovation you have brought up earlier.

Indeed it doesn't.
If you don't share my view, go program another equivalent application.
It happens quite a lot : take a look a google chrome, if Firefox was the ultimate open ended browser why would google care about doing another one ?

In some cases, I even think the opposite.
Targeting something to be the ultimate application for everyone ultimately kills creativity since no one will try something else.

Why wouldn't we do something that fits 100% the expectations of 10 users, before hurting ourselves thinking about 100 others that might not like the background color.

Doing a great application that we would use ourselves is a good start.

Art is subjective. If you think of your UI as art, make a screenshot and post it on your website. But let others make different screenshots. UI is not to be looked at, it is to be used.

Linus Torvald said on an interview:
"Programming is poetry".

The ultimate paradox pragmatic coders are facing is the fact that ultimately they are contributing to a greater picture we're drawing together.

All of this is no perfect science, look at all the bugs around us ?

Now what if the bugs could turn into features ? What if all those imprecision came together and became something poetic, artistic.

No, really, coding is an art form.

A lot of people can customize sucessfully their user experience. All of this just for sake of usability. And many others stay with default settings happy they don't have to do anything. Both parties are satisfied. If you don't know how to do something and you're not willing to learn - then don't do it. Simple as that.

I see that differently.
My end users don't want to be aware about customizing.
All they care about is have an application answering their need.

As for changing the look and feel, it's on the programming side.

That's your choice. Would you be happy if someone told you you had to do it?

Nobody forces you to use a given application.
Either share captain's vision on how to solve a problem or switch to another boat.

[wysota]

Last time I checked Office 2007 wasn't customizable.

Last time I checked Office 2007 was not the only application released by Microsoft.

I have no oppinion on this topic. Aside from the fact that a generic computer science makes no sense to me. It's all about specializing.

Yes, specialization is especially good for 10 year old children.

From my perspective that's the OS task with the accessibility options.

I don't know how you want the OS to intervene if you force a 12pt font, force colours, etc. Accessibility needs to be handled by applications too, you know. QAccessible (and family) is not there just to increase the number of Qt classes so that Nokia can brag about it during Developer Days.

Sounds like the latest Linux campaign.

You got me lost here... I don't see your point.

You can do that.

I know I can I'm offering that option to you.

True. Still those 50% making a wrong choice are disturbing me.

I see. Out of 6 billion people half of them are "bad", so let's nuke the other half as well... That's a good point of view indeed.

I suggest taking a look at this : http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwa...of_choice.html

Again, people say stupid things. It's obvious that the welfare of individual doesn't go in line with welfare of masses. But this is a different case - what one of users of your app does doesn't influence others. Modern world tends to go for personalization but of course you are free to do otherwise.

I don't want users to be my puppets.

But you want to make decisions for your users... That certainly makes a lot of sense.

I think, if you sail on a boat, you should trust the captain.

If you cosider yourself a leader of your users, chosen or designated based on your skills certified by other trusted leaders of the domain in question then this case might apply here. But even a captain on a boat can be replaced by his first officer if he's incapable of doing his job. And it is the responsibility and privilege of his officers to decide on that.

We should stop blaming ourselves for keeping the user away from customizing and start learning what they really need.

You won't learn if you don't let them tell you what they (think they) need.

If you don't share my view, go program another equivalent application.

This would be a good argument if all your users were software developers.

It happens quite a lot : take a look a google chrome, if Firefox was the ultimate open ended browser why would google care about doing another one ?

Answer to that is obvious. Why does google do anything? Certainly not for fame and glory.

Targeting something to be the ultimate application for everyone ultimately kills creativity since no one will try something else.

No one will try anything else if you keep telling them it's not possible to do what they want because this way it's better.

Why wouldn't we do something that fits 100% the expectations of 10 users, before hurting ourselves thinking about 100 others that might not like the background color.

If you like 9% of your customers being happy and 91% of them unhappy there is a chance you will lose those 91%. Considering the fact that you can rarely find software that has development costs lower than 9% of its final price you are likely to fall out of business. Remember we're not talking only about colours here but choice in general.

Doing a great application that we would use ourselves is a good start.

Believe me - not really Unless you are writing software for people like you, of course.

Linus Torvald said on an interview:
"Programming is poetry".

The ultimate paradox pragmatic coders are facing is the fact that ultimately they are contributing to a greater picture we're drawing together.

Yes, these things do look nice in interviews... Too bad reality is different.

My end users don't want to be aware about customizing.
All they care about is have an application answering their need.

If you are targeting a particular group of people, designing and implementing software tailored for this particular group of people then that's perfectly understandable. But if you will try to sell the same piece of software to a different group of people (company?) working in the same domain, you will notice their expectations are a bit different than those of the first group. Adjusting the software to the needs of this second group means either making the first group dissatisfied or maintaining two different lines of the same product which is a pain in the neck at least.

Nobody forces you to use a given application.

That's a very nice thought but unfortunately in many cases it is plain wrong. In many cases you are forced to use a particular application/solution/system by external conditions.

[bunjee]

I see your point, you see my point.

Let's cut the "endless" debate here.

Indeed we might both be right.
We both have strong reasons and examples. So I guess it's a balance to find on a day per day basis.

Beside, it's obvious you're more the scientific kind, I'm more the artistic kind. Luckiliy I happen to think we need both.

Interesting topic, let's shake hands .

[wysota]

One final question - do you use layouts in your applications?

[nish]

Ahh... no one wins from this man..

[bunjee]

One final question - do you use layouts in your applications?

I do.

(10 characters long)

[wysota]

I do.

Why?

(10 characters long)

Ditto.

[bunjee]

One word, convenience.

[wysota]

Isn't it more convenient not to use it? Simply position widgets on the form and voilla?

[bunjee]

It's simpler to do :

layout->addWidget(myWidget);

layout->addWidget(myWidget);

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

than

myWidget->move(posX, posY);

myWidget->move(posX, posY);

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

[wysota]

It's simpler to run Designer and setup everything there.

[bunjee]

There is another thing you're not going to like : I never use Qt Designer.

:-).