Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!well!nagle From: nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Combining event driven and object orient programming Message-ID: <14025@well.UUCP> Date: 10 Oct 89 17:05:30 GMT References: <13928@well.UUCP> <13929@well.UUCP> <14004@well.UUCP> Reply-To: nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) Distribution: all Lines: 34 In article cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) writes: >How can I get hold of the Apple Human Interface Guidelines? Buy the book, "Apple Human Interface Guidelines", (no author named), Addison-Wesley, 1986, ISBN 0-201-17753-6. >Does it make sense in an object-oriented world (particularly C++)? Modern thinking on user interfaces is that the interface design drives the internals, not the other way round. >How much analysis of >the proposed application is required for this model (it doesn't sound like >much, just a particular mindset that I haven't assimilated yet with C++ in >mind). A lot. This isn't easy. >It seems to me that having a "pressing reason" would be more the norm >in most situations (again, probably a mindset problem). Finding "pressing reasons" to lock the user into a mode is a sign of a bad design. The user ought to be able to do anything at any time that is meaningful to do, even though this may be inconvenient for the application implementor. >Would not these subtasks also have event loops of their own? They might, but their events would be messages from a higher level event handler. Normally, a subtask shouldn't capture the main event processing, since this would lock out the user from doing all the things normally possible at the top level. John Nagle