Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!ames!ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Dog-ugly windows? Message-ID: <40602@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Date: 15 Jan 90 18:51:55 GMT References: <1990Jan11.063225.28025@i-core.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center Lines: 105 In article <1990Jan11.063225.28025@i-core.UUCP> pete@i-core.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) writes: >Speaking of ugly interfaces, is there any uglier than the Amiga's? I'm in >the process of programming a utility and in the process, I have almost >completely redesigned what the window for the program looks like. Take a look at the Sun. Nice hardware, crappy interface. SunView was so vile looking, not to mention their pseudo-object oriented toolbox I just threw up my hands and designed my own (interface and toolbox). Remember that the Amiga interface really doesn't enforce a particular style, except in the most rudimentary elements such as what mouse-button brings up the menus, etc. For example, intuition doesn't give you standard buttons, you must supply your own. You do get stock sliders, but are encouraged to modifiy them and anything else according to your particular creative bent. This has both advantages and drawbacks. The advantages are that the programmer has more control over what her/his software will utilmately look like. The disadvantage is that there is no real cohesive look to Amiga applications, things look rather disjointed, and behave that way. Just look at all of the different file requestors. Some put directories in the name list, clicking on the directory will open it up. Others force you to type in the directory name. The same goes for the devices, some use "df1:, "df0:", "dh1:", and so on. I don't know what my dh1: device is, it could be tools: or prj:. I like the freedom that Intuition gives, but what standards it has should be raised up to a little bit higher level. Although I really appreciated the chance to design all of my windows and gadgets for Distant Suns without some style committee breathing down my neck as happens in the Apple world. Sunview was effectivly designed circa 1984, and was oriented towards a monochrome system. So the look is as flat as my bank-account. The tool-box enforces the monochrome look, so even though few mono. Suns are sold now, the application software still looks dull. This doesn't even cover their colormap problems. The menus use colormap entries 0 and 255, and are enforced. That is, if you have an application running with it's own custom colormap, bringing up a menu might swap in a default colormap to ensure that the menu items are clearly visible. Our software at work runs with a black background and is designed to be used in the dark. If we're not careful, bringing up a menu will change all of the colors, usually turning the black background to white blinding the user (an air-traffic controller). Sun also won't like you use color backgrounds, the backgrounds are only mono. Sun/AT&T are trying to force OpenSore, er, OpenLook upon us. This almost goes too far to enforce a look. Our engineering applications just wouldn't look right with little stick-pins on the menus, Arggh! > >I don't really like the Mac's interface much more. It does look slightly >nicer than the Amiga's, but not much. > Until the nExt came along, I thought the Mack interface was about the most well thought out. (see what happens when you get a menu that's too long to fit on a screen!). But then I saw the Next. >What I _do_ like is the NeXT interface. The machine is outrageously >expensive, the optical drive is outrageously slow, but the GUI brings tears >to my eyes. In the aformentioned program that I'm writing, the NeXT GUI has >been a very big influence. > The 3-Dee look of the NExt/MoTiF/FourSight is very nice. Trouble with that is that on a limited color machine like the Ami, the subtle 3-d details are hard to render. Getting the shadows or highlights to look just right under all of the various possible combinations of colors is next to impossible. The utility 3-D look looked real nice, until I brought up some other applications that used their own colormaps, and then the 3-D gadgets fell apart. >Which brings me to the final point. I heard a rumor that Commodore had >hired a graphic artist to redesign the look of Intuition. True?? A friend >of mine redesigned it himself with DPaint, and although it uses eight colors >it makes the NeXT GUI look like... well... like the current Amiga GUI. Is >there anyway I can get these pictures to the supposed graphic artist at >Commodore? Is this all a hoax? Are we going to be stuck with such a >dog-ugly interface forever? Tain't no hoax. . .. At the Dev.Con last year they showed us the first WB application to use the new style. It was a 3-D approach, and looked real nice. Unfortunately, the application was not included in our developers disks, so was have not been able to get a real close look at it. And so far the 1.4 Alpha releases I've received still use the DogUgly stuff. We recently installed the new Silicon Graphics release on our Iris. Wow!. Take NextStep, advance it 10 years and make it work with 24-bit color and that's what you have. On one demo, you open up a window, and in the window are 4 REAL big buttons, rendered in 3-D. Clicking on a button will cause it be become animated. It will in real-time, tumble out towards you, flipping over. On the back side of the button are more buttons. This button then fills up the window with its back, giving you more selections. Real flashy stuff. For those of you with Suns, I may be posting my toolbox someday if there would be any interest. *** mike smithwick *** "Never trust a surgeon with shaving cuts. . ." [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]