Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:32965 comp.windows.x.motif:1968 comp.windows.open-look:631
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!visix!amanda
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.windows.open-look
Subject: Re: Toolkit for Open Look *and* OSF/Motif Look and Feel
Keywords: toolkit, Open Look, OSF/Motif, GUI
Message-ID: <1991Feb19.210822.26826@visix.com>
Date: 19 Feb 91 21:08:22 GMT
References: <1322@ixos.de> <1057@attc.UUCP>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Lines: 50

In article <1057@attc.UUCP> marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) writes:
>   Solbourne OI is probably as close as you can ever get. I think
>   they did a very good job implementing UI *components* which can
>   act "both ways". 

OI looks deeply cool, but even it has some drawbacks.  You need C++, for
one.  Some of us are not yet convinced that C++ is The One True Way :).

>   Keep in mind that you are asking for almost impossible.

I wouldn't go that far...

> The UI "styles" mentioned above have significant differences in the
> overall structure, layout and philosophy (though in many aspect
> both are pretty close).

Agreed.  This is what makes it challenging, though :).

>   Most "toolkits" provide COMPONENTS, and make it APPLICATION
>   responsibility to use those components according to their Style
>   Guide / Specification.

Again, agreed.  However, I view this as a shortcoming of current
toolkits, not of the idea of a uniform API to multiple user interface
styles in and of itself.  Personally, I don't think an application
should have to worry about user interface policy--the user should be
able to pick what they want to use.  Likewise, application developers
should not have to worry about "who's winning the GUI war."  They
should just be able to write an application, and have their users
decide what flavor of interface they want to use.  Low-level details of
user interface policy should not be reflected in the "toolkit" API;
if they need to be, it means that API is not sufficiently expressive,
or high enough level.  The application should specify what it wants to
do, not how to do it.

Part of the problem, also, is that current "toolkits" are focused on
individual user interface elements, and not overall organization of
the interface.  Thus, Xm and OLIT are basically "sacks of parts" that
applications can use to construct a user interface--they do not actually
implement either Motif or Open Look, a task that is left up to the
application developer.  They are better than nothing, but they still 
put too much burden on the application.

Disclaimer: I get paid to change this situation :).

-- 
Amanda Walker						      amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc.					...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
For every vision, there is an equal and opposite revision.