Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Toolkit for Open Look *and* OSF/Motif Look and Feel [why I don't believe]
Message-ID: <1991Feb28.035818.8944@alphalpha.com>
Date: 28 Feb 91 03:58:18 GMT
References: <1991Feb27.001706.22673@Solbourne.COM>
Organization: asi
Lines: 28

In article <1991Feb27.001706.22673@Solbourne.COM> garya@Solbourne.COM (Gary Aitken) writes:
>What to do about it in an application given the current toolkits?
>
>1.  If splitting out the extra button looks good and you have the screen space,
>do it in both models.  The primary reason for using an abbreviated/option
>menu is to conserve screen space/clutter.  If it looks good, expand it out.
>You could claim that is "least common denominator", but it is actually
>just good design in this case.
>
>2.  If you have clutter / screen space problems, you don't have much choice if
>you really are concerned with the clutter/space.
>You have to use the abbreviated / option menu and live with its limitations in
>each model.  Beat on OSF to provide a spec, even if they don't have time to
>do it themselves, so other toolkit vendors can to it right.

Clutter is definitely a problem, and of course beating on OSF is something
I do all the time :-).  My main point still stands.  Virtual toolkits
do not solve the problems created by a complex application.  The designer
must look at the L&Fs *and* the implementations provided under each
GUI and made the design and/or coding tradeoffs that are necessary.
-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)        |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.