Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x.motif:2417 comp.windows.open-look:1105 comp.windows.x:34830 comp.windows.misc:1932
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!alice
From: alice@athena.mit.edu (Timothy R Wall)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.motif,comp.windows.open-look,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Question for net.views column in UNIX Today!
Message-ID: <1991Apr4.034903.8104@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 4 Apr 91 03:49:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1991Apr4.034903.8104
References: <9104020203.AA00284@bud.cs.ubc.ca.ubc.ca> <14566@ulysses.att.com> <1991Apr3.052058.6309@alphalpha.com>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 20

In article <1991Apr3.052058.6309@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>>I guess that stuff's really important in the scheme of things, but I had
>>to say it.  Personally, I can't stand the way Motif looks or feels.
>>It just isn't as well thought out as Open Look.  On the other hand,
>I think the default Motif look is pretty bad, however once tailored I
>like it a lot.  The way most vendors run it with their demo applications
>it's pretty apalling though.

	Now, what does one mean when they say 'such-and-such' is ugly,
whether referring to Motif, OL, or Athena's widgets?  I agree
wholeheartedly that whoever decided on the Motif default look must have
been under a lot of eye strain; however, most of the 'look' of the
toolkits can be altered with a little foreground, background, bitmap and
font twiddling in the resources, n'est-ce pas?

	Just wondering what it is the folks are calling ugly...

T. Wall
MIT Parson's Lab
alice@athena.mit.edu