From: Tsume <tsumeruby@...>
Date: 2006-02-19T08:08:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Desktop apps written in Ruby?

On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 06:27 +0900, Scott Weeks wrote:
> 
> This is dead wrong.
> 
> I really don't mean to be inflammatory but users care very much about 
> consistency. In fact consistency is probably the are with the greatest 
> effect on the outcome when designing user interfaces. If you were to 
> magically drop a well designed Cocoa application in the middle of a 
> Windows environment it would confuse the hell out of users, no matter 
> how well it was engineered for usability.
> 

You must deal with the most stupid people of the world then. I'm talking
about normal people. They want an interface which is wizard like. Theres
a reason why Jasc Imaging software, some digital imaging wizard, not the
editor which was such a breeze to use when I slapped it right in front
of a user, its because of the wizard like interface. 

Also, you are right about one comment. Windows users won't know how to
operate MacOSX apps right off, but can learn. MacOSX has a very
different concept of how the windowing system work, also with 1) file
chooser 2) treelist/viewlist. I'm talking about using the toolkit's
basic widgets which are compatible across any system. If I were to write
an application for cross compatibility, I would for one not use the
MacOSX tree widget with a plus/minus button underneath. I'd construct my
own system which is easy to users, or a popup window with a wizard when
you add "something". Its up to the programmer, not the toolkit.

> As well Windows users are more used to pain so they are more forgiving 
> when it comes to non-native interfaces. I do know that Mac apps that 
> aren't native stick out like dogs balls and there is very little chance 
> people will go near them (the sole exception that I can think of is 
> Firefox).
> 

An app is an app. I've seen useful and easy to use applications on
MacOSX without using the Aqua toolkit. Using the native widgets is only
a convenience, not a rule. XChat is completely usable under MacOSX, just
not pretty. Look is a convenience not a rule. Convenience doesn't the
application work to make money. Badly designed applicatoins will loose
money. 2 different topics. The macosx application being slapped on to
users isn't a good comparison because previously stated MacOSX
applications are completely different in how the system works.

> It (like anything else) depends on the task at hand, and I certainly 
> don't mean to come off in the wrong way. I just think it deserves a bit 
> of reflection and I really think that GUI development in Ruby could be 
> amazing if the proper bridges were built to native systems rather than 
> just being Yet Another Language with TK support.
> 

Tk is just fine, with use of Tile, but maybe you didn't see this thread,
or the other similar thread which I replied about Tk/Tile for use with
native widgets on the windows platform. Another good candidate would be
to use Gtk. However when using toolkits on MacOSX, Tk(with tile, except
on MacOSX(TkAqua) is probably the best choice for portability. Its up to
the user to design a good inteface.

Tsume