From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2002-07-21T04:32:24+09:00
Subject: Re: GUI's and the Rouge, Part II

On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 12:49, Albert Wagner wrote:
> 1)  GUI design is more of an art form than a technology.  I don't believe that 
> good design of a user interface can be automated.

quite right! it can't be. but we certainly can make the tools for its
PRODUCTION easier.

> 2)  How is replacing a GUI specification with a template an improvement?  The 
> same design decisions that go into a GUI specification will have to go into 
> template design.

why do people use template systems at all? but actually i'm not saying a
template is neccessary. in fact my code example had no mention of a
template. so i'm not replacing a GUi spec with a template. yet i think
template systems are very powerful tools and Rouge or whatever should
have one.

> 3)  It seems that you are unhappy with the concept of a mainloop and 
> callbacks.  Yet, the whole purpose of a GUI is not to just display data but 
> to monitor the user's actions and carry out his intent.  The user's 
> keyboard/mouse actions are an event that triggers a cascade of internal 
> events.  How would you handle this?

this would work much like the gui's we use today. the gui engine still
processes events, and we still provide a means for action when those
events are triggered. i am only proposing the additional ability to
continue execution of the "main line" in parrallel to this. there's
nothing wrong with triggers/events, but i believe it is limiting to be
wholly dependent on those and thus having to internalize ones code into
the gui constructs via procs. in effect, and i don't think i have fully
explored this, i am trying to successfully turn the gui to app
interfacing inside-out.

~transami


-- 
~transami

  _(")_  dobee dobee do...
   \v/  
   ^ ^