Re: [gtk-list] Re: Style Guide - the real issue

["Duane J" <duane_ hotmail com>]

Hi all,

   There seems to be an obvious solution to the configurable / standard 
style, so I'll try to explain.  The issue is how we communicate with our 
computers -- which to me is different than style.  Being able to tell a 
computer what you want it to do is something that is always painful for 
new users of a particular system -- because you literally need to learn 
a new language to be able to "talk" to it.  If there is a standard 
interface (both GUI and keyboard UI), then it will make switching 
applications, workstations and operating systems much easier.

   However, a good UI is also customizable.  After using windows for 5 
years and then coming to the UNIX world, my fingers tingle with 
configuration-fever.  It's great!  I can change anything I want... and I 
think it needs to stay that way.  But this means that I can't use my 
friend's computer without him building a tutorial.  That's frustrating.

   In multi-cultural countries, the only way that unity can be remotely 
possible is if there is a common language... so each person has their 
own way of doing things, plus a language in common with everyone else.  
Ok, so here's the obvious solution:  make GTK support multiple bindings 
at the same time, so that it can be "bilingual".

   There are two ways I can see this working:
1.  Make one interface have "precedence" so that conflicting functions 
can be resolved.
2.  Make an interface easily switchable, such as in Windoze' 
multi-lingual support.  If you enable, for example, a QWERTY keyboard 
AND a Dvorak keyboard, you can switch back and forth by either pressing 
"ALT-SHIFT" or else by clicking the icon in the status bar and selecting 
one of the options.
3.  Both of the above.  ie: Make it so that the interface _that has 
precedence_ is switchable, rather than just the interface.

I hope this is a helpful idea,

Duane Johnson
Programmer / Analyst
Betach Systems Inc.
Calgary, Alberta

>
>>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Hosgood <iisteve@iiweeble.swan.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Steve> Now, I'm not a fan of Micro$oft and their products, but I think
>Steve> I have to admit that they had a sensible idea early on
>Steve> (probably in Windows 2 or earlier) in that they wrote a style
>Steve> guide.
>
>The reality on Windows is that their Style Guide is insufficient to
>write almost any application.  To actually write something that looks
>like a Windows application you must either examine many other Windows
>applications, or use one of their toolkits.  (IMHO, based on trying to
>write a truly native Windows app using Tk -- which doesn't come with
>all the Windows defaults built in.)
>
>So looking at the MS Style Guide as an example would be terrible.
>
>Apple's HCI book is much better, IMHO.  More complete, anyway.
>
>Steve> The same cannot be said of the X window world.
>
>X actually has two standards: OpenLook and Motif.  Both have an
>associated style guide.  The OpenLook book is better, but Motif seems
>to have won the war.
>
>Steve> Now, it is surely fair to claim that GTK should *not* allow
>Steve> random users to redefine its scrollbar widget to work in the
>Steve> 'left button'/'right button' way?  Otherwise we'd all get
>Steve> pretty annoyed if we ever had to use each others' workstations
>Steve> for a moment occasionally.
>
>Good point.  And we'd better force one shell, one keyboard mapping
>(good bye xmodmap), one text editor, and one window manager.
>
>Oops, I'm kidding.
>
>Steve> I extend this claim to cover the 'vi keybindings' argument. I
>Steve> think GTK should have its own keybindings. For convenience they
>Steve> should be chosen to be maximally convenient to the most users
>Steve> at the time they are laid down. From then on, they go in the
>Steve> 'style guide' as *the* GTK way to do something.
>
>This is fine as long as the keybindings are exactly what I want.
>Wait... you want something different?  Too bad -- you're about to
>become an Emacs user.
>
>I'm kidding again.  My point is that limiting configurability so that
>other people can use my workstation is highly bogus.  I work at home.
>Limiting my configurability is just annoying.
>
>I don't think there is any deep voodoo involved in making key bindings
>configurable, either.  Keymaps, as implemented in Emacs, have been
>well-understood for a long, long time.
>
>Steve> But changing *input* methodology in .rc files is, I argue, not
>Steve> a Good Thing.
>
>Legions of Emacs users disagree.  Likewise bash users (I find it hard
>to believe that people use csh, but there they are...).  Etc.
>
>Steve> Should the GTK project even start to think about putting an
>Steve> informal GTK style-guide together before GTK applications get
>Steve> so unlike each other in mentality that they stop being usable?
>
>Gnome is working on a Style Guide.  It isn't nearly finished.
>
>Tom
>
>-- 
>To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe gtk-list-request@redhat.com < 
/dev/null
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com