OSNews

Thats 'BeOS'

Flashy graphics do not translate into a usable UI. If they did hire someone off of either of those sites, I'd advise everyone I came across to avoid it like the plague.

Hahahaha!!
First of all, I have to tell that I agree with you. But we must be aware that some people coud be interested in this kind of feature. I dislike skins: most skins I saw can be defined confusing and distracting for me... but somebody can like them. I don't think it's a must-be-implemented feature but if they'll decide to include it I hope that it will be done in a clever way (the BeOS way) and that the impact on the performance will be minimal. I'd like to run Zeta on oldest computer too. In my very humble opinion, there are much important features to concentrate the development on: drivers and dev tools. BeIDE is nice, but it isn't perfect. I'd like to see improvements in dev tools too! Developers are important...

That's why the skins should be there, for those that want them. Those who are satisfied with the traditional BeOS look don't have to use them. People should have choice, no?

Yes! Sorry, it was exactly what I intended to tell. I'm not interested in skinning, but if they decide to implement it, I hope it will be done with *minimal* impact on the performance of the UI. And there are much important things to care on: Zeta should attract *both* new developers *and* users. I think more advanced dev tools are needed for attracting new developers. Better debugger-BeIDE integration is a feature I'd like to see... yT is doing very well, IMHO

Flashy graphics don't translate into an automatic usable UI, but they do translate into a GUI that has, well, flashy graphics. Which is what most end users want from an operating system. Even here, just look how many comments about vista have to actually do with the usability or underlying structure compared to the theming. Geeks can care about that all they want, but the vast majority of users want an OS that appeals to their artistic sensability.

I think the problem here is how YellowTab seem to be approaching the interface "look." They seem to want to take the original BeOS interface and gradually improve parts of it. However, frankly, in order to get a modern look to the interface, this is not going to work.

What YellowTab really need to do is say "Look, for version 2, we are going to completely update the entire UI." They need to pick a scheme for the look of the windows, colours of menu etc. They want anti-aliased fonts. All these sorts of things.

Unfortunately of course, none of this is trivial. The alternative is just to stick with the BeOS original look, and avoid altering it too much at all.

but the vast majority of users want an OS that appeals to their artistic sensability.

Well great for them. I would suggest they stick with OSes concerned about satisfying those artistic sensibilities.

There are some of us, though, who actually prefer visually minimalist/understated UIs from an aesthetic standpoint. I'm glad Be had the restraint to keep their graphical tech demos confined to demo applications.

again, it's a fine line to tread. Excessive minimalism can lead to dullness, but too flashy can lead to clutter.

A good UI designer is probably more pyschologist than anything else. Recognising what the user will be instinctively expecting is as much about UI as the aesthetics of appearance.

It's a tricky ball of wax, and the more I get involved with it at work, the more respect I have for "good design", and conversely diminishing tolerance for bad deisgn.

"Which is what most end users want from an operating system"

No they dont. Only computer geeks and nerds do. Your average user only cares that it isnt unsightly awfull and that it lets them do whatever they use the computer for (play music, look at photos, send email etc etc).

having done a bit of UI work recently (kind of thrust upon me, but with a "hunger" to want to get it done properly regardless), I can say that the UI is *thee* most important aspect of a product you can possibly be working on.

Flashy graphics can be used, but at every step of the design process, you must evaluate with the utmost criticism, what are you doing, justifying every choice. it's goes back to the old maxim of first impressions count, and it's axiomatic in UI.

However, while there's a section of the BeOS faithful who, to try and be polite about it, can be a bit luddite about UI, it's a mad tightrope act to balance flash with function. You can never be too critical about UI design, and it's good to see yT tackling the matter with the gravity it deserves.

"Flashy graphics do not translate into a usable UI."

This was not the point.

"Maybe they can hire some professional UI designer (take a look to sites like WinCustomize or DeviantArt)."

That's about the last place on earth you should hire a UI designer from. Graphic artists != UI designers.
I prefer an interface that is actually usable and doesnt look like a Gigeresque nightmare or Houston GroundControl.

"But we are in 2006, it is time to go with fully skinnable GUI."
Only geeks really cares about the interface being fully skinnable, ordinary people just want something that is clean and lets them get their tasks done.

"That's about the last place on earth you should hire a UI designer from. Graphic artists != UI designers.
I prefer an interface that is actually usable and doesnt look like a Gigeresque nightmare or Houston GroundControl."

Just the first two names I thought.

"Only geeks really cares about the interface being fully skinnable, ordinary people just want something that is clean and lets them get their tasks done."

Really? Tell the phone companies to shut down that multi-million dollars ringtones market, then. People don't care about that, don't they?

you have that backwards. Geeks want a clean interface that lets them get their work done, normal users want a fully skinnable interface thats flashy

Geeks can use a clean skin, can't they? That's exactly what I do in Windows.

you have that backwards. Geeks want a clean interface that lets them get their work done, normal users want a fully skinnable interface thats flashy

Here's my view, with heavy sterotyping of people that in real life don't really fit into either catagory.

My experiences have been kind of a mixed bag. Most of the computer geeks I know want as little, and as fast, an interface as possible. They'll also be incredibly picky about inconsistancies in appearence.

Normal users want bright colours and animation. The vast majority though, very strongly don't want to do anything to get those effects. They're the crowds who wanted a purple computer, or switched to osx because they like blue buttons. As much as they might like a heavily painted widget set, even changing the theme through two button clicks is usually more than they're willing to go through. One of the biggest things I've noticed though, is tht they don't seem to care too much about graphical inconsistancy once they have the "cool pulsing theme". Inconsistancies from swing, gtk, and wx that make me cringe aren't even noticed by most average users.

"Really? Tell the phone companies to shut down that multi-million dollars ringtones market, then. People don't care about that, don't they?"

Computers arent mobile phones. Your computer sits in your home, immobile, and is at the most seen by your family and a couple of friends. A phone is with you everywhere, seen and heard by a lot of people and is somewhat of a fashion statement in itself.
Thus people care much more about the looks and style of the latter than they do of the former.
As long as the default theme is reasonably pleasing to the eye users arent going to bother too much with changing it. They are more interested in how to easily get their photos on the computer and send them to their friends than changing the color of the buttons or the shape of the window borders.

"As long as the default theme is reasonably pleasing to the eye users arent going to bother too much with changing it."

I second that.
There are roughly 90 "people-with-pc" where I work, and while most of them wants to have a nice picture as background (be it their son, their pet, or whatever), only some people change the color of the interface.

It looks good IMO, Zeta is coming along nicely.

Yes, from what I can make up from my email convos with Bernd Korz, he is extremely excited about this upcoming release, much more so than 1.0/1.1.

I'll try to get my review done by tonight CET, folks, but I ain't guaranteeing anything.

1. Zeta is not open source, it's a commercial product. You are probably thinking about Haiku.
2. BeOS is not another project, it's OS with quite a bit of history.
3. YellowTAB wants to make money, not spend time on BSD or Linux.

4. BeOS/Zeta architecture is quite "newer" than Unix derivatives like Linux is
5. BeOS/Zeta are much cleaner and "structured" systems than Linux is (and, please *note* I'm an hard-core Linux user - Linux is great and is constantly evolving better and better)
6. don't feed trolls ;-)

As miccz points out, you are thinking of Haiku.

So, although this is slightly OT, the reason people spend their time on Haiku is because it is their time to spend as they wish.

Can you imagine the stagnation that would occur if everybody inlolved in OS design went and spent their time on Linux/BSD? Variety feeds innovation. Everyone gains.

As for Zeta - they are spending their time on it because they feel that it is commercially viable. I'd say that that was a pretty good premise for a commercial entity such as yT.

Click on the Deskbar, go to Preferences/Appearance, et voila, the Decor setting is what you're looking for

I thought about that too, my first though was: "They binary hacked Gobe Productive to localize it? No never", so it seems they have the sources yes.

Everybody knows

Operating Systems + Girls = Does Not Compute (eugenia is an exception)

Eugenia is a man, MAN!

When did she become a man? :p

http://www.osnews.com/editor.php?editors_id=1

But she's still an exception to the rule about Technology and Women being incompatible

"i thought it was already clear Yt has the source of Zeta/BeOS?"

Yes, but Gobe Productive is not a part of BeOS, it is (was) a third party application. Now it looks like they have the sources of that, too. Perhaps they have the sources of Productive 3! It was available only for Windows, but there were rumors that a BeOS version was in development as well.