Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:05 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces This is the seventh article in a series on common usability and graphical user interface related terms [part I | part II | part III | part IV | part V | part VI]. On the internet, and especially in forum discussions like we all have here on OSNews, it is almost certain that in any given discussion, someone will most likely bring up usability and GUI related terms - things like spatial memory, widgets, consistency, Fitts' Law, and more. The aim of this series is to explain these terms, learn something about their origins, and finally rate their importance in the field of usability and (graphical) user interface design. In part VII, as promised in part VI, we focus completely on CDE, the Common Desktop Environment.
Thread beginning with comment 287514
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Glynser on Thu 29th Nov 2007 08:20 UTC
Member since:

I personally like the CDE looks. Okay, I don't like the menu's looks and the mouse cursor that turns around, but I like the window borders and the looks of the dock.

Also, I prefer fonts that are not anti-aliased. I prefer windows and buttons that have REAL edges. I hate round edges, I hate anti-aliasing, I hate wobbly wobbly effects, I hate menus and windows that fade in, I hate maximize and minimize animations, I hate color gradients, I hate shiny glassy glossy effects, I hate icons that seem to use the whole 24 bit color space. And I just can't understand why everyone is so eager about them.

THOSE things are the things that are ugly, in my opinion. Anti-aliasing on tiny fonts looks shitty. Round "edges" waste space. Maximize, minimize and fade animations waste time. Shiny glassy effects are everywhere, even on Vista's solitaire cards, it bores me to death and even annoys me. Icons with tons of colors and anti-aliasing are often hard to tell what they should be.

CDE may have its weaknesses, but I can't complain about the overall looks. I wish there were more desktop styles that provide absolute clearness and sharp lines.

One good example of plain shitty looks:
Just compare the "keyboard" icons of the former Windows versions with the ugly XP version. Is THAT a keyboard?! Of course you can recognize it, if you try, but the truth is that all the older icons are absolutely clear and put the word "KEYBOARD" directly into your head. The new XP thing is just a blurry excuse. Or just compare the "My Computer" icons. Clear looks in the past. Blurry mayhem in the present. Maybe glassy glossy shiny stuff in the future. Blargh.

Reply Score: 1