Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:07 UTC
Editorial Late last week we ran a story on how the Google Chrome team had decided to use Gtk+ as the graphical toolkit for the Linux version of the Chrome web browser. It was a story that caused some serious debate on a variety of aspects, but in this short editorial, I want to focus on one aspect that came forward: the longing for consistency. Several people in the thread stated they were happy with Google's choice for purely selfish reasons: they use only Gtk+ applications on their GNOME desktops. Several people chimed in to say that Qt integrates nicely in a Gtk+ environment. While that may be true from a graphical point of view, that really isn't my problem with mixing toolkits. The issue goes a lot deeper than that.
Thread beginning with comment 349351
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: All guis the same
by abraxas on Mon 16th Feb 2009 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: All guis the same"
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

Shake's interface could be done using native widgets and HIG conventions. There is nothing spectaculary different about it. I'm not arguing that there are not times when you need to stray from strict guidelines but unecessary non-standard widgets, and menus not only look out of place but make it much more difficult to transfer knowledge from application to application. Sometimes it's just the little things that makes all the difference. For example I know that on any GNOME application I can go to Edit->Preferences to change preferences, but other applications have preferences under File, View, Tools, or some other menu location. I know what a button will do when I click it without additional text because icons are used across the system. The learning curve for a new application is much lower when you already have half the menus and buttons figured out the first time you launch it. If everyone decided that they have a better way to do it we would end up with thousands of applications that all worked differently and we would need to learn all the strange conventions of each individual program. No thanks. I'll take a consistent toolkit and HIG over a whiz-bang solution any day of the week. Sure, there are downsides but I don't have enough time and patience to re-adjust habits for every different application I use.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: All guis the same
by dagw on Mon 16th Feb 2009 22:42 in reply to "RE[3]: All guis the same"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Shake's interface could be done using native widgets and HIG conventions.

Which native widgets? Motif? Shake using native Motif widgets would not have been the same app. I realize we're probably not going to agree on this, but suffice to say I think Shake made exactly the right choice going with their own UI widgets. Sure the file selector, for example, was different from the native one, but it was also far more flexible and powerful, something which very quickly made up for the few minutes you spent getting the hang of it. In fact if I was forced to name the app with the best UI I've ever used Shake would definitely be on the top three.

Sure for small utility apps like browser, mail, chat and text editor it is important that cut and paste works the same in all apps, but for apps like Shake internal ease of use is far more important than external consistency.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: All guis the same
by abraxas on Tue 17th Feb 2009 06:10 in reply to "RE[4]: All guis the same"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not tyring to make the argument that Shake needs to use a different toolkit, just that a completely custom toolkit is not necessary and often confusing. You seem to by implying that it's not possible to create an image compositor like Shake with a native toolkit like QT or GTK. I don't buy it.

Reply Parent Score: 2