Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 349379
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-02-16
Tom, please don't entangle behavior, which is primarily driven by design (including HIG rules), and toolkits, which have little to do with behavior.
You could take every single GTK+ or GNOME app, port it to Qt and have it look and behave essentially exactly the same. All the toolkit does is provide a mechanism to implement design. And behavior is design.
Google's choice of GTK+ is simple: The people doing the work are more familiar with GTK+. I can hardly beat up on them for that. However, these empty arguments about consistency and all that is apoplectic gum-smacking, plain and simple.
Lord knows I'd have preferred that they used Qt since it at least afforded the *possibility* of *visual* integration across desktop environments. *Behavioral* integration was never a nut they could comprehensively crack anyway. Besides, there's already much *behavioral* inconsistency across apps within the same desktop environment on any OS. In fact, the behavioral paradigm Chrome introduces (no menubar, tabs as processes/windows/apps, etc.) is arguably as purposefully inconsistent as any app introduced on any platform. And I like it. And it anecdotally contradicts arguments that suggest behavioral consistency drives, or should drive, toolkit choice.