Linked by Howard Fosdick on Tue 2nd Jul 2013 21:04 UTC
Editorial Like many of you, I've been watching the big changes in user interfaces over the past few years, trying to make sense of them all. Is there a common explanation for the controversies surrounding the Windows 8 UI and Unity? Where do GNOME 3, KDE, Cinnamon, and MATE fit in? This article offers one view.
Thread beginning with comment 566270
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: No puzzle
by WorknMan on Thu 4th Jul 2013 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No puzzle"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Something like 70-90% of the code in your usual app is for user interface and unreusable on all other platforms. Then there is usually a good chuck platform specific code (data access etc.) that is also unreusable. That means; creating the same app for Android, iOS and Windows is three times the work of creating an app for just one platform.


We're talking about one OS running on multiple devices, not completely separate platforms.

One platform + customization for multiple form-factors is doable, but quickly gets complicated and time consuming. Count yourself lucky if the developer of your app had the time and skills to create one nice interface.


Right, so everyone should be writing web apps instead, which have to account for multiple form factors..... er, wait... aren't we right back where we started?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No puzzle
by 3arn0wl on Thu 4th Jul 2013 20:10 in reply to "RE[3]: No puzzle"
3arn0wl Member since:
2013-07-03

I preface this by admitting that I don't know anything - I came across this article because I'm interested in Ubuntu's possibilities.

I followed the link and read thesunnyk's fascinating article about ideas for Gnome 4 http://blog.quaddmg.com/2013/6/14/ideas-for-gnome-4/ which made sense: if, as Verenkeitin says, a relatively small percentage of the app's algorhythm is the function and the rest is form, then arguably the function should be common, and the form customisable by the usability on a particular machine. Surely that means different flavours of the same milkshake for different computers?

Edited 2013-07-04 20:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No puzzle
by 3arn0wl on Fri 5th Jul 2013 08:57 in reply to "RE[3]: No puzzle"
3arn0wl Member since:
2013-07-03

I preface this by admitting that I don't know anything - I came across this article because I'm interested in Ubuntu's possibilities.

I followed the link and read thesunnyk's fascinating article about ideas for Gnome 4 http://blog.quaddmg.com/2013/6/14/ideas-for-gnome-4/ which made sense: if, as Verenkeitin says, a relatively small percentage of the app's algorhythm is the function and the rest is form, then arguably the function should be common, and the form customisable by the needs of the machine (a different common). Surely that means different flavours of the same milkshake for different computers?

Edited 2013-07-05 08:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1