Skinning does not really receive the appreciation it deserves. After posting my comparison article about LiteStep and Talisman, I was astonished to (still) hear people say that skinning and theming is useless. They literally said:“I’m all for an alternative shell especially if it is more stable, but I think the whole skinning things is a waste of time. Personally if you like the look and feel of an OS that you are not running then you need to switch to that OS. I think that it is kind of foolish to want Windows to look like NeXT, Aqua, or OSF/Motif. If you want your Windows system to work like *NIX then move to a *NIX platform. If you want it tool look like Mac, BeOS, OS/2, etc… Move to that platform. If you are unwilling to give up your MS Applications, deal with the GUI they provide. You’ll find that your productivity goes up if you focus on using the computer vs. trying to change its appearance.”
Note: The author is not a native english speaker so please forgive any grammar mistakes.
I have seen these reactions before. I do not get this. So, do you wear the same outfit day in day out, your whole life? Do you have your hair exactly the same way, day in day out, your whole life? Do you never give your house a paint job? Do you never rearrange your living room? I do not think so.
For me, skinning is not necessarily about adding extra functionality; it is more about making things look better. That is what everyone does, their whole lives. You wear the clothes you like, because (you think/hope) they make you look better. It is also something that you can use to set yourself apart from the rest. When my not-so-interested-in-computers friends come over, they are always impressed with my latest themed & skinned Windows/Mandrake desktop (I once received the response: “Wow, do you have Mac OS X now, on your PC? Cool!”)
The statement that you should not make your OS look like one it is not, does not really make any sense. If that is true, then you should not add any extra GUI features to Linux, you should not install X, you should not install KDE or Gnome, you should just resort to the command line. Does that make sense? No it does not. KDE and Gnome (the two major window managers for X) have a very strong resemblance to Windows’ standard shell, Explorer. Although they tend to move their own separate ways these days, they still have the same layout as introduced by Windows ’95 (introduced to the masses, that is, it was not that refreshing). The same of course goes for Windows. It still features the same layout as it did eight years ago.
I do not know about the rest of us, but I am not willing to use the same general layout on several different operating systems for a longer period of time. And that is were themeing and skinning come in extremely handy. It comes down to this: after eight years of being bored, I want something new. And if the ‘companies’ won’t give it to me, then I will have to make sure I will get is somewhere else!
Skinning is more of a personality thing. I want the things around me to be beautiful (sounds kind of arrogant, doesn’t it?). I have bought a black keyboard, a black trackball, a black 5.1 surround set for my PC, instead of the standard PC beige/grey. Why? Certainly not because they are cheaper (the black edition of my keyboard actually cost me about five euros more). Also not because they are more functional in any way (because they are not). I only did so because it lookes a whole lot better. The next steps I am willing to take is to start ‘modding’ my case (right now it is placed as much out of sight as possible), and to spend (too much) money on a slick 19″ flat screen TFT (hopefully a Nuevo).
But skinning is not only about eye-candy. It can definitely add extra functionality. If you need every square millimeter of your screen, a minimalistic theme would come in very handy. And how about public computers? Let’s say, computers in a city hall, or in a museum. You could configure the shell in such a way that only the functions people need on that public computer, can be accessed. Another thing it can be great for is multimedia computers (you know, those things with TV/radio-cards, DVD players, remote control and all that), placed in your living room. You could configure it to only show buttons/icons for the DVD player, the VCR function, and so on. Very handy since some families tend to have kids running around. This way they won’t be able to mess up your PC. And, if you use a free alternate shell to accomplish this, it will save you the extra money you have to pay for Windows XP MCE. Nice examples can be seen on the Talisman website (http://www.lighttek.com/themes2/example_htpc.htm).
What Is Wrong With It?
Now, why is skinning so underestimated then? I think it has to do with the fact that geeks consider a flashy and shiny interface ‘end-user-like’ and unprofessional, while, on the other hand, the end-user finds it geeky and too professional.
So who does like skinning? I think there is a group, between the end-user and the geek. They are too technical to be considered end-users, but they are not technical enough to be geeks. They do not program, nor do they want to learn how to. On the other hand, they do try out other operating systems. They just do not know of all the underlying technical stuff.
This group is small, very small. I think you can compare it to climbing a mountain, in order to get a good view. Some people loose there courage when at the foot of the mountain. They sit down and think: “This ain’t for me!” They are the end-users. Others become more and more enthusiastic when they reach the mountain. They immediately start climbing, they fall down once in a while, but they keep on trying, and eventually they reach the top. They are the geeks (by the way, I am not using this term in a negative way). Then you have that middle group. They also start climbing, but with less enthusiasm. They do not fall down, but they do move at a much smaller pace than the geeks do. Eventually, they just had it with this climbing thing. They sit down, and enjoy the view. They might move up little, they might move down a little. But they do not reach the top, they do not see the use in that; the view is also beautiful here.
The end-users look up and they see the middle group. “God, they are bunch of mountain rangers!” The end-users do not see the geeks; they are too high to be seen. The geeks look down and see the middle group as well. “Bunch of quitters!” they think.
Well, in that middle group is where you will find the skinners. Considered geeks by the average user, and considered computer illiterate by the technical users. They reside in between. Imagine what would happen if the geeks stretched out their hands in order to get some of the middle group at the summit? We would finally see some graphical ‘user’ interfaces for a change, instead of just graphical interfaces.
Sweet metaphors. I don’t know if they’re right, but certainly there’s some art to this article.
Some usability gurus seem to think that every little change to a UI is so terrible that typing a letter into a wordprocessor will trash its usability.
Winamp2 had usable skinning. Winamp3 didn’t. I would like to see a usability study done on Winamp2.
I have seen these reactions before. I do not get this. So, do you wear the same outfit day in day out, your whole life? Do you have your hair exactly the same way, day in day out, your whole life? Do you never give your house a paint job? Do you never rearrange your living room? I do not think so.
All of the things the author refers to are non-interactive. Better questions to ask would be:
* Do you write in a different lanquage every day?
* Does your cable company re-arrange the channel lineup every day? Do you wish they did?
* Do you intentionally re-arrange all of the controls in your car, just to be different?
* Do you switch your keyboard from QWERTY to DVORAK on a moments notice?
* Do you re-arrange the contents of your kitchen cabinets, just to hear your significant other go, “Wow, I like random, unannounced change!”?
In any of those situations change would be, at least, a hindrance to your interaction with the product. At worst (e.g. the automobile) it could lead to disasterous results.
Any time a human has to interact with something, especially similar products from different manufacturers, consistancy in the interface lessens the learning time and transition time needed to move from one make to another.
BTW, to support his point: “For me, skinning is not necessarily about adding extra functionality; it is more about making things look better.”
Has anyone read Peopleware, which points out a study done on office workers, where raising the brightness increased productivity? Then they lowered it — productivity continued to rise. They eventually realized the act of changing the light increased productivity; some part of people need small changes in their environment.
I think the author felt he had to apologize for novelty and beauty. But it actually increases productivity, and that’s the ultimate metric for usability.
Nice article, well-argued points. I usually use a fairly standard skin (not default), but I dislike the weirder stuff. E.g. Xine (and other players) look like their hardware counterparts. I understand the skinners a bit better now.
I suppose I’m two-thirds up the mountain. 🙂
I have the reply to people who say “If you want the look of OSX so bad, just buy a mac”. I say “oh ok, so it would be ok for me to use the Aqua look if it was a mac but since it’s not, then it’s not ok?” Come on, what difference does it make? I like the OSX dock. I don’t like it enough to buy a $1,500 computer! So I just use one of the various free docks out there.
Skinning is not bad itself. The problem is that it is hard to match skins on all apps you use, so a lot of people decide to skip the whole trouble. Just try to match skins of sound card driver, video card driver, audio player, video player, browser and the system itself. No matter how much you try, your computer would be digital equivalent of a clown sipping Pepsi in Victorian armchair inside car factory production facilities. And if you add an instant messenging client into the pile, the clown in question would be listening to Death Metal
“The problem is that it is hard to match skins on all apps you use (…)”
Hey man, that’s where WindowBlinds comes in very handy– it skins every window (also IM clients!).
But you do have apoint here. That’s why some of the better skin designers have skin suites– and since they mostly release their work in such a way that it is freely distributable, a lot of people port certain skins and themes into other apps.
Take the Noia icon set for example (do a google search). In my opinion the best Icon set ever made. It was orignally designed for KDE (I think), but now it is available on Gnome, Windows, Mac (only not on BeOS
…). Also different color versions have been made (the natural version, the bogart version, the warm version etc.).
But when doing your desktop, you should indeed pay attention to the fact that a certain look may not be available on your fav app. For instance, I’m still looking for a an Aqua skin for KewlpÄd…
The only argument against skinning I can find (yes, I’m guilty, too) is that it wastes system resources. I’m a power-user that uses lots of his CPU cycles. I’m running an AthlonXP 1400+ and that’s barely enough. Even using the Luna skin was too much. Than, I switched to using SharpE (www.lowdimension.net) a great shell replacemnt with many plugins and add ons. It does NOT support theming, but it is very functional and useful. It just slightly works on the basic Explorer stuff. Check out the screens at their site.
In conjuction I’m using Samurize, CursorXP and StyleXP because these pieces of software waste least CPU. Yeah, StyleXP takes up just as much as Luna, but using SharpE considerabely decreased CPU load.
Also, the UI has become much more usable, and definetely increased productivity. Yeah, all these things need to be configured, but much faster than say LiteStep.
Nowadays, many skin-makers make skins for many applications at once. Also, it’s easy to find color-compatible themes. For example, I use ChaNinja’s StyleXP and CursorXP themes, under the SubZero color scheme. Which matches SharpE’s Graphite color scheme, and the default Trillian Pro skin, as well as that of Opera 7.11. Perfect! I made Samurize look good, and everything beautiful in shades of similiar blue and whites.
It is visual perfection, coupled with usability.
HUZZAH.
I’m not really too crazy about skins and themes myself. I run XP here, and I just run the UI in classic mode. I’m happy with it…
Although I do theme my browsers. But I never change the themes. Like with Mozilla and Firebird. I love the Pinball theme! I can’t live without it. In fact, I refuse to upgrade to each new release until Pinball has been updated for it.
And on Opera I have a very nice Aqua theme that I downloaded and then customized.
But I never change my themes and skinks? In fact, I’ve had the same dull and boring skin on Winamp for like the past three years! I don’t really like change very much… I guess that’s why I stick with the classic UI in XP?? I’ve tried using different themes with it and even shell replacements, but I always go back to the classic UI.
On my Linux box, I run Gnome with the Crux theme, I love it. No reason to change it!
The only thing I really change are colours. The window title bars in XP and Gnome… That’s it, the rest is default.
Of course
Right now I’m testing Astonshell ( http://www.astonshell.com )
Think we might have a winner here…
He is right skinning isn’t for everyone. in KDE I run a skin similar to Aqua. Why it is pleasant on the eyes. in Windows I have a custom theme for win ME (it came with the computer and I don’t like XP’s EULA) I Prefer my control Bars at the Top of the screen, why? because Apple is right, 90% of the time I use the top half of the screen.
If I let one of my nonn-technical relatives use my machine to even surf the web. They can’t figure it out until I open the browser for them. They don’t seem to understand that just because something looks different it is not different.
We the wanders of Cyberspace don’t always need to have things told to us, We have the ability to see how something works, with out the need of being told.
peragrin
There are a couple of bad arguments I’ve seen against skinning:
1) It impacts consistency. This depends on how your theme API is designed. A well designed theme API allows the look to change consistantly across the entire environment. When all apps delegate the “look” to the theme engine in a consistent manner, themes can look just as consistent as built-in apps. An example of a good theming is Qt’s and GTK’s, where all themed apps look the same. And example of a bad theming engine is XP’s, where programs like Office 2000 and Visual Studio.NET look very different from other apps. There are some limitations to this, of course — KDE will always look better with blueish themes, because many apps have custom icons that follow that style, but you still have a great deal of flexibility.
2) It confuses users. Anonymous above, in his statement about “inconsistent comparisons” fell prey to this one. A theme is a visual change, not a functional one. Changing your theme is not like changing the controls of your car, but changing the color of the interior. Its not like writing in a different language, but using different fonts and styles in different documents. Its not like rearranging your cabinets, but resurfacing them and changing the handles from brass to silver.
3) Its slow. It depends on your theme engine. The traditional thinking is that a hard-coded style can be fast because it is hard-coded. Well, in Qt and GTK’s theme engine, each theme is really a loadable library of C++ code (1000-3000 lines of code in size) that use Qt Painter or GDK calls to directly draw the interface. It *is* hardcoded — but you can change what it is hardcoded as.
Skinning is for kids with to much time on their hands.
I liked BeOS with their default theme, the only thing I change once in a while is the background picture.
I am all for an Explorer replacement on a Windows machine if it uses fewer system resources and/or is more stable and/or allows me to use the machine more efficiently.
I experienced this with Talisman and Litestep (although I haven’t used Litestep since version .91, or something like that).
Taliman broke on me and has some issues on an NT box as well. I originally started using it because explorer.exe was crashing several times a day.
I certainly don’t want to “skin”, dress up, or otherwise decorate my windows however. I prefer to reduce them to be as unoticeable as possible. I want to concentrate on the window contents and want the window to nearly blend in with the gray background. I also like to be able to click anywhere on the desktop to open a program menu.
Whoever decided that moving the mouse to the lower left-hand corner of the display was efficient, was an idiot. The top of the display makes some sense since other menus tend to be located there, but being able to click anywhere means a lot less movement of that thing I don’t like to touch much anyway. Other than when using a default Windows installation I rarely find the mouse cursor near the lower-left corner.
A whole bunch of candy stuck in my eye makes me wince, but if I can gain ergonomic GUI functionality from a shell replacement and save some system resources and improve stability, then it’s a good thing. Using skinning/theming for decorative purposes however is strictly kid’s stuff. If your goal is to try to impress your friends then you really need to get a life.
It never ceases to amaze me how a (l)user can learn to make the desktop environment incredibly hideous through use of the the Windows Display “Appearance” tab, yet doesn’t know basic stuff like drag and drop, and copy and paste or how to open a file through “Network Neighborhood” or “My Computer”. Skinning and themeing for strictly appearance purposes alone is in the same league, about as useless a a screensaver.
We’re talking about a group made up of computer geeks. I’m sure many of us would in fact like to live in a world where a single black t-shirt and jeans was the sole choice.
I can’t blame someone for wanting a nice GUI. Neither can I really blame someone for wanting to personalize the environment in which they work. Skinning does create problems, though. Few of them would make a system completely unusable. Consistency of the interface is just one example. The main problem, though, is that people who design skins generally come from an artsy background with no experience in making something not only pretty, but also being able to easily use the skin without having to unlearn habits developed using another skin. Whenever you hear a usability person talk about good and bad things about an interface, most of the time, they’re things that are little which are the equivalent of sand in your shoes – nothing earth-shattering, but definitely annoying. People are really good at developing habits. That’s why Windows’ “Are you sure?” confirmations are not only annoying but also useless – people, out of habit, click ‘Yes’. Other things, like really tiny buttons, require the skillz of a Quake III master to click on. I’ve also seen WinAmp skins, for example, which were in an LCD display style, and you couldn’t read them because the contrast between the text and the background was so small, you couldn’t read the thing.
First, I like the article. Perfectly describes my brother, down at the mountain’s base!
I’m a minimalist through and through, and have been using Blackbox for windows for almost a year now, non-stop. Uses few resources, and is extensible through plugins, etc. Good solid performer. Highly recommended (unless you prefer default icons in the UI).
How people really tell that skinning eats up resources. I hardly see my computer go consistently above 30% processor cyles, and nowadays, I rarely see it above 200MB of my RAM, unless I am doing something pretty hectic. So resources are not always an issue.
Life is a tree full of monkeys…The ones on the top look down and see nothing but smiling faces,the ones on the bottom look up and see…nothing but assholes.
This article brought that old joke to mind,
Being one of the middle ground,I can appriciate the author’s sentiments,but when is enough enough?Having checek out various OS’s in my day I have seen many different approaches to this skinnability thing,everything from QNX which comes with basically one choice,to BeOS which comes with 4 different choices of title bars,and very little in the way you can modify them color -wise,next comes windows which allows you to set colors on most things,and MacOS which comes with some theming,to the other end of the spectrum…Linux which comes with several desktuo environments and a dizzying array of themes and schemes for each…very confusing and a person can spend days just figuring out which theme they like best.
personally(although I’m not a big fan of M$) I think windows has the sanest approach to the theming issue.But in all fairness I think BeOS has the most user-friendly GUI and the fastest and easyest to use,followed by the MacOS with the *nixes tying for dead last,even though they have the most available eye-candy,they still lag behind in the basic concepts of drag and drop,and point and click,and insist in doing things other modern OS’s do with the mouse from the keyboard or the commandline.Which reminds me of another saying about polishing a turd.
With GNOME removing (useless) featurues, they should remove theme support. You can still change the default fonts, but themes are useless.
GNOME (gtk) needs a consistant look across platforms, so of course once all the good applications adhear to the HIG and we have the new file/open/save dialog, we’ll be complete.
Go Gnome!
PS: Default GNOME theme should be Bluecurve (new version), it’s the cleanest, and designed the best.
It is nice to be able to customize the desktop.
a couple of years ago. Now it’s another useless feature. Everybody eventually uninstalls Windowsblinds and goes back to the Windows XP Luna interface. Nobody cares anymore. 98% of all Gnome UI (Themes) are fugly (art.gnome.org). Keramik is too. Bluecurve = Gnome UI and is the best looking one to date. If you it to look like Aqua then GET A MAC and experience it first hand.
OT: I never understood why someone is so cheap that (s)he couldn’t buy a Mac yet they buy outrageously expensive video cards like ATI 9800 Pro. Cheap bastard syndrome? This might need a study.
I don’t mind skinning itself.
I mind skinning when it is forced on you.
I don’t mind skinning as long as the interface remains consistent. An example of this is WindowBlinds, which skins the complete environment (as much as it can) so factors like predictability and consistency are (mostly) maintained. Right now I am using the BlueCurve skin since I think the BlueCurve widgets are nicer to look at than Windows Classic and at the same time are WAY easier on the eyes than Luna (I hate Luna).
What really annoys me is when I am forced to have an application that looks different to everything else because the developers decided to make the program skinnable without thinking on those who do not use skins at all. Just look at the skinnable programs out there that use incompatible skinning schemes: winamp, windows media player, trillian, the rest of the IM programs, Mozilla, Opera… and the list grows and grows. The worse thing is that half of these applications do not include a skin that resembles the default interface. That to me is, in a word, irresponsbile. Of the skinnable applications I have right now, only WMP has a skin that makes the application look like a Windows program, but such a skin has very limited functionality. Mozilla’s classic is not perfect (though Firebird’s Qute does a lot better job). Winamp 3 has no Windows skin AFAIK, and Winamp 2’s classic skins are not perfect (small widgets). Trillian’s Windows ME looks pretty close, but I have to live with the author’s assumptions that you are using a non antialiased Arial on the menus (I use Verdana and Cleartype). I don’t think I ave to worry much about ObjectDock, but that is a special case. I think OpenOffice is the only one that does a good job with its “skin”.
So in other words, even if I were using Windows Classic it is impossible for me to have a consistent interface, all thanks to skinning and how “cool” it is. And I am not even considering the Swing programs I use (and the Windows look and feel is not that good), nor the different widget toolkits out there. Nowadays it is hard to have a consistent look for menus nowadays.
So I am now using WindowBlinds with BlueCurve. What does that means to me? I have to find a decent BlueCurve skins for all the skinnable applications, of which I only found a good one for Winamp2. Mozilla does OK because it delegates the widgets to the system (still not perfect), OpenOffice now looks out of place, there is no skin for WMP, and there is no skin for Trillian .74.
Why can’t skinning be just an additional option? And why can’t programs delegate the look of widgets to the system when no skins are to be used?
Been using the Windows ‘classic’ look since 1995 and I have never gotten tired of it. I understand though that some people have different preferences .. that’s what Windows XP themes and Window Blinds is for.
As it stands, I have the UI just the way I like it and nothing pisses me off more than when some nimrod developer dresses his app up in some god-awful monstrosity UI that I now have to work around somehow by going out and hunting for a different skin. Hell, I think I have at least 5 different applications that support skinning. Why do they do this? Is the developer so arrogant to assume that he knows what’s better for me than I do? Even if you are a developer and absolutely insist on pissing in my face by having your app override my UI of choice, then at LEAST have the common courtesy to allow me to turn it off and go back to the ‘normal’ UI that I use and like very much.
I like the Kde skins the best, or better than blue curve. What about Suse Linux does it have all the nice fonts installed?
Very good article, with very good points. Skinning has become and art, and there is some astonishing work out there.
http://www.blueperlsystems.com
Be cool!
I use OSX, KDE, and sometimes WindowsXP and Gnome.
I wish to defense the skinning scene. Now i’m a iconist, but i was started making DesktopX skins. Yes, it (desktopx) don’t make your computer interaction more productive, but perfectly more beautiful.
There’s many skinneable apps, and there’s many people who likes the customization. Who never changed their wallpaper?
KDE (and Gnome) started with customization in mid. They allows to customize almost all every visual aspect. A complete iconset for KDE 3.1 needs more than 600 different icons! Maybe i’m not a hardware guru, or a experienced developper, but it’s really a hard work. But, the most hard, is to make a consistent skin, or a cosistent iconset, or better, a consistent skin suite.
Since a skinner or a iconist have great taste, and makes an innovative style, or simply makes a beatiful skin, it can make commercial works. Really, i, as many other great “computer artists” receive lots of commercial petitions for websites, commercial apps, and many “modern technologies related” petitions (interfaces, logo designs…). And this is thanks to skinning. Now, i allways says “no” to these petitions (i waork as a graphic designer, and the skinning is a hobby for me), but there’s people receiving money for that work, including by major companies such Microsoft (TM or what’s going here).
Other cases are the MacOS rippers (or WindowsXP, BEoS, me too incredibly!).
Surelly the most OSnews visitors are OS geeks (if that site is called (SKINnews, more visitors must be skinners and skin users, and they will disagree with an article about the compilation of the Linux 2.59 kernel). I understand you may disagree with customization, specially with some skins; you need the most fast interaction with your computer, and some skins needs more steps by the users.
IMO, a good skin, is that who everyone understand the designs, and find every option easily. But, many skins and icons -specially mine-, are intended to simply add more beauty on your desktop.
Surelly some things will change on the desktops. M. Windows will use the same interface in the next 10 years (only minor cosmetic changes and maybe some special effects, but the BG company needs the backward compatibility, not the innovation on desktop). Apple OSX now have a good graphic server, maybe the best, but it will be used during the nexts years too; i never said a real innovation in their interface since OSX is created, and i guess they are thinking “Hey, we have the best desktop”. The future is in Linux. There’s many projects to a new X server (or a new graphic server); KDE it’s making a lot of improvements in every release; Gnome is going in the right way (their own personality, the use of OO desktop, the simplicity of things; the Linux scene is started lately, and actually their desktops seems to copy some of the Microsoft and Apple desktops; but, is the OS with more improvements in the last times.
Of course, you can still using the command line, but the other users (more than 90% including OSX and Windows users) are looking for a good desktop. If you wish more users to “switch” to Linux, you must support the Desktop.
and i am allowed to be the self rightous git to say that. i was a skinner (kinda still am -> gr1dl0ck.deviantart.com for example).
there is no more useless thing that skinning.full stop.
as I can see it; the loss in consistency (as has been mentioned before) is to great to overcome the negligible benifits you gain (a nicer UI). and in some cases, it has become a hinderance (eg *nix). This case is where the different toolkits and apps all provide a different look and feel – mozilla always jars with everything, the gimp looks like arse nomatter what gtk theme you use (ironic really) – and you have no choice but to use skinning (well, if you want an sembalance of a modern gui).
i think apple has the right idea, with 2 skins that are system wide and high quality (they did useablility studies, which is more than can be sed for mose skins). They also get around the problem of extendability. If a developer needs to make a widget for his/her app that is radicly different to the toolkits supplied defaults, in OSX they can create the graphics they need and (with at most 2 variations – aqua and graphite) be certain they arent going to have ugly programs on someones system. contrast that with windows or linux – windows has 3 default skins (one sponsered by crayola im sure) in addition to classic (huge range of colors, not hard to support, but you have to have different drawing code to manage it vs the image based luna skins). Linux is really bad. nomatter what you do, it will clash with something.
for the record, i am a linux user, and have done about 4ish years of skinning, including about 2 in the windows / alt shell world (litestep, WA2 (a terible app to try to skin, but still one of the few to feel ‘right’ when its done properly), geoshell, reveal, icesphere).
Not only is skinning bad for consistency but it also can harm usability. Recall the hundreds of winamp skins with miniature unusable buttons. True, it’s up to the user to pick and choose which skins they install, but this only points out something else–that there should be a distinction between what can be skinned and what can’t.
Namely, themeing shouldn’t be so deep as to completely switch widgets, they should instead only allow superficial changes in appearance. It’s hard to say what qualifies for that and what doesn’t and I’m not a UI researcher, but I think one thing that can’t change is things like control dimensions and positions. With a few exceptions like position of say, the windows taskbar, movement of any controls is what confuses users, not so much changes in control appearance…..
I think the problem with skinning is that people often become too obsessed with looks and actually forget about functionality. As someone mentioned Winamp 2 is unbelieveably more usable than winamp 3, it uses simple skinning and is a simple app (not technically of course – simple to use). Many programs today are expanding beyone their needs (I never want to play videos in winamp – it’s my music tool) and this sometimes includes skinning capabilities – e.g. kazaa – what’s the point?
Apple had the right idea with their abandoned version of MacOS 8, called “Copland”. I think this is the first time I saw the concept of skinning done right. Themes were os-level, and effected all applications. Plus, the high-tech theme was amazing!
Kaleidoscope for MacOS, WindowBlinds for windows, and Gnome/KDE all have the right idea. Only when it becomes per-application does theming cause any real issues (other than perhaps lack of recognition of what OS is being used, but does this really matter to most end users?).
Bingo!!! I couldn’t agree with you more.
I have never used MacOS 8 or copland, but if the OS controled the skinning, then it would be safer than a 3rd party application. I am unsure about other OS’s but in Windows when drawing you used GDI objects, the OS only had so many to go around, and I have seen a lot of 3rd party applications who do skin themselves use more GDI objects than they release. (They are suppose to be released after all of the drawing is completed) That is why skinning can cause resource issues. But if they want to skin their personal computer it’s fine, in a business world where everyone’s usability is different, stick with defaults. Easier on the user and the tech who has to fix their problems
Heh. I think there are two camps of “skinners” here. You’ve got the Windows camp, which equates skinning with per-application nastiness. You’ve got the *NIX camp, which equates skinning with whole-desktop goodness. I agree that the first type sucks badly — the user wants a desktop to be consistent, both among applications and with their pesonal preferences.
However, I think the second type of skinning is essential. If everybody had the same taste, then according to the focus groups, I should love Luna. But I think its vomit inducing. Without skinning, Windows would be unusable to me and a lot of old-school Windows users. Also, there are specific needs that people need to take into account. I’ve got an LCD. LCD’s are often lower contrast than other types of screens. Thus, I prefer a theme with good contrast, like ThinKeramik or DotNET. I couldn’t stand to use a washed-out, soft theme like Aqua. As for the poster who suggested removing skinning support in GNOME — what purpose would that serve? Users who don’t want to choose can just pretend Bluecurve (which I can’t stand, btw) was shoved down their throat. They never even have to go to the theme preferences panel. However, a large number of *NIX core users would leave GNOME for the greener pastures of KDE and other window managers. The masses can stop conforming long enough to choose different car styles and colors, so surely they can handle skinning!
It is really pretty simple. If you do not want to change your computer’s appearance, then DON’T. Having the ability to change themes does not affect you adversely at all. It really is that simple.
-G
Agreed – In corporate environments, the ability of the user to customize nearly anything is usually eliminated for simplicity’s sake. So, skinning really has no place in the corporate world if you look at it that way.
For example, where I work any workstations running windows XP are using the old classic windows theme. However, should they change the theme to Luna, most users would be able to operate the computers just as effectively.
I think the other features, such as reverting to the classic start menu, have a much bigger impact on users.
So I would have to argue that skinning, if done right, does not impact a user’s ability to interact with a computer. What really matters to end users – Is the “My Computer” icon still there? Does the start menu work the same way? Can they still do feature <whatever> that they were used to? Etc, etc. Thats the trouble with Linux on the desktop. It works fine, but it isn’t what everyone else is used to.
Skinning applications wouldn’t bother me IF everything else in the application was implemented and working.
Too often I see skinning added as a feature because it is “kewl”, while the basic features of the software are yet to be implemented, or are so full of errors that the ONLY working feature is skinning.
I don’t see the general/average user argument having any merit here. I mean, it’s not like we are forcing skinning on anyone. Don’t use it, if you don’t like it. It’s a personal choice. Therfore if someone chooses to alter his UI, that’s his own choice.
in the works of #freebsd, “Send patches.” (or make skins, or UIs or whatever. make yourself happy. can’t do so? then appreciate the hard work of other people. we never said life was fair. software is part of it.)
I think there’s a difference here. To me, wrapping a skin around an existing app isn’t that much of a usability issue. It’s when someone dramatically MODIFIES the positions, sizes, or shapes of the gadgets that even I get confused.
Ever see a media player that looked orb-like where you have no clue what the hell you were supposed to do to make it go? Sure it looks cool, but who has time for this foolishness?
Here’s another usability example for you. Working at a school where I get international student computers to connect to our network, I often see some strange metaphoric action. Last year, a Korean machine came in that totally threw me for a loop.
It was a Samsung laptop running a version of Windows XP where every icon was egg-related. An egg right side up, two eggs side-by-side, scrambled eggs, a vibrating egg (yeah you perverts out there, I got a laugh out of that also
, a hatched egg with a chick nearby, etc. Usually, I’m pretty good reading through this stuff regardless of language, but try as I might, I could not understand the relationships between the icons or their purpose. I had to have the poor girl sit next to me the whole time and translate everything (and English wasn’t exactly her first language either!)
All of the things the author refers to are non-interactive. Better questions to ask would be:
* Do you write in a different lanquage every day?
* Does your cable company re-arrange the channel lineup every day? Do you wish they did?
* Do you intentionally re-arrange all of the controls in your car, just to be different?
* Do you switch your keyboard from QWERTY to DVORAK on a moments notice?
* Do you re-arrange the contents of your kitchen cabinets, just to hear your significant other go, “Wow, I like random, unannounced change!”?
The abovementioned comparisons really have nothing to do with skinning. Skinning is a personal issue. It very seldom changes the functionality, but modifies the colors, shapes and feeling to better with the ones of the user. It is a private thing.
“Do you write in a different lanquage every day?
* Does your cable company re-arrange the channel lineup every day? Do you wish they did?
* Do you intentionally re-arrange all of the controls in your car, just to be different?
* Do you switch your keyboard from QWERTY to DVORAK on a moments notice?
* Do you re-arrange the contents of your kitchen cabinets, just to hear your significant other go, “Wow, I like random, unannounced change!”? ”
Skinning is not like this at all,
1. it’s more like do you write ina different style every day.
2. More does your cable company change the look of the UI every day or do the channels change the look of their logo. But this is messed up anyway, ebcause skinning doesen’t usually change trademarked logos.
3. Skinning does not rearrange anything this is what you don’t seem to get, it is simply changing the look and rarely the feel.
4. Again same type of stupid comparrison.
5. Yet again a similar comparrison.
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=4607&entry=1#145807
Skinnign is only slower if the skins are slower, sometimes the skins are faster as in the case of Liquid. BTW, where is mosfet?
I have mixed feelings about skinning. What I hate is when a perfectly good useable program goes and changes their default skin. Winblows Media player is notorious for this, especially v9 which ruins the perfectly good v8. For the first time ever they release a version of media player I like, then they destroy it into a near unusable state in the next version. Worse is when they don’t provide a skin that matches the old interface.
On the whole, I am against skinning for those reasons, since I think all programs under an OS should use the same interface. The idea of skinning the whole OS has it’s appeal, and gets around a lot of the speed and usability issues you see with per-application skinning.
A example of a good skinning setup is windows XP. The luna theme makes me want to barf, and the new menu and ‘personalized menus’ drive me crazy since I can’t find anything on them. The whole point of a menu is to show you ALL the options, not just those you use every day, that’s what toolbars are for. That said, every single thing they screwed up can be turned off, something for which most every XP user I know is eternally grateful for. In fact, I don’t know a single person on XP that leaves it in Luna, and I know lots of people who bad mouth it worse than forthcoming remake of Battlestar Galactica.
Even so, per application skinning has it’s uses, especially when you encounter ones that actually increase functionality. A good example of this is Trillian, where the default skin (and a lot of the other skins) don’t show you which protocol each contact is on, yet there are skins that identify each contact types protocol in addition to their status. This is useful since the send/recieve file interface doesn’t work on certain IM protocols.
Bottom line, when it’s done right it can be very useful. Done wrong it is nothing but a headache, but that can be said about most any program, ja?
To me, skinning is just like those “beauty” modifications for your car or recently, your computer case. Adding bells and whistles here, a little chrome there, and replace the Honda logo with a BMW logo. You spend lots of time and money on doing that, polishing a little here and there, and in the on the day, your car still is a Civic, it still takes you 5 hours to drive to your parents’ house and you’re not a better driver than before.
If you mean Riceboys, I can see that. I laugh hysterically whenever I see something stupid pimped out like a Ford Escort. Racing tires, mud flaps and spoilers do not belong on a car that was designed to commercially compete with the Dodge Omni and the Yugo.
And coming from someone who owned a Plymouth Cricket, that means something… (LOL)
I’m running a RH9 type skin on 2k with windows blinds and I must say its smooth… doesn’t slow perfomance, if anything makes for a nicer experience as it feels slick and doesn’t seem to chew up resources.
I think if its underestimated then its because people think it will slow your system and become a pain if you have to reinstall your OS and set it all up again.
I think you can go over board but I like to make things look homely.
Opera looks great skinned and I agree that winamp 2 is better than 3, skinned.
Just wish I could create my own 🙂
– Can’t find a good looking skin. There’s a lot of rubbish out there.
– Don’t have the patience to make my own skin.
– Explorer replacements aren’t. I’d like a different file manager, but all the ‘Explorer replacements’ use Explorer.
I don’t think skinning is a bad idea. It’s nice to be able to change the look. Anyone who is thrown of because widgets look a little different can’t claim to know how to use a GUI. Win, Mac, Be, GNOME, KDE. All different looks, all the same functionality.
QNX Momentics looks the best for me (except maybe the menus), Plastik for KDE is also quite nice; but for Windows, I’m a classic guy, with the title bar gradient turned off, Win 95 style 😉
Haven’t read this thread so I may duplicate some other comment; but I’m using themes because it doesn’t just make your desktop look different, it also makes it _feel_ different (somehow, don’t ask how and why, it just does).
That’s the reason I’m using them.
>> I think if its underestimated then its because people think it will slow your system and become a pain if you have to reinstall your OS and set it all up again.
I think it’s much more pain to setup all other data..
(installing backups of personal docs, pr0n collection, etc)
>> We’re talking about a group made up of computer geeks. I’m sure many of us would in fact like to live in a world where a single black t-shirt and jeans was the sole choice.
No thank you, I prefer a white t-shirt and black pants.
(hm, guess I’m not so geeky after all then?)
miga,Win95,or Classic Mac themes,anyways WindowShade doesn’t work on them anyways.Linux just plain has too much skinnability,and the choices are mind boggling KDE and Gnome are slow enough on old boxes without all this crap.
janlul,
Yeah, your probably right(Its just the perception I get from people…), although I wouldn’t freely admit to the last part of that
The author talks about the ppl who say: “Why should I want Windows look like MacOS Aqua ?”
and continues to use the metaphor of waering clothes. Well, I must admit, I do *not* like to wear other peoples clothes. When I am a banker I want to look like one and not like a punk. When I am a punk I will look just that and not like Dr. Schiwago (well, who knows, anyway).
I do not like to imitate other OS. I do not like to imitate other people either.
Next problem: Skinning vs. Users
Ever tried to hit the right button in Winamp at 1280×1024 resolutions ? Oh yes, you could. But was it a joy ? You “doubled” its size ? Was it that “nice” still ? Did the equalizer resize as well (or was that the playlist ?)
Next problem: Skinning vs. Media
Why would I want a DVD player on my computers desktop to look like the DVD player I have below my TV ? This is complete nonsense.
Those machines look the way they look like, because they have a rather limited functionality that fits into that rather limited interface. Ihave no mouse, no keyboard. So I have a few buttons and a row of numbers.
A computer is a completely different media. But again, these oh so fantastic and talented “skinners” can’t come up with something, that is actually resembling the media I use, instead it tries to give me an impression on how the media *was*, that I used.
Mediaplayers belong, IMO, to the taskbar or a panel/dashboard. There they sit and wait, showing only the actual title. With a single click I open the frontend to my media-database (!) and select what I want as next. Why would I want some K-Jofol skin (which looks completely different to the rest of my system and thus is all but aesthetic) cover half of my screen, while still lacking the amount of functionality it should offer when covering half of the real-estate on my screen ?!
To sum it up:
The computer is a different media than a car-receiver, a TV or DVD-player. The assumption, that it will be more “intuitive” if I resemble the look of this stand-alone systems is a wrong one. Usage just got more complicated and things get bastardized.
The computer is another media. Another physical and ideological architecture. Instead of trying to make it look like a Car, an aeroplane or whatever, why not implementing a cool UI ?
Even KDE and Gnome tried to imitate Windows. Yes, they did. Just check out the idea of using directories as they would be documents.
Check out the label “Document” on Konqueror, when you open a directory. And this is not about the idea, that all is a file in Linux.
The only OS, that did this was Windows 9x until then. At least of the consumer OS. The others I do not know.
Paths are not documents. It should be possible to handle them that way, but not by default. Documents reside *within* paths.
Now does it get better, when I change the Gnome or KDE theme ?
No, it does not.
Desktop in Linux is still in the stone age of Microsoft. At least *on* the surface (what is below the hood is another question, I like KDE actually).
Every GUI shoud be skinnable. This is my holy belief. But a SKIN should not try to replace the GUI.
WindowsXP had quite a good idea. However, they implemented it badly. It comes with three boring default skins, doing new ones is so extremly difficult, that ppl prefer to buy alternative desktops.
Well, I tend to say for techical stuff:
“Form follows function”.
That’s a Bauhaus Manifesto.
.jon
I use SuSE Linux, Windows XP, and Gentoo on my desktops. As a multi-platform user, I want consistency. I don’t want to look for the close box in the left on one system, on the right on another. Thus, I favor skins so that I have that consistency. I use a modern light theme on all systems, providing me a consistent look and feel.
Thus, skins are not *inconsistent*; sometimes, it’s the only way to consistency.
My advice to those of you that don’t like skinning/themeing:
DON’T use it. Simple, isn’t it?
(Same thing the Linux people tell the Win people when they complain how difficult simple tasks are accomplished in Linux)
I don’t know about the performance argument, the skinning/themeing GNU/Linux toolkits use is quite fast. Even Luna is quite fast (but if it’s still too slow for you: Don’t complain how it’s soo slow and resource hungry, instead: Turn it off!)
What do those of you that deem skinning/themeing useless care if there are a few people that like to “waste” *their own* time creating skins and themes? Don’t you have something better to do than complain about it?
As long as there are good default themes and skins avialable for which ever app/OS/GUI/DE you happen to use, you never need to worry about it. Just use the default!?!
I see no reason to write such a long rant about one persons comments on skinning.
Just ignore them.
Personally, for me, skinning is a waste of my time, as I have different interests (building and designing websites/multimedia/3d game design etc.), but my work colleague likes to dabble with skinning.
My desktop is plain old win2k without even any wallpaper.
His is XP and themed to the max.
Different strokes for different folks.
This whole post reminds me of one of my favorite sayings.
“Opinions are like a$$holes. Everybody has one.”
I like themes/skinning. If you don’t, that’s ok. Last time I checked, I can like and dislike anything I want.
“I see no reason to write such a long rant about one persons comments on skinning.”
As stated, it’s not “one person’s” comment, it’s just that this comment quite well summed up what you hear around the net; I think I have the full right to defend my case, don’t I?
On the other hand I want more people to start using alternate shells and so forth, because the more people use it, the more skins/themes become available. And that’s always a good thing. As with Linux (and BeOS), I also want as many people as possible to use it. The more people, the more support…
That’s just me though
.
all things that work different should look different
…but it sure does get annoying when people use skinning to excuse a bad interface or (worse yet) developers use it as a substitute for good defaults. (note: skinning succeeds at neither)
Skinning ignores the entire point of a GUI – consistent look and feel. It’s useless eye candy, and has nothing to do with getting work done, or making a computer more useful. From jwz’s page:
Makali wrote:
Whenever a programmer thinks, “Hey, skins, what a cool idea”, their computer’s speakers should create some sort of cock-shaped soundwave and plunge it repeatedly through their skulls.
I couldn’t agree more.
>> It’s useless eye candy, and has nothing to do with getting work done, or making a computer more useful.
A nice looking UI with fresh colors makes me feel good.
A better looking UI with a fresh theme and a normal amount of eye candy, makes me feel very good.
A gray UI with no eye candy nearly makes me want to commit suicide and makes me feel depressed.
It’s like summer and winter; everyone (well most) is happy in the summer, the sky is nice and blue, grass is nice and green, girls walking around in few clothes.. (now that’s eye candy!)
The winter is (usually) boring and gray and many people get depressed because of that.
(unless it snows, but that never happens here in Holland, aside from those 2 days last year)
Eye candy is good (and girls too).
>> makes me want to commit suicide and makes me feel depressed.
Might want to do that the other way around tho..
very well said, thought your analogy is some what misleading and wrong. regardless it needed to be said.
Bravo
I was afraid I was going to have to fight the urge to post this huge, time wasting message all about usability and design to fight against the common usage of skinning and Linux’s million UI variations… but, many of you folks already took care of that. Thanks! 😉
I will say this: The concept of skinning isn’t bad. The way it is used and implimented in general IS bad. I’m with all of those people who really hate MS Windows Media Player.
Off topic, but eeh, janlul, you —–.quicknet.nl also? Where from?
Although you do overreact a bit, I mean, I don’t like standard GUIś either, but comitting suicie? Nah man. Itś justa computer…
Been on and off the skinning trail for years. Now I find myself running the default interface all the time (W2K)
There are some great skins out there, but none have ever lasted more than a day on my box. I’ve made my own but I soon turn them off as well. When I was running XP I soon noticed that the UI was more responsive in classic mode – even on a 2ghz cpu and big ram. Ultimately I want the machine to work as fast as it possbly can so I’ve ended up satisfying myself with a colour scheme. I don’t even change the icons anymore. Now I choose responsiveness over looks all the time.
I really hate that so many players are skinned. I want POwer DVD to look like a windows program not a piece of electronic furniture. Changer to Foobar2000 from winamp fro the same reason.
The look of the interfeace matters lees and less as I concentrate more on doing the things I got a computer for in the first place – creating cool stuff.
I hope you ment that you weren’t the native english speaking author
that’s my quote. 
I think you missed my point. To theme your system to make it look and pretend to be like some other system is a waste of time. I don’t consider using one particular window manager over another the same thing as theming or skinning.
KDE in and of itself is not a theme, and some people may find that desktop more productive, just like others find GNOME, WindowMaker, Motif, etc more productive. What I find a wast of time are people who have a job to do but instead of doing their job spend all their time downlaoding different themes.
A computer is a tool to get a job done. If you spend all day chaning the color of your tools you don’t have time to use them for what they were intened for, work. I pay people to work, write software, publish papers, things that are needed by the company – that’s why they are there. You don’t hier an employee to change the look and feel of the GUI
point 2. have you ever experienced the black color shrinking and white color stretching effect?
any change usually results into inaccurate pointer movement and that requires big enough controls or focusing mind on the task of positionig pointer over tiny control element.
first – big controls reduces work space and require more scrolling or demands user to remember anything what is out of workspace
second – distracting user from the work to position pointer is implicitly waste of time
ps: banished GUIs for my work. almost banished for free time (mozilla and gv(or xpdf) are last survivors (rarely netbeans ide))
Dynamic is good, but skinning isn’t about making it easier to (not) think about your controls and environs, that I can tell. People are too shy to actually alienate anyone so I daresay it’s not terribly synthetic. The point at which my desktop would become high gothic has been entirely lost on two fronts:
0) Safe usability and prototype behavior is wholly lost before the start.
1) I don’t invite promising young lovers over to lure into my aethetic, drink their blood, and/or swallow their souls in a beautiful and intractable maze of lurid designs.
Plus of course I’m not recompiling Qt every week. Maybe then I could get into it.
Poor Opera. There’s space for a site icon on every browser tab and I’ve got it looking like baleen; yet the design team didn’t change that area to a Kaitoo SVG of open pages because they knew I’d just abuse that, too.
Anyone got their browser to set bgcolor to black? The utility areas, at least? It looks awkward! Fonts go wrong in ‘inverse.’ Even if I got CIE color profiles nailed to the power rails of a 700W (and whisper-quiet!) supply, could I get the iGoth to share and reuse files with This Old Gnome?
Too much paint inside, too little outside. No need to tip the balance farther, though I understand…oh I understand…it can be done.