sean@utoday.com (03/30/91)
******************* * QUESTION #2 * ******************* Is a single GUI standard really necessary? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This question is being posted to gather responses for a regular column in UNIX Today! called "net.views". The purpose of the column is to generate user response to questions of importance in the Unix industry. By sending an e-mail reply to the above question, you are granting UNIX Today! permission to consider your comments for publication. A summary of *all* e-mail responses to this post will be posted in this group two weeks from today. /* Please include a daytime telephone number! */ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
matt@saber.COM (03/30/91)
> ******************* > * QUESTION #2 * > ******************* > > Is a single GUI standard really necessary? Depends what you mean by that. Is a single standard for application appearance and behavior necessary? Probably not. For one thing, none of the existing standards is really adequate for all classes of applications one can envision, or even for all existing applications. For another, personal preference will always play an important role -- witness the radically different opinions you find in the field about Open Look and Motif, even among people who have used both extensively. User interfaces are a bit like architecture or interior design -- there are some fundamental principles one should follow (but which are often all but ignored in software design), but there's also a lot of style, taste, and religion. It is not important that all applications everywhere look and feel the same -- the only thing that is important is that all of the applications used by a *single person* look and feel the same; moreover, the look and feel should be whichever one *that individual* prefers. Trying to dictate a single standard for application behavior is probably both unnecessary and counterproductive; even were it not, it seems clear that none of the existing contenders (Open Look, Motif, Windows/PM) comes anywhere near what would be required in terms of either expressive power or useability from a human factors standpoint. What is necessary is an attempt to bring some order out of the chaos that currently surrounds user interface toolkits and application programming interfaces. The investment required to develop a user interface to match any particular GUI specification is quite high, and it *does not decrease* when you go to apply a second GUI "standard" to the same software. This has a number of pernicious effects on the industry. One is that application developers are often forced into choosing sides in the GUI wars, which are based more in politics than in either technial or human factors superiority. Another is that developers who must support multiple GUI standards generally do it by reimplementing their interfaces for each standard. This wastes technical and engineering resources that could be better used in designing *better* user interfaces, instead of building *different* user interfaces. Finally, the fact that every behavior specification has one (or more) different API's discourages advancement in the state of the art in user interfaces. Because most of the existing toolkits are tied so closely to a particular GUI specification, developers who must worry about real deadlines and market windows are discouraged from experimenting with fundamentally different application styles. Standardization of the GUI in its current form leads to stagnation. Toolkits that support multiple application styles with a single API (or better still, that supported runtime selection of the application style by a single executable image), would go a long way toward encouraging better use of resources, promoting experimentation and advancement in user interface styles, and allowing users some degree of *choice* about the style of application behavior they prefer. There are those who will say this is too hard, but they are wrong. Real progress is being made in applying a single API to the Open Look and Motif specifications as well as others, and we are beginning to understand what it means to "be" a user interface in a larger sense, and how to abstract the higher level components of an interface in a way that lets us deal with them independent of a particular visual representation or interaction model. Rather than leaping headlong onto the bandwagon of premature standardization of the "look and feel", we should be searching for ways to provide uniform *programming interfaces*, so that application developers need not choose only *one* "look and feel", but are free to develop new and *better* kinds of computer/human interaction without being forced to throw away all of their prior investment. - Matt Landau User Interface Engineering Group Saber Software Inc. matt@saber.com (617) 876-7636 Disclaimer: There opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the author, who is solely responsible for their content and expression. These are not necessarily the opinions of Saber Software Inc, or any of its officers, other employees, or agents.
JET@uunet.UU.NET (J. Eric Townsend) (03/30/91)
> Is a single GUI standard really necessary?
No, just as a standard dashboard layout for automobiles is really
necessary. It helps considerably if a manufacturer is internally
consistent in their GUI from product to product, however. One of
the benefits of upgrading old equipment is the lack of retraining
needed. We've found that going from a SparcStation-1 to a SparcStation-2
is essentially transparent to the user, while going from [OpenLook,
Motif, SunWindows, MacIntosh, Amiga] to any of the others is not
nearly as easy.
daytime # 713.749.2120
--
J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120
Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo...
(UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories).mra@uupsi.UUCP (Michael Almond) (03/31/91)
No, a single GUI isn't needed. Multiple GUI's fosters competition and thus progressively better interfaces. Look at how the Mac interface has stagnated. However, it would be nice if the user could pick the interface regardless of the application. One of the prime considerations that should go into developing a UI should be giving the user a choice. Maybe you could contact Bill Rouse, the president of my company. Our company does quite a bit of research in the area of UI in general. -- Michael R. Almond (Georgia Tech Alumnus) mra@srchtec.uucp (registered) search technology, inc. mra@searchtech.com 4725 peachtree corners cir., suite 200 uupsi!srchtec!mra norcross, georgia 30092 (404) 441-1457 (office) [search]: Systems Engineering Approaches to Research and Development
cliffs@uunet.UU.NET (Cliff Skolnick {Consulting Dude} Sun Rochester) (03/31/91)
Let the users choose, rather than marketing types, the standardization will be a selection of supperior product at the moment. But consider the fact standardizing an unknown is not the best choice. Maybe no one has thought of the best GUI, so perhaps two or three GUI's provides healthy competition and incentive to inovate. -- Cliff Skolnick | "As loud as hell a ringing bell behind my smile. cliffs@sun.com | It shakes my teeth and all the while as vampires (716) 385-5049 | feed I bleed." -- Pixies I think. I am. | "If you must sell out to play the game, you will lose."
m0236@uunet.UU.NET (03/31/91)
> Is a single GUI standard really necessary? Necessary? No. Desirable? Doubtful. >From what I've seen, we're not even close to point where a single standard would even be beneficial. Standards tend to gravitate towards a lowest common denominator, otherwise the market gets confused and either ignores the standard or "refines" the standard. GUI needs vary. GUI's tend to hog resources. What I need and what I want for a CAD application can be quite different from what I need and what I want for text editing. A "GUI standard" is premature. The market needs to bite, kick and claw some more before it'll be ready to settle down and adopt a single standard. The breakeven point in resource tradeoff just isn't here yet. -- Myles Marlow =========================================================== Myles Marlow HyperText / m0236@tnc.UUCP / (voice) 703-536-7228 ===========================================================
jonesl@uunet.UU.NET (Lance Jones) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write: > > ******************* > * QUESTION #2 * > ******************* > > Is a single GUI standard really necessary? I don't believe that a single standard is necessary. After observing people of various levels of computer "competence"(receptionists to programmers) at work I firmly believe that switching from one GUI to another is trivial task that anyone can handle. Of course if having one standard GUI meant not having to deal with MS Windows then I'm all for it! :^) -Lance -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lance Jones Veterinary Computer Network South Campus Courts C-34 jonesl@vet.purdue.edu W. Lafayette, IN 47907 (317)/494-0329
dow@uunet.UU.NET (Christopher Dow) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write: > > ******************* > * QUESTION #2 * > ******************* > > Is a single GUI standard really necessary? > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This question is being posted to gather responses for a regular >column in UNIX Today! called "net.views". The purpose of the column >is to generate user response to questions of importance in the Unix >industry. > By sending an e-mail reply to the above question, you are >granting UNIX Today! permission to consider your comments for >publication. A summary of *all* e-mail responses to this post will be >posted in this group two weeks from today. > /* Please include a daytime telephone number! */ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think it would be useful, although I'm not sure how useful. The Mac originally had a standard interface, which has evolved over the years. Mac programs today have a lot more GUI features than they did six years ago. I say this because I don't think a GUI standard would stagnate user interfaces. The basic point is, some of the things should be standardized, but most should be left up to the descretion of the GUI designers. Things that should be standardized: Window Manipulation: Resize, move, iconify, maximize, etc. Placement of Menus: File, Edit, Help. Desktop environmetn. Basically, this will provide the means to get started on anything, without preventing the designers from putting needed functionality in their programs. Most of what I've suggested already exists, if you look at Windows, PM, Motif, and OpenLook. An interesting experiment would be to post another question asking what GUI people use, then cross-reference it with the original answers. -- Chris Dow IntelliGenetics Software Engineer 700 East El Camino Real icbmnet: 37 22' 39" N, 122 3' 32" W Mountain View, Ca. 94040 dow@presto.ig.com (415) 962-7320
jr@uunet.UU.NET (04/01/91)
Recently, you wrote: > > ******************* > * QUESTION #2 * > ******************* > > Is a single GUI standard really necessary? > > Most definitely, yes! A GUI standard defines a Look and Feel. This has two parts to it. The first part is the `Look' definition; the second is the `Feel' guidelines. The Look definition consists of a programmer's toolkit containing a selection of widgets. These widgets will be buttons, sliders, list boxes, entry boxes, window size change knobs, etc, etc, which are likely to be needed by many applications. By using the same set of widgets, all applications will appear similar on the screen, thus allowing the user to instantly recognize parts of a new application, and hence the user will immediately have an understanding of how to use the application. The second part, the Feel guidelines, is much more important. All GUIs embody a specification of how an application must behave in order to conform. Guidelines include things like `the application should present the user with a horizontal row of pull-down menu titles', and `if you have a `File' menu, it must be the left-most pull-down', and `the `Quit' button must be the bottom button in the left-most pull-down', and `a menu is opened by clicking it with the left mouse button', and so on. These kinds of `rules' ensure that applications behave consistently and that users can navigate around them without having to reach for the manual every time they need to do something. The current proliferation of GUI standards is very annoying. In my organization we currently use X+uwm, X+MOTIF, X+OpenLook, MAC, Windows 3, and OS/2 PM. Now, the technical gurus have no problem switching between environments, although they do complain that having to remember which mouse button to press is a bit of a pain. However, non-techies find the differences to be a major problem. For example, a user used to the MAC environment, finds using X+OpenLook very cumbersome. The differences in appearances of the widgets is not really a problem because a push-button appearing as a rectangle or an oval is something most people cope with automatically. But, having to hunt around an application to find its options, or having to learn a new set of mouse/menu finger actions for each application is a bore. I have witnessed people asking other people to help them, simply because they can no longer be bothered to learn how to use an application which uses an unfamiliar style. Compare this with another common user interface - that of an automobile's driving console. If you rent a car, you just open the door, sit down and drive off. You don't have to worry that the pedal on the right is the accelerator, and on the left is the brake; you don't spend 20 minutes with the manual to look for the turn signal knob! Why not? Because things are in standard places. This means that you can drive a Honda Civic with as much ease as a Mercedes 500. Sure, the shape of the controls varies, and there are some common alternatives (2 pedals or 3, stick shift or column), but people can cope with this. Having 6 different GUI Looks and many, many application Feels is too much. One standard, please. A final note. The single standard should not be rigid. That is, it should support customization of the interface, using something like a `Preferences' dialog box. It is important to allow users to set things like color, mouse acceleration, button ordering, and so on. An ideal interface would also allow users to globally select details like where in a window standard items are presented (i.e., scroll bar on right or left, or maxmize button on title bar or in a menu), and to have this take effect for all applications for that user. Unfortunately, this level of interaction with applications may be too complex for most current GUI systems. Jim R Oldroyd Technical Director The Instruction Set Waltham, MA 02154 jr@inset.com PS: Permission is granted to publish these comments in any form, provided that the intent of the meaning of these comments is not changed, and provided that an attribution to the author is included.
datri@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony A. Datri) (04/01/91)
> Is a single GUI standard really necessary?
It seems to me that the world ran just fine before vendors came up with this
"GUI" business. What do I care if the scrollbars in every program on my
machine look exactly the same? If we *do* have to have a single one, what's
wrong with Xaw? It's free, and you know that everyone is going to have it.
All the OSF/Motif toolkit (for example) does is cost you $ for a license,
clutter your valuable screen area with pseudo-art-deco adornments, waste memory
like it's going out of style, and encourage vendors to deliver statically-
linked binaries.
214-497-4135
--
--
datri@convex.comwald@uunet.UU.NET (David Wald) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write: >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This question is being posted to gather responses for a regular >column in UNIX Today! called "net.views". The purpose of the column >is to generate user response to questions of importance in the Unix >industry. > By sending an e-mail reply to the above question, you are >granting UNIX Today! permission to consider your comments for >publication. A summary of *all* e-mail responses to this post will be >posted in this group two weeks from today. > /* Please include a daytime telephone number! */ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please make it a summary, this time. Posting huge files like that last one is 1) useless to the readers, and 2) extremely rude to news administrators with resource limitations. -David
peterd@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Desnoyers) (04/01/91)
I'm a sucker for answering this, but: 1. You're learning - your message was only posted to relevant news groups. 2. You should phrase your questions better. "Is a single GUI really necessary" is more appropriately asked of an oracle or a psychiatrist than of the net. 3. Please take care to summarize, rather than concatenate, responses. In particular, comments criticizing your message are inappropriate in a summary. 4. Is a single GUI really possible? Peter Desnoyers *** No, I'm not going to give you a daytime phone number. If you want to respond to this, you can hit 'r' like any normal person.
mikel@uunet.UU.NET (Mikel Lechner) (04/01/91)
In news.misc you write:
> Is a single GUI standard really necessary?
Not a response to your question, but a suggestion for posting the question.
It would be helpful if you included a "Followup-To:" line in your headers.
This way any follow ups to your initial message would be directed into a
single newsgroup. This would keep any followup discussion focused into
a single newsgroup instead of cluttering up all the newsgroups to which
you originally post your question.
--
Mikel Lechner UUCP: teda!mikel
Teradyne EDA, Inc.
5155 Old Ironsides Drive | If you explain so clearly that nobody
Santa Clara, Ca 95054 | can misunderstand, somebody will.bkc2@quads.uchicago.edu (Benjamin Clardy) (04/01/91)
In article <9103311549.AA20101@presto.ig.com> presto.ig.com!dow@uunet.UU.NET (Christopher Dow) writes: >In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write: >> >> ******************* >> * QUESTION #2 * >> ******************* >> >> Is a single GUI standard really necessary? >> >> ---Misc. Deleted--- > > > I think it would be useful, although I'm not sure how useful. >The Mac originally had a standard interface, which has evolved over >the years. Mac programs today have a lot more GUI features than they >did six years ago. I say this because I don't think a GUI standard >would stagnate user interfaces. The basic point is, some of the >things should be standardized, but most should be left up to the >descretion of the GUI designers. > Things that should be standardized: > > Window Manipulation: Resize, move, iconify, maximize, etc. > Placement of Menus: File, Edit, Help. > Desktop environmetn. > > Basically, this will provide the means to get started on >anything, without preventing the designers from putting needed >functionality in their programs. Most of what I've suggested already >exists, if you look at Windows, PM, Motif, and OpenLook. > > An interesting experiment would be to post another question >asking what GUI people use, then cross-reference it with the original >answers. > > >-- >Chris Dow IntelliGenetics >Software Engineer 700 East El Camino Real >icbmnet: 37 22' 39" N, 122 3' 32" W Mountain View, Ca. 94040 >dow@presto.ig.com (415) 962-7320 Since there are now toolkits that allow simultaneous devleopment of Motif and Openlook applications, I do not feel that the existence of these two standards prevents a problem from the programming point anyway. With regard to the user, I would like to see some standardization between the two. This, however, is not so dependent upon the GUI, but upon the industry and the individual programmer. I agree that a standard menu setting of FILE, EDIT, and HELP with similar functions be established. I still believe that the Mac has the best most consistent interface, and to a large extent this is due to a almost fascist Apple Corp. I find it ironic that I have a SPARCstation at work running OpenWindows, but I recently bought an Macintosh Classic for home. The simple fact of the matter is that I find it easier to do "simple" tasks on the Mac (word processing, finances, etc.) than on the Sun (not because I am Unix illiterate-I administer the Suns at work). Although OpenWindows provides some improvements over the Mac interface including: 1. Resizing windows from any corner. 2. Greater Customization, e.g. scrollbars on left or right. OpenWindows (and Motif?) needs addition features: 1. Keyboard shortcuts. These should be standardized like they are on the Mac, i.e. COMMAND-X for cut, COMMAND-V for paste, etc. 2. A button for quiting applications, in addition to closing them. This would be must faster than quiting from the menu bar. 3. Real on line help to help novices, e.g. Textedit. 4. The ability for an application to display on icon without being loaded into memory. I think the drag and drop metaphor is makes sense, but I don't always want an application in memory to do that, e.g. having Pageview loaded all the time to view a PostScript file. How about dynamic starting of the application in this case? 5. Font Menus. Why can't I have OpenWindows, or OW applications, change or resize the font on command, instead of just at startup. Windows and PM are a wash from a programming standpoint. From a users standpoint, however, I think it would worthwhile to have the same user interface. bkc2@midway.uchicago.edu 312.702.5792 -- ______________________________________________________________________________ bkc2@midway.uchicago.edu benjamin clardy ______________________________________________________________________________
db@uunet.UU.NET (David Brownell) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write: > > ******************* > * QUESTION #2 * > ******************* > > Is a single GUI standard really necessary? NO. What's important is to have the core techniques that affect new or infrequent users be substantially similar, enough so that the simple applications seem to need little or no learning. Complex applications will always need some training, and will always go past the boundaries of what any contemporary GUI standard knows how to deal with well. The lesson of the Mac is widely misinterpreted. It's not that a single GUI solves usability problems. Rather, it's that having consistency among core UI features is a big win for non-experts. That consistency can easily come without a "single" standard. - Dave Brownell (415) 336-1615 (508) 671-0348
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/01/91)
If people *have* to discuss this online, how about taking news.* *out* of your
Newsgroups: line? See the followup line of this message, and set yours to match.
--
(peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
`-_-'
'U`johnj@welch.jhu.edu (John A. Johnston) (04/01/91)
In article <9103301640.AA00675@sunrock.East.Sun.COM> sunrock.east.sun.com!cliffs@uunet.UU.NET (Cliff Skolnick {Consulting Dude} Sun Rochester) writes: >Let the users choose, rather than marketing types, the standardization >will be a selection of supperior product at the moment. But consider the >fact standardizing an unknown is not the best choice. Maybe no one has >thought of the best GUI, so perhaps two or three GUI's provides healthy >competition and incentive to inovate. Amen! Competition = incentive to innovate. Would you be happy if Uncle Sam said that the only new car anyone can buy is a Yugo?
marbru@attc.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) (04/01/91)
> Is a single GUI standard really necessary?
Necessary? Never.
Desirable? Later.
I believe there are two components to the GUI "standard". One is the basic
driving principles:
- select, act on selected objects, select with MB1 ....
another one are "bells and whistles":
- keyboard equivalents, 3D look ....
In my opinion, tha basic driving principles better be "standardized", such
as we all want all the cars to have a wheel (not the controlls of a tank),
brake and accelerator.
The second part (such as where the headlight switch is or how much automatic
are your air-conditioner controls) better NEVER get "standardized", as this
would completely kill any invovation.
As the art of selecting which GUI controls are "the essential ones" is still
in it's infancy, the "desirable" standardization here should happen - later.
For example, we still do not know if it is reasonable to demand that
MB3 press always brings up a popup menu. So while we are pretty close to
certainity about "the wheel" (MB1), brakes and accelerator are still much in
question.
--
=*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*=
Martin Brunecky {...}sunpeaks!auto-trol!marbru
(303) 252-2499 (sometimes also: marbru@auto-trol.COM )
Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404 rlk@think.COM (Robert L Krawitz) (04/02/91)
Date: 1 Apr 91 05:55:16 GMT From: bkc2@quads.uchicago.edu (Benjamin Clardy) Since there are now toolkits that allow simultaneous devleopment of Motif and Openlook applications, I do not feel that the existence of these two standards prevents a problem from the programming point anyway. With regard to the user, I would like to see some standardization between the two. This, however, is not so dependent upon the GUI, but upon the industry and the individual programmer. I agree that a standard menu setting of FILE, EDIT, and HELP with similar functions be established. I still believe that the Mac has the best most consistent interface, and to a large extent this is due to a almost fascist Apple Corp. I find it ironic that I have a SPARCstation at work running OpenWindows, but I recently bought an Macintosh Classic for home. The simple fact of the matter is that I find it easier to do "simple" tasks on the Mac (word processing, finances, etc.) than on the Sun (not because I am Unix illiterate-I administer the Suns at work). I never quite understand what FILE and EDIT mean, since their semantics differ from application to application (and don't necessarily mean anything for certain applications, anyhow). I'd much rather type "M-x frobnicate-frotz" than try to figure out anything from a menu. Come to think of it, what I'd really like is Emacs-style command completion, apropos, etc. and programmable (if any) menus. Oh well, when Emacs 19 comes out maybe I won't need any other application :-) 4. The ability for an application to display on icon without being loaded into memory. I think the drag and drop metaphor is makes sense, but I don't always want an application in memory to do that, e.g. having Pageview loaded all the time to view a PostScript file. How about dynamic starting of the application in this case? That's something the window manager can do. I actually have a menu in twm (which I never use, mind you) that can pop up a program. What you're asking in general is much harder, and rather OS-specific. Unix, for example, does not have any specific capability of this nature (although you can have a stub program which sits around and acts like a daemon, but if it has enough X stuff built in to pop a window up, it's probably almost as big as the application). BTW, programs under unix do not necessarily consume physical memory when they aren't active, although they do use swap space. Whether that's a problem depends upon the size of your disk or swap partition. 5. Font Menus. Why can't I have OpenWindows, or OW applications, change or resize the font on command, instead of just at startup. Gnu Emacs does this just fine (M-x x-set-font, as well as x-set-background, x-set-foreground, etc. and it used to have x-change-display!). It doesn't even use any toolkits (I don't think it even uses Xaw). BTW, the thing that worries me about the fancier window systems (Mac, Next) is that they don't even have a command line interface. Simply getting a shell window on the Next seems to be a major undertaking. I suggest that people designing window systems look at the Lisp machine to see how to make a system friendly to anyone. ames >>>>>>>>> | Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com> 245 First St. bloom-beacon > |think!rlk (postmaster) Cambridge, MA 02142 harvard >>>>>> . Thinking Machines Corp. (617)234-2116
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.055516.12726@midway.uchicago.edu> bkc2@quads.uchicago.edu (Benjamin Clardy) writes: >Since there are now toolkits that allow simultaneous devleopment of Motif and >Openlook applications, I do not feel that the existence of these two standards Are any shipping yet? Do you really think they can be used to produce production code? >OpenWindows (and Motif?) needs addition features: > 1. Keyboard shortcuts. These should be standardized like they are on > the Mac, i.e. COMMAND-X for cut, COMMAND-V for paste, etc. How do you do this in a GUI independant manner (Motif has these, the Mac as these - they are of course different). > 4. The ability for an application to display on icon without being > loaded into memory. I think the drag and drop metaphor is makes > sense, but I don't always want an application in memory to do > that, e.g. having Pageview loaded all the time to view a PostScript > file. How about dynamic starting of the application in this case? There are applications that already do this, I'm not sure it needs to be part of a GUI specification, although it might be nice. > 5. Font Menus. Why can't I have OpenWindows, or OW applications, > change or resize the font on command, instead of just at startup. Any application clearly can. It turns out however, that this is one of the things that the virtual toolkits you mention usually have to punt on. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
robinro@ism.isc.com (Robin Roberts) (04/02/91)
All right! A new flame war! <sarcasm added for the non-telepathic>
--
Robin D. Roberts {The Dread Pirate Roberts } robinro@ism.isc.com
Usenet: ..!uunet!scorp1!roberts CompuServe: 72330,1244 GEnie: R.ROBERTS10
[At the start of World War I, the Romanian general staff ordered that only
officers above the rank of major could wear makeup. -Oxford Military Anecdotes]mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU (der Mouse) (04/02/91)
> It is not important that all applications everywhere look and feel > the same -- the only thing that is important is that all of the > applications used by a *single person* look and feel the same; Not even, not necessarily. I, for example, don't mind mixing L&Fs, as long as they're all reasonably tolerable. (For example, I don't argue over menu-bar type menus versus popups versus pulldowns, though I have strong opinions over some aspects of application design that affect what belongs on menus and what doesn't.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (04/02/91)
I agree with Martin on this one. I'm not opposed to standardization, but I do opppose *premature* standardization. I also think that's a lot of that going around--witness the number of people that are finding ways to conform to mulitple standards. "Multiple standards" should be an oxymoron. -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com UI Platform Team Leader ...!uunet!visix!amanda Visix Software Inc. +1 800 832 8668 -- "Does pasta explode if it comes into contact with anti-pasta?" --Allen Sherzer
jimc@uunet.UU.NET (Jim Cathey) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write: > Is a single GUI standard really necessary? Necessary? Don't know. Desireable? (ie many people want it) Yes. A good idea? No way in hell! These things are far too immature to even consider nailing down the world on them. The best one I've seen so far has been Apple's, and it's sure not perfect. A recent experience with Openlook made me want to throw up. Motif is one of the ugliest ones I've seen, the Amiga's looks like a toy, Windows' is kind of sad... Must I go on? It seems that most people designing these things have no artistic sense, and the more 'standard' they are the uglier. Unfortunately, if the world were to standardize now they'd be stuck with OpenLook or Motif, both of which remind me of Cobol in some bizarre fashion. Long live brutal competition! -- +----------------+ ! II CCCCCC ! Jim Cathey ! II SSSSCC ! ISC-Bunker Ramo ! II CC ! TAF-C8; Spokane, WA 99220 ! IISSSS CC ! UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com) ! II CCCCCC ! (509) 927-5757 +----------------+ "With excitement like this, who is needing enemas?"
klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee) (04/02/91)
|> I'm not opposed to standardization, but I do oppose *premature* |> standardization. You should remember that most standards are not meant to be exclusive. Most people would claim that the ANSI C and IEEE POSIX standards are desirable, despite the fact that other useful programming languages and operating systems are in popular use. -- Ken Lee DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif. Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee
lowe@uunet.UU.NET (David Lowe) (04/02/91)
Re: Is a single GUI standard really necessary? Yes. The competition between Motif and Open Look is destroying the development of the Unix software market. Most university sites have just washed their hands of the whole thing and use neither interface. The complexity of developing for both Motif and Open Look is a tremendous waste of effort, and it is causing most developers to put off development until the situation clears up. If there was an agreement on standards, it would open up a huge new market as there are so many programmers who are trained in using Unix. Development of interfaces in the University environment is stalled because we are faced with 3 choices (Athena widgets, Motif, Open Look). I can hardly believe that Sun, which did so much to start the open systems movement, is now doing everything it can to force its own interface onto its customers. Sun is still the hardware of choice for universities, but whenever I visit other universities I hear nothing but anger at Sun's refusal to adopt the same interface that was selected by other major manufacturers. It is behaving in the way that IBM used to, and this will cost it dearly in the long run. At the moment, it is being just successful enough to thoroughly confuse its own users and make them avoid adopting any GUI. Note that by posting your message to the net, you will get a very biased sample of opinion. It will come from those people who least need a graphical user interface and who are most likely to be writing their own software rather than buying commercial products. David Lowe Assistant Professor, Computer Science (604) 228-3170
dnw@uunet.UU.NET (David Williams) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write: > > ******************* > * QUESTION #2 * > ******************* > > Is a single GUI standard really necessary? > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This question is being posted to gather responses for a regular >column in UNIX Today! called "net.views". The purpose of the column >is to generate user response to questions of importance in the Unix >industry. > By sending an e-mail reply to the above question, you are >granting UNIX Today! permission to consider your comments for >publication. A summary of *all* e-mail responses to this post will be >posted in this group two weeks from today. > /* Please include a daytime telephone number! */ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes, and it should be an evolution of current and past best ideas - not a "least common denominator" throwback for the sake of backwards compatibility. If backwards compatibility were a valid argument, all GUI's would have the look and feel of a model 29 card punch. Motif's claim (one of them, anyway) is SAA backwards compatible look and feel - this is simply the optimization of a bad idea. What I would like to see is a visualy stimulating but simple GUI design that scales up nicely from mono through 24 bit color with consistent look/feel, cut/paste policy (yes! policy), and universal vendor support. that's all ;-).
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/02/91)
klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee) writes: > Most people would claim that the ANSI C and IEEE POSIX standards are > desirable, despite the fact that other useful programming languages and > operating systems are in popular use. Yeh, but C and UNIX weren't invented by a marketing organisation simply to provide a basis for a standard, like Motif and OpenLook were. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
cjc@ulysses.att.com (Chris Calabrese) (04/02/91)
Oh boy, Oh boy, a flame war! Goody, goody, goody! :-) bud.cs.ubc.ca!lowe@uunet.UU.NET (David Lowe) writes: > >Re: Is a single GUI standard really necessary? > > >Yes. The competition between Motif and Open Look is destroying the >development of the Unix software market. Most university sites have >just washed their hands of the whole thing and use neither interface. >The complexity of developing for both Motif and Open Look is a >tremendous waste of effort, and it is causing most developers to >put off development until the situation clears up. If there was an >agreement on standards, it would open up a huge new market as there >are so many programmers who are trained in using Unix. Development >of interfaces in the University environment is stalled because we >are faced with 3 choices (Athena widgets, Motif, Open Look). So far, most of the commercial applications I've seen running under X Windows haven't used Motif or Open Look. Most have used some home-grown toolkit. More often than not this toolkit gives the application a look and feel much closer to SunView than anything else. If a commercial application writer really wants to target Motif and Open Look, they should use something like the Solbourne toolkit which provides both Motif and Open Look with the same binary (this is not a plug for Solbourne, they just did it first). As far as university software, I would expect it to be built on the best of the freely available toolkits. This instantly rules out both OSF Motif and AT&T's Open Look toolkit. What's basically left behind are Sun's XView, Athena Widgets, and InterViews. Athena Widgets are ugly. InterViews locks you into C++. XView locks you into Open Look. All, however, are freely available and have a solid commitment to future developement behind them. >I can hardly believe that Sun, which did so much to start the open >systems movement, is now doing everything it can to force its own >interface onto its customers. Sun is still the hardware of choice >for universities, but whenever I visit other universities I hear >nothing but anger at Sun's refusal to adopt the same interface that >was selected by other major manufacturers. It is behaving in the >way that IBM used to, and this will cost it dearly in the long run. >At the moment, it is being just successful enough to thoroughly >confuse its own users and make them avoid adopting any GUI. Well, I must admit that I don't think Sun has behaved very well in some instances, but then I still think that they're doing _much_ better than many other vendors that shall remain nameless (for specific anecdotes, send me e-mail). Did it cross anybody's mind that Motif was developed _after_ Open Look and that OSF didn't even consider Open Look when they made their GUI selections? I won't even mention the legal issues of what will happen to Motif if Apples wins their litigation with Microsoft and HP. I guess that stuff's really important in the scheme of things, but I had to say it. Personally, I can't stand the way Motif looks or feels. It just isn't as well thought out as Open Look. On the other hand, Open Look isn't the be-all end-all of look and feels either. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it wold be a crime to settle on either one of these as _the_standard_for_all_time. Should the world have standardized on the original interface for the Mac? On the Xerox Star? On the AT&T 7300 (aka Unix PC and 3b1)? On the Athena Widgets? Personally, I don't have any trouble moving back and forth between Open Look, Motif, Mac, Athena, InterViews and others. When I do get fouled up, however, it's because the menu bars are on button 1 for some toolkits and button 3 for others. This kind of stuff should be standardized. That's what I love about standards, there's so many of them. Name: Christopher J. Calabrese Brain loaned to: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ att!ulysses!cjc cjc@ulysses.att.com Obligatory Quote: ``pher - gr. vb. to schlep. phospher - to schlep light.philosopher - to schlep thoughts.''
gl8f@uunet.UU.NET (Greg Lindahl) (04/03/91)
redirect followups, you dickhead. spaf already mailed the relevant section of Emily Postnews' article. you rarely see such repeat moronic behavior on the net.
terry@jgaltstl.UUCP (terry linhardt) (04/03/91)
In article <9103311847.AA06681@relay1.UU.NET>, usinset!jr@uunet.UU.NET writes: + + Compare this with another common user interface - that of an + automobile's driving console. If you rent a car, you just open the + door, sit down and drive off. You don't have to worry that the pedal on + the right is the accelerator, and on the left is the brake; you don't + spend 20 minutes with the manual to look for the turn signal knob! Why + not? Because things are in standard places. This means that you can + drive a Honda Civic with as much ease as a Mercedes 500. Sure, the + shape of the controls varies, and there are some common alternatives (2 + pedals or 3, stick shift or column), but people can cope with this. + + Having 6 different GUI Looks and many, many application Feels is too + much. One standard, please. + It is interesting that the 'standard interface' on automobiles, which you use as an example, was arrived at via a market-driven mechanism, rather than having a committee sit down and try to 'figure out' what would be appropriate. I am in favor of standards. However, I would prefer to see that process used to 'codify' practices which the market-place has put its blessing on. I don't think that the market has made a decision yet on the GUI issue. In spite of the current frustration which your users feel, I would rather seem them make the ultimate decision....which they indeed will do, if allowed to do so. -- |---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Terry Linhardt The Lafayette Group uunet!jgaltstl!terry | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|
ian@uunet.UU.NET (Ian Lance Taylor) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write: > > ******************* > * QUESTION #2 * > ******************* > > Is a single GUI standard really necessary? > > Yes. How else can multi-platform portability be acheived? No. It would stifle innovation. > /* Please include a daytime telephone number! */ Why? -- Ian Taylor airs!ian@uunet.uu.net uunet!airs!ian First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message: ``Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but inconsistency does tend to bring one to the attention of the police computers.''
mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU (der Mouse) (04/03/91)
>> Is a single GUI standard really necessary? > Yes. The competition between Motif and Open Look is destroying the > development of the Unix software market. [...] If there [were] an > agreement on standards, it would open up a huge new market as there > are so many programmers who are trained in using Unix. What do Motif and/or OpenLook have to do with UNIX? > I can hardly believe that Sun, which did so much to start the open > systems movement, is now doing everything it can to force its own > interface onto its customers. I don't see it that way. > Sun is still the hardware of choice for universities, I would say rather the hardware of lack of choice, but that's neither here nor there. > but whenever I visit other universities I hear nothing but anger at > Sun's refusal to adopt the same interface that was selected by other > major manufacturers. I would say, rather, that Sun is refusing to adopt a closed interface. For all the OSF calls things open, they are awfully proprietary about Motif. Sun contributed XView to the X Consortium. If the OSF, or even one of its members, had contributed a Motif-compliant toolkit and/or widget set to the world as freeware, you might have a point. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 740-9172) (04/03/91)
In article <9104020203.AA00284@bud.cs.ubc.ca.ubc.ca> bud.cs.ubc.ca!lowe@uunet.UU.NET (David Lowe) writes: > >Re: Is a single GUI standard really necessary? > > >I can hardly believe that Sun, which did so much to start the open >systems movement, is now doing everything it can to force its own >interface onto its customers. Sun is still the hardware of choice >for universities, but whenever I visit other universities I hear >nothing but anger at Sun's refusal to adopt the same interface that >was selected by other major manufacturers. It is behaving in the >way that IBM used to, and this will cost it dearly in the long run. >At the moment, it is being just successful enough to thoroughly >confuse its own users and make them avoid adopting any GUI. > Well, I don't really fault Sun for this. SF is charging $1000.00 for the Motif toolkit - and that's PER toolkit. They also charge a $50.00 royalty for each application shipped that was built using Motif. Contrast this with Sun - OpenWindows (including OLIT and XView toolkits) ships with the OS. There is no additional fee for those toolkits and no royalties for development done with them. I would find fault with OSF long before I found fault with Sun on this issue. > David Lowe > Assistant Professor, Computer Science > (604) 228-3170 James A. Robertson -- Jim Robertson, INET: jarober@warper.jhuapl.edu, jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu Johns Hopkins Univ./APL UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcen!jarober
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (04/03/91)
_Apre`s moi le de'luge._ Rather than being treated with a single long file
containing all the responses, we're getting scores of individual messages....
This is `utoday''s third mistake (though I'll admit that most of the blame
goes to the dummies who posted instead of mailing their responses).
How many sins must they commit before we may banish them to net.hell?
(To `comp.*' readers who don't understand this message: If you must post
a response to _UNIX Today_'s question, please post it only to
`comp.windows.misc'.)
--Scott
--
Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ
"Pi4 nai3 ren2 shen1 zhi1 qi4, qi3 you3 bu2 fang4 zhi1 li3." --Mao Zedongnazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/03/91)
In article <14566@ulysses.att.com> cjc@ulysses.att.com (Chris Calabrese) writes: >So far, most of the commercial applications I've seen running >under X Windows haven't used Motif or Open Look. Not suprising given how recently either of the toolkits has matured enough to be usable. I'd be very suprised, however, to see any new, general purpose applications that didn't use one or the other. >If a commercial application writer really wants to target Motif and >Open Look, they should use something like the Solbourne toolkit which >provides both Motif and Open Look with the same binary (this is not a If Solbourne really provided all of Motif then this might be reasonable, but in fact it doesn't provide as much as I would like to be able to use and is furthermore larger than the Motif binary (hard to imagine I know). Perhaps when it matures (I understand the newest release is somewhat better). In any case I've stated my opinion on the usability of "virtual" toolkits before. >As far as university software, I would expect it to be built on the >best of the freely available toolkits. This instantly rules out both Why? Universities buy lots of software, and both toolkits are of course discounted for universities. >Did it cross anybody's mind that Motif was developed _after_ Open Look >and that OSF didn't even consider Open Look when they made their GUI >selections? No, because it isn't true. The only Open Look toolkit available at the time Motif was specified was a very early version of AT&T's toolkit. It was in fact submitted to the OSF and was not chosen. I've discussed the reasons for that on comp.windows.x in prior discussions. >I guess that stuff's really important in the scheme of things, but I had >to say it. Personally, I can't stand the way Motif looks or feels. >It just isn't as well thought out as Open Look. On the other hand, I think the default Motif look is pretty bad, however once tailored I like it a lot. The way most vendors run it with their demo applications it's pretty apalling though. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr3.012555.27802@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> jarober@aplcen (DE Robertson james an 740-9172) writes: > Well, I don't really fault Sun for this. SF is charging $1000.00 >for the Motif toolkit - and that's PER toolkit. They also charge a $50.00 >royalty for each application shipped that was built using Motif. Where do you get your "facts"? OSF charges $1000 for a source license, per machine (for commercial sites, for academic sites I think it's per campus or some such). That's pretty cheap for a source license. I'd rather it were free, but if I'm going to pay I'd hardly expect to pay less. The "$50" royalty is $40 max, and again is per machine and is only for the development environment, with the expectation that it be paid by the vendor. And expectation which appears to be true on all major WS platforms except Sun. There is no per-application royalty. > Contrast this with Sun - OpenWindows (including OLIT and XView >toolkits) ships with the OS. There is no additional fee for those toolkits No additional fee? Have you tried buying OLIT source lately? (We won't even talk about OpenWindows - that's the one you get FREE! when you buy a $1000 doc set and license the source to System V.4.) -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (04/04/91)
After doing a "R"eply to the original of this article, I got hate mail from several folks saying "you dummy, why'd you follow-up instead of emailing a reply?" Then I noticed the large number of follow ups. And what do ya know, take a look at this: >Article 1323 (173 more) in news.misc: >Xref: menudo.uh.edu comp.windows.x.motif:2734 comp.windows.open-look:1095 comp.w indows.x:10206 comp.windows.misc:358 comp.unix.misc:1256 news.misc:1323 >Path: menudo.uh.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.ed u!uunet!utoday!info >From: tnc!m0236@uunet.UU.NET >Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.motif,comp.windows.open-look,comp.windows.x,comp.wind >ows.misc,comp.unix.misc,news.misc >Subject: Re: Question for net.views column in UNIX Today! >Message-ID: <9103302054.AA18621@relay1.UU.NET> >Date: 30 Mar 91 20:54:27 GMT >Sender: info@utoday.com (UNIX Today!) >Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va. >Lines: 23 >To: netviews@utoday.UUCP >In-Reply-To: <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> This article was from m0236@tnc.uucp. The path shows that it was posted, however, by utoday!info. Somebody needs a clue on mailer/news software. -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo... (UNIX is a trademark of Unix Systems Laboratories).
alice@athena.mit.edu (Timothy R Wall) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr3.052058.6309@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: >>I guess that stuff's really important in the scheme of things, but I had >>to say it. Personally, I can't stand the way Motif looks or feels. >>It just isn't as well thought out as Open Look. On the other hand, >I think the default Motif look is pretty bad, however once tailored I >like it a lot. The way most vendors run it with their demo applications >it's pretty apalling though. Now, what does one mean when they say 'such-and-such' is ugly, whether referring to Motif, OL, or Athena's widgets? I agree wholeheartedly that whoever decided on the Motif default look must have been under a lot of eye strain; however, most of the 'look' of the toolkits can be altered with a little foreground, background, bitmap and font twiddling in the resources, n'est-ce pas? Just wondering what it is the folks are calling ugly... T. Wall MIT Parson's Lab alice@athena.mit.edu
mra@searchtech.com (Michael Almond) (04/05/91)
In article <9104020203.AA00284@bud.cs.ubc.ca.ubc.ca> bud.cs.ubc.ca!lowe@uunet.UU.NET (David Lowe) writes: ... >Development of interfaces in the University environment is stalled because we >are faced with 3 choices (Athena widgets, Motif, Open Look). Don't forget InterViews and Andrew. -- Michael R. Almond (Georgia Tech Alumnus) mra@srchtec.uucp (registered) search technology, inc. mra@searchtech.com 4725 peachtree corners cir., suite 200 uupsi!srchtec!mra norcross, georgia 30092 (404) 441-1457 (office)
ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) (04/05/91)
I apologize for cross-posting this message, but the referenced message (<9104030427.AA18948@relay1.UU.NET>) appears to be from me. It is not. It is a posting of e-mail I sent to netviews@utoday.com. Apparently Unix Today is not satisfied merely with demonstrating how inconsiderate they are themselves, but wants to show that many other people are also equally inconsiderate. Followups to news.misc. -- Ian Taylor airs!ian@uunet.uu.net uunet!airs!ian First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message: ``Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but inconsistency does tend to bring one to the attention of the police computers.''
datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) (04/05/91)
>> Is a single GUI standard really necessary? >Yes. How else can multi-platform portability be acheived? Isn't that what X is for? Stick with Xt/Xaw (or any other free set of widgets) and you've got the portability. -- -- datri@convex.com
datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) (04/05/91)
>>If a commercial application writer really wants to target Motif and >>Open Look, they should use something like the Solbourne toolkit which >>provides both Motif and Open Look with the same binary (this is not a As I understand it, OI requires the use of c++, which makes it fairly unpalatable. -- -- datri@convex.com
blarsen@spider.uio.no (Bjorn Larsen) (04/07/91)
bud.cs.ubc.ca!lowe@uunet.UU.NET (David Lowe) writes: > Development >of interfaces in the University environment is stalled because we >are faced with 3 choices (Athena widgets, Motif, Open Look). Why is this statement more sensible than "Development of programs in the Univerity environment is stalled because we are faced with 3 choices (C, C++, Ada)." or "Purchase of computers in the Univerity environment is stalled because we are faced with 3 choices (Digital, Sun, HP)." ? How on earth can being 'faced with choices' stall something? Wishy-washy. [ Follow-ups directed to comp.windows.misc ] --- Bjorn.Larsen@usit.uio.no "Specialization is for insects" University Centre for Information Technology - Lazarus Long University of Oslo, Norway
cjc@ulysses.att.com (Chris Calabrese) (04/08/91)
In article <1991Apr05.053837.13194@convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >>>If a commercial application writer really wants to target Motif and >>>Open Look, they should use something like the Solbourne toolkit which >>>provides both Motif and Open Look with the same binary (this is not a > >As I understand it, OI requires the use of c++, which makes it fairly >unpalatable. >-- >datri@convex.com Why? C++ compilers under UNIX are probably a whole lot more uniform in operation than C compilers. I keep hearing people insisting that C++ is the way of the future. Here's an opertunity to put their money where their mouths are. I don't think that un-availability of compilers is a problem (the AT&T cfront translator (and relabelings of it) is probably more widely distributed than ANSI compilers). If the problem is a learning curve, that's the good part about C++ (in comparison to ADA, Smalltalk, Modula2, etc). The people working on the back-end pieces can do their work in C. Only the people doing the actual UI work need know anything about C++ stuff (and main() has to be compiled using the C++ compiler to get all the static constructors to work). How unpalatable this is probably depends mostly on the size and age of the existing code for the application. On a new application, it shouldn't be any roadblock at all. On existing application that someone wants to throw a new UI onto, it depends on how independently the back-end pieces were designed from the existing UI's. Name: Christopher J. Calabrese Brain loaned to: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ att!ulysses!cjc cjc@ulysses.att.com Obligatory Quote: ``pher - gr. vb. to schlep. phospher - to schlep light.philosopher - to schlep thoughts.''
cflatter@zia.aoc.nrao.EDU (Chris Flatters) (04/08/91)
> If Solbourne really provided all of Motif then this might be reasonable, > but in fact it doesn't provide as much as I would like to be able > to use and is furthermore larger than the Motif binary (hard to > imagine I know). Perhaps when it matures (I understand the newest > release is somewhat better). In any case I've stated my opinion on > the usability of "virtual" toolkits before. BTW: from the examples of Solbourne OI clients I have seen they don't do a very good job of OPEN LOOK either. They really have to distort OPEN LOOK to provide something than can easily be switched to Motif l&f (& presumably vice versa: I haven't seen OI in Motif mode yet). Chris Flatters
toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) (04/10/91)
} > If Solbourne really provided all of Motif then this might be reasonable, } > but in fact it doesn't provide as much as I would like to be able } > to use and is furthermore larger than the Motif binary (hard to } > imagine I know). Perhaps when it matures (I understand the newest } > release is somewhat better). In any case I've stated my opinion on } > the usability of "virtual" toolkits before. } } BTW: from the examples of Solbourne OI clients I have seen they don't do } a very good job of OPEN LOOK either. They really have to distort OPEN LOOK } to provide something than can easily be switched to Motif l&f (& presumably } vice versa: I haven't seen OI in Motif mode yet). Can you site some examples? I'm not sure what you mean by "distort OPEN LOOK". We were certified Level 1 OPEN LOOK compliant before we ever thought of providing the Motif emulation. The Motif emulation didn't affect the OPEN LOOK part of OI at all. -- Tom LaStrange toml@Solbourne.COM
sean@utoday.com (04/29/91)
QUESTION #3: Are X terminals a cost-effective solution? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This question is being posted to gather responses for a regular column in UNIX Today! called "net.views". The purpose of the column is to generate user response to questions of importance in the Unix industry. By sending an e-mail reply to the above question, you are granting UNIX Today! permission to consider your comments for publication. A summary of e-mail responses to this post will be posted in this two weeks from today. /* Please include a daytime telephone number! */ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
andreess@mrlaxs.mrl.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.160744.25080@utoday.com> netviews@utoday.com writes: > This question is being posted to gather responses for a regular >column in UNIX Today! called "net.views". [...] Garbage like this makes me say 'yo' to a moderated .research group... please... soon... Maybe in honor of UNIX Today! this group should be renamed `comp.graphics!'. Marc -- Marc Andreessen___________University of Illinois Materials Research Laboratory Internet: andreessen@uimrl7.mrl.uiuc.edu____________Bitnet: andreessen@uiucmrl
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.160744.25080@utoday.com> netviews@utoday.com writes: > Are X terminals a cost-effective solution? A cost effective solution for what? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr29.160744.25080@utoday.com> netviews@utoday.com writes: |QUESTION #3: | Are X terminals a cost-effective solution? That's easy. The only possible answer is: What problem are you trying to solve?