rick@pbi.COM (Richard M. Goldstein) (02/28/91)
I HAD to get my unbiased 2 cents in here. (this does not necessarily reflect upon the party-line of my company). I'm not quite with the program here of people claiming that Open Look and Motif are a shape-or-position away from being the same interface. It seems to me that Motif is sorely missing many significant features of Open Look, while I can't think of a single component of Motif that OL parallels. Not only this, but OSF is CLEARLY being forced to play catch-up to Open Look. The December 10, 1990 issue of UNIX TODAY! has an article which tells of OSF's plans to add the "Drag and Drop" and stay-up menu features "around the end of 1991" that Open Look has had from the outset. Will Motif have as intuitive of metaphors as the pushpin or the elevator scrollbar? The article also mentions the mouse conventions lacking in Motif but present in OL. Once this is done, Motif is still lacking important features such as pinned popup frames, splittable scrollbars, some control items such as the gauge, and notices (blocking popups) that Open Look has always contained (correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not familiar with what release 1.1 did for Motif). ASSuming OpenWindows is updated by "around the end of 1991" to help complete the OL Spec, where will this leave Motif? This is all, of course, a reflection of the fact that the folks who designed Open Look had the good sense to START with the style-guide instead of mashing pre-existing components together and trying to fit a style-guide to it (and, as somebody posted, continue to modify the style-guide to match the bugs in the current toolkit). Also relevant is the fact that the Open Look Functional Spec thought enough to build-in the intrinsic parts of the environment and how applications should interact with them. For example, in the OL environment specifies the File Manager application and how other applications should interact with it (OK, so the current implementation of Dragon Drop still leaves some of this on the wish list). So, instead of the user having to learn all of the file-management components of every application (as with Motif), he has only to learn the one File Manager and expect our applications to interact with it in the way he is accustomed. As an interface designer/developer, I consider this a BIG plus for the user. The bottom line is--vendor alignments aside--Open Look is simply a more complete user-interface specification than is Motif. Hope this stirs a few of you :-) rick %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % % % Richard M. Goldstein % % % % Perfect Byte, Inc. Phone: (402)554-1122 % % 7121 Cass St. Fax: (402)554-1938 % % Omaha, NE 68132 email: rick@pbi.com % % % % "If I knew what I was doing, % % d'ya think I'd be in Omaha?" % % % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
rlk@think.COM (Robert L Krawitz) (02/28/91)
\begin{flame}
Gaah. What about those of us who run a simple twm configuration (I'd
run uwm if I could), who don't particularly even care for title bars,
who object strenuously to 3D appearance (it's not just because it's
unnecessary, or slow, but I find it downright ugly), who just want a
simple interface without all the bells and whistles? I will NOT run mwm
just to run some application that won't cooperate with some other window
manager. I do NOT want my screen cluttered with all sorts of useless
gimmicks that satisfy someone's idea of prettiness (who probably doesn't
even use the thing to begin with).
I do not find an artificial three dimensional effect (shadowing)
pleasant or natural to deal with. I do not have depth perception, and
do not normally rely on depth cues of this nature even when dealing with
material objects. I do not want my screen to mimic a three dimensional
surface which it isn't and use a mouse to "push" buttons via remote
control. A computer screen and mouse is very different from the control
panel on a "conventional" piece of equipment, and trying to carry over
all the paradigms without change just doesn't work. Better to take
advantage of what the computer can do with the screen, keyboard, and
mouse than to try to imitate a completely different system, have it fall
down on its face, and be incompatible with everything else anyway.
\end{flame}
There, I've got that off my chest.
ames >>>>>>>>> | Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com> 245 First St.
bloom-beacon > |think!rlk (postmaster) Cambridge, MA 02142
harvard >>>>>> . Thinking Machines Corp. (617)234-2116david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth) (03/01/91)
First of all, I really don't care which way it goes. rick@pbi.COM (Richard M. Goldstein) writes: > > ... OSF's plans to add the "Drag and Drop" and stay-up menu features >"around the end of 1991" that Open Look has had from the outset. "Drag and Drop" is currently being discussed by X Consortium members. Personally, I don't see how its going to be very useful within the existing context of Open Look. This is an architectural issue, not simply a toolkit issue. The OpenLook scheme is not sufficient. >This is all, of course, a reflection of the fact that the folks who >designed Open Look had the good sense to START with the style-guide Sorry, but this "specification first" approach is, IMHO, the reason *BOTH* Motif and OpenLook have problems. Neither UI is very good. Paper documents are an absolutely terrible way of describing a user interface. Does anybody who used any of the window environments on Xerox workstations pre '85 feel that either environment is even *CLOSE* to what we had by the middle of the last decade? I sure as hell don't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Smyth david@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov Senior Software Engineer, seismo!cit-vax!jpl-devvax!david X and Object Guru. (818)393-0983 Jet Propulsion Lab, M/S 230-103, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 --------------------------- Quote of the Day: --------------------------- "A Guru is not one who simply knows all the answers. Rather, a Guru is like one who walks among the mountains, and by wandering around abit, can see the horizon through long narrow canyons." -------------------------------------------------------------------------
rich@MAX7.llnl.gov (Rich Mayfield) (03/01/91)
In article <9102281530.AA03852@underprize.think.com>, rlk@think.COM (Robert L Krawitz) writes: |> Path: lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.co om!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines |> From: rlk@think.COM (Robert L Krawitz) |> Newsgroups: comp.windows.x |> Subject: OL != Motif |> Message-ID: <9102281530.AA03852@underprize.think.com> |> Date: 28 Feb 91 15:30:42 GMT |> References: <9102272142.AA02407@marvin.pbi.com> |> Sender: rlk@think.com |> Organization: The Internet |> Lines: 31 |> |> \begin{flame} |> I do not find an artificial three dimensional effect (shadowing) |> pleasant or natural to deal with. I do not have depth perception, and |> do not normally rely on depth cues of this nature even when dealing with |> material objects. I do not want my screen to mimic a three dimensional |> surface which it isn't and use a mouse to "push" buttons via remote |> control. About 3-D. I think the point of what a User Interface is being somewhat muddled here. Yes, it's true, many people, especially those of us who are computer literate, aren't impressed by the "bells and whistles." But these same 3-D effects help the computer novice to relate to the "real world" and get their "real world" tasks done promptly. I mean, what's the point of creating a nifty user interface if PEOPLE can't relate to it? rich
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (03/01/91)
In article <9102272142.AA02407@marvin.pbi.com> rick@pbi.COM (Richard M. Goldstein) writes: >The December 10, 1990 issue of UNIX TODAY! has an article which tells >of OSF's plans to add the "Drag and Drop" and stay-up menu features >"around the end of 1991" that Open Look has had from the outset. I believe that OSF is wisely waiting until the X Consortium makes a decision. It would be a bit of a bummer to have to change everything after the fact. >Will Motif have as intuitive of metaphors as the pushpin or the >elevator scrollbar? I don't find a widget which warps my mouse around on the screen intutitive. But that's up for arguement. However I will assert that the Motif objects are based on long-tested examples that have been used in real applications for years. OL's objects are for the large part invented out of whole cloth. If they guess right this is great, but it's not clear to me that they always did. > The article also mentions the mouse conventions >lacking in Motif but present in OL. I'm not sure what this refers to. >This is all, of course, a reflection of the fact that the folks who >designed Open Look had the good sense to START with the style-guide >instead of mashing pre-existing components together and trying to >fit a style-guide to it (and, as somebody posted, continue to modify >the style-guide to match the bugs in the current toolkit). The OL style guide has changed since the first version of the toolkit too. The Motif style guide was not created after the toolkit. However a toolkit was molded to fit the style guide, a decision which might be considered regretable, but OSF is unfortunately not chartered to create code, only acquire it. >Also relevant is the fact that the Open Look Functional Spec thought >enough to build-in the intrinsic parts of the environment and how >applications should interact with them. For example, in the OL >environment specifies the File Manager application and how other The OSF membership, seeing the number of Desktops currently or about to be available, decided that the implementation of a desktop should not be part of Motif. An interface between the toolkit and a desktop is definitely desirable however. It's not clear to me that this is or should be toolkit specific. But it's definitely something that should be included, perhaps even at a lower level than the GUI toolkits. >of the user having to learn all of the file-management components of >every application (as with Motif), he has only to learn the one File Manager ???? The file management components in Motif are standard. There's a standard mechanism for selecting/creating files. What are you talking about? >The bottom line is--vendor alignments aside--Open Look is simply >a more complete user-interface specification than is Motif. It is certainly more detailed, and it does contain some components that are not included in Motif. I have two critical questions though. Given that the specification is not publicly controlled, how much influence do you feel you have over seeing it changed and extended in the future? (This is after all, one of the major reasons for the creation of OSF and Motif.) Also consider here that your answer may be very different if you're a hardware vendor. It's not a very happy situation when something you use is guaranteed to be out earlier on your competitors equipment. Do you think that any of the OL toolkits that are not based on an underlying extensible mechanism (like XT) will survive in the long run? (Or are they more likely to survive, since they are lighter weight :-/). -- 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.
mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU (03/01/91)
>> I do not find an artificial three dimensional effect (shadowing) >> pleasant or natural to deal with. [...] I do not want my screen to >> mimic a three dimensional surface which it isn't and use a mouse to >> "push" buttons via remote control. > About 3-D. I think the point of what a User Interface is being > somewhat muddled here. Yes, it's true, many people, especially those > of us who are computer literate, aren't impressed by the "bells and > whistles." It's more than just not being impressed by them; for some of us, they are active impediments to productivity. > But these same 3-D effects help the computer novice to relate to the > "real world" and get their "real world" tasks done promptly. I mean, > what's the point of creating a nifty user interface if PEOPLE can't > relate to it? (And the "computer literate" types aren't PEOPLE, I suppose?) Fine, so provide all the pseudo-3-D chrome; make it the default, even. But *let us shut it off*! I have no quarrel with chrome per se; what I will not tolerate is not allowing me to disable it. If I encounter an application that won't let me turn off things like pseudo-3-D, I simply don't use it. (I have never yet seen one that's useful enough to make me use it in spite of the chrome, nor do I expect to.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
pa@appmag.com (Pierre Asselin) (03/02/91)
rlk@think.COM (Robert L Krawitz) writes:
~\begin{flame}
~[...]
~\end{flame}
~There, I've got that off my chest.
I'm glad you beat me to it. That way, I don't have to take any flak...
--Pierre Asselin, R&D, Applied Magnetics Corp. I speak for me.nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (03/02/91)
In article <9102281530.AA03852@underprize.think.com> rlk@think.COM (Robert L Krawitz) writes: >simple interface without all the bells and whistles? I will NOT run mwm >just to run some application that won't cooperate with some other window >manager. I do NOT want my screen cluttered with all sorts of useless Sounds good. I won't write an application that won't cooperate with some other window manager. That doesn't have anything in particular to do with Motif though. >I do not find an artificial three dimensional effect (shadowing) >pleasant or natural to deal with. I do not have depth perception, and >do not normally rely on depth cues of this nature even when dealing with >material objects. I do not want my screen to mimic a three dimensional You're welcome to set the shadow width to 0. That should work fine. -- 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.
mls@cbnewsm.att.com (mike.siemon) (03/02/91)
In article <9103011331.AA00547@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU writes: >>> I do not find an artificial three dimensional effect (shadowing) >>> pleasant or natural to deal with. I sympathize -- I was initially very negative about the pseudo-3D effects in widgets, and remain ambivalent after much use. >It's more than just not being impressed by them; for some of us, they >are active impediments to productivity. > ... >Fine, so provide all the pseudo-3-D chrome; make it the default, even. >But *let us shut it off*! If you don't mind my saying so (this is meant more as information than PR) that is exactly what is provided in the latest OLIT implementation of 3D; either from a workspace property sheet or by editing the .Xdefaults you may revert to a 2D interface. -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must m.siemon@ATT.COM love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!attunix!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton
chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (03/05/91)
In article <9103011331.AA00547@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>, mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU writes: > Fine, so provide all the pseudo-3-D chrome; make it the default, even. > But *let us shut it off*! I have no quarrel with chrome per se; what I > will not tolerate is not allowing me to disable it. If I encounter an > application that won't let me turn off things like pseudo-3-D, I simply > don't use it. (I have never yet seen one that's useful enough to make > me use it in spite of the chrome, nor do I expect to.) I agree wholeheartedly here. I have a monochrome system, and Motif is just horrible looking. I tried all sorts of things, changing shadow dimensions, shading patterns, whatever, but they all caused some other bizarre interface behavior. (This was in Frame Maker 2.1X). I like the fact that OPEN LOOK admitted up front that 3D doesn't work in monochrome, and provided two distinct looks for the widgets. Another consideration: OL always looks good in print when you write your manuals, because you can snap the mono version to get a clean picture. Motif always looks muddy. I also think Motif uses too much 3D. It's like every widget is at a different altitude. Even when confronting visual 3D cues, your brain knows the screen is flat, and will only accomodate a few different heights. A good use of 3D Motif widgets is in the apE interface. This is one of the few Motif tools that made me feel like it had a useful 3D look. -- Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 729-3363 A good newspaper is never good enough, but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever. -- Garrison Keillor