4 ms·

I think the point is that many "professional" tools have their own aesthetics independent of the rest of the OS. Things like lightroom or movie editing software

I think the point is that many "professional" tools have their own aesthetics independent of the rest of the OS. Things like lightroom or movie editing software. For these programs OS skins are not needed.

criddell 10y ago
That's a very good point. That tool, however, should at the very least be internally consistent and pleasant to use. I don't think that's what the person was saying that I responded to or he wouldn't have made the condescending remark about people using a pro machine to use Outlook and Facebook.
danudey 10y ago
Not 'skins' per se, but even when themed, most (good) professional apps will still use native or native-behaving controls and similar design language to the host OS. In comparison, Mac apps will look and feel different from Linux or Windows apps, and QT and GTK+ apps will look and feel different from one another or the other two. Switching between apps, even with heavily customized UI/UX, is consistent on a given platform, and that's what's important. Taking that away will just frustrate users and complicate things overmuch.