3 ms·

> it does not look native and the devs don't care this is not valid. no need to limit our use case to devs, either. at worst, users don't care. at best, users

> it does not look native and the devs don't care this is not valid. no need to limit our use case to devs, either. at worst, users don't care. at best, users prefer it. see Spotify, Discord, Skype, Sublime, Chrome, Steam... should i keep going? whenever i open an app that uses entirely native controls i just expect the author didn't want to invest any time into making their app look good.

Klathmon 10y ago
I agree. I never thought about it before, but I have to say that the vast majority of the apps I like the usability in do not look or feel native. I don't know if there are any studies into what "users" want, but I'm with you. I prefer a UX that fits the app best, not the OS. Especially because in my experience I'm using the same app across multiple OSs and I'd like the same layout in each (within reason)
heroprotagonist 10y ago
> at worst, users don't care Well, if you'll accept a single data point, I dislike using them. If there's a native alternative I will always go for that. If there is not, then sometimes this tips the decision to not install.
kitsunesoba 10y ago
Native with minimal custom styled accents can be good looking, polished, and professional, and it doesn't throw platform conventions and features out the window to boot. Native looks bad only when the developer doesn't care. I really don't think its such a great idea to reinvent the UI wheel, throwing the decades of research and refinement represented by native UI toolkits under the bus for the sake of branding and aesthetics, unless you have a good reason — a really good reason, like having to create brand new UI for a task that prior hadn't been performed on computers before. I also see electron apps as stopgap measure, not a solution, and this feeling is reinforced every time I open up Activity Monitor and see Slack or Spotify sucking up upwards of half a gig of memory while sitting there doing nothing.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > I really don't think its such a great idea to reinvent the UI wheel, throwing the decades of research and refinement represented by native UI toolkits under the bus for the sake of branding and aesthetics, unless you have a good reason It's a romantic thought, but that boat sailed a long time ago. Users got used to the web that had a very inconsistent UI between websites and on the website over time; before bootstrap, you would be hardpressed to find 2 websites with the same button styling. The last time the web used unstyled OS-controls was the 90s (with that default grey background - blech).
yanks 10y ago
Yeah I agree with you. This is very true in the Windows world, if an app uses entirely native widgets it looks very meh. However, on Linux and Mac it's a little different. On Mac you'll see many apps compromise their branded style to look more Mac-like in style. Meanwhile on Linux most people use apps entirely fitted for their desktop environment, and then it's branded apps that look out of place. Windows attempted to make it's desktop more this way and failed with Windows 8.
- spoiler 10y ago
  > This is very true in the Windows world, if an app uses entirely native widgets it looks very meh. Yes an no. Windows is very versatile when it comes to design. However, if you just drag-n-drop elements in Visual Studio[1] or Qt, you get that "ugly" windows app. You'll notice plenty of Microsoft's own designs (as part of the OS, or as external apps) that look very well and fit in with the rest of the OS. There are also a few gems from 3rd parties. > On Mac you'll see many apps compromise their branded style to look more Mac-like in style. I agree with this, but I also believe it's an "optical illusion" in the sense that the GUI isn't very Mac itself, but it just borrows some design conventions used by the OS to make it easier for the user to understand the application. > Meanwhile on Linux most people use apps entirely fitted for their desktop environment, and then it's branded apps that look out of place. As a full-time (or at least 99%) Linux user, I tend to disagree with this. I know what you mean and you're sometimes right, but it's not really that black and white. a GTK app on Qt/Plasma won't look that nice unless you go out of your way to make it look nice (which is usually a lot of work), and open another GTK app and realise it looks broken, so you need to add more tweaks, and then you open the third app and give up. Same goes for KDE/Qt apps on Gnome.
spoiler 10y ago
> whenever i open an app that uses entirely native controls i just expect the author didn't want to invest any time into making their app look good. So much of this! This is my exact sentiment, too! If you want your application to look different from the OS-provided GUI—which I think is a good thing—without investing much effort into implementing your own rendering/painting engine, the web is an excellent platform, not to mention there's much more you gain with it, too. What bothers me is that the author focuses on a few bad points of electron, whilst there are also many benefits to using it.
mwcampbell 10y ago
Please explain why looking good necessarily means looking different from the native controls. Isn't consistency among apps on a given platform important?

Klathmon 10y ago

I agree. I never thought about it before, but I have to say that the vast majority of the apps I like the usability in do not look or feel native. I don't know if there are any studies into what "users" want, but I'm with you. I prefer a UX that fits the app best, not the OS. Especially because in my experience I'm using the same app across multiple OSs and I'd like the same layout in each (within reason)

heroprotagonist 10y ago

> at worst, users don't care Well, if you'll accept a single data point, I dislike using them. If there's a native alternative I will always go for that. If there is not, then sometimes this tips the decision to not install.

kitsunesoba 10y ago

Native with minimal custom styled accents can be good looking, polished, and professional, and it doesn't throw platform conventions and features out the window to boot. Native looks bad only when the developer doesn't care. I really don't think its such a great idea to reinvent the UI wheel, throwing the decades of research and refinement represented by native UI toolkits under the bus for the sake of branding and aesthetics, unless you have a good reason — a really good reason, like having to create brand new UI for a task that prior hadn't been performed on computers before. I also see electron apps as stopgap measure, not a solution, and this feeling is reinforced every time I open up Activity Monitor and see Slack or Spotify sucking up upwards of half a gig of memory while sitting there doing nothing.

sangnoir 10y ago
> I really don't think its such a great idea to reinvent the UI wheel, throwing the decades of research and refinement represented by native UI toolkits under the bus for the sake of branding and aesthetics, unless you have a good reason It's a romantic thought, but that boat sailed a long time ago. Users got used to the web that had a very inconsistent UI between websites and on the website over time; before bootstrap, you would be hardpressed to find 2 websites with the same button styling. The last time the web used unstyled OS-controls was the 90s (with that default grey background - blech).

yanks 10y ago

Yeah I agree with you. This is very true in the Windows world, if an app uses entirely native widgets it looks very meh. However, on Linux and Mac it's a little different. On Mac you'll see many apps compromise their branded style to look more Mac-like in style. Meanwhile on Linux most people use apps entirely fitted for their desktop environment, and then it's branded apps that look out of place. Windows attempted to make it's desktop more this way and failed with Windows 8.

spoiler 10y ago
> This is very true in the Windows world, if an app uses entirely native widgets it looks very meh. Yes an no. Windows is very versatile when it comes to design. However, if you just drag-n-drop elements in Visual Studio[1] or Qt, you get that "ugly" windows app. You'll notice plenty of Microsoft's own designs (as part of the OS, or as external apps) that look very well and fit in with the rest of the OS. There are also a few gems from 3rd parties. > On Mac you'll see many apps compromise their branded style to look more Mac-like in style. I agree with this, but I also believe it's an "optical illusion" in the sense that the GUI isn't very Mac itself, but it just borrows some design conventions used by the OS to make it easier for the user to understand the application. > Meanwhile on Linux most people use apps entirely fitted for their desktop environment, and then it's branded apps that look out of place. As a full-time (or at least 99%) Linux user, I tend to disagree with this. I know what you mean and you're sometimes right, but it's not really that black and white. a GTK app on Qt/Plasma won't look that nice unless you go out of your way to make it look nice (which is usually a lot of work), and open another GTK app and realise it looks broken, so you need to add more tweaks, and then you open the third app and give up. Same goes for KDE/Qt apps on Gnome.

spoiler 10y ago

> whenever i open an app that uses entirely native controls i just expect the author didn't want to invest any time into making their app look good. So much of this! This is my exact sentiment, too! If you want your application to look different from the OS-provided GUI—which I think is a good thing—without investing much effort into implementing your own rendering/painting engine, the web is an excellent platform, not to mention there's much more you gain with it, too. What bothers me is that the author focuses on a few bad points of electron, whilst there are also many benefits to using it.

mwcampbell 10y ago

Please explain why looking good necessarily means looking different from the native controls. Isn't consistency among apps on a given platform important?