22 ms·
> Let's face it, macOS is the only desktop platform where users give a shit about whether apps look native and use system-provided controls. Citation VERY MUCH
by fake-name 10y ago
> Let's face it, macOS is the only desktop platform where users give a shit about whether apps look native and use system-provided controls.
Citation VERY MUCH needed. I'm on windows, and I care about applications using native widgets. I mostly care because non-native widgets tend to have horrible performance, but windows does have at least some consistent styles (there are several, but there is some consistency), and a lot of custom windowing libraries just look horrible, and more importantly, behave inconsistently.
I'll generally be willing to use odd-looking GUIs, but when you have an odd-looking GUI that has different behaviour then is standard, it really annoys the hell out of me.
- mikewhy 10y agoThe right-click menu is a different style between the desktop and the title bar. Right out the gate there are so many inconsistencies in Windows I can really see where the person you're replying to is coming from.
- iaml 10y agoCase in point, if you want to change some setting in w10 you may want to look in one of the following locations: Control panel (1), Control panel (2), Registry, Group Policy Editor, some random menu or other program you need to launch. Really screams "consistency" doesn't it?
- ta34534445 10y agoI agree with your example completely. However this doesn't mean users don't appreciate native widgets and UI consistency. In fact, this is a common complaint for windows, something that Microsoft is currently working on (at what ever pace) Microsoft is firmly in the backwards compatibility at all costs camp - something which I definitely appreciate. This however comes at a cost and your example is one of them. I'm not suggesting this is not avoidable, but the complexity should not be understated.