6 ms·

I agree with this too but this problem can be addressed by caring. I care. You can find a bunch of non-native interactions in my app but every time I work on it

I agree with this too but this problem can be addressed by caring. I care. You can find a bunch of non-native interactions in my app but every time I work on it I make it better and implement more of a native feel (like disabling selecting text when you shouldn't be able to, etc). It's a balance - personally I think apps that focus on a specific platform is exclusionary. So accepting some non-native feel means more people can use my app. I agree that browsers make it hard though.

mhd 7y ago
I'd argue that despite all cries about non-native styling and behavior, MacOS Classic, OS X, Windows 95, OS/2, Next, Swing etc. had more in common with each other than they do with webapps (unless we're talking about ExtJS enterprise apps or the like). This won't matter as much for rich-text chat apps or the like, which always looked horribly non-native, over-styled, skeuomorphic (cf. Trillian)… But let's picture a database client or IDE. Those used to resemble regular desktop apps. Nowadays? Note that I'm not arguing about your article or even approach, I was just chiming in on the dislike for Electron in general, where I think bloat is the least of our worries. All this wasn't something new, the downturn of desktop UIs started way before, as people are now used to mobile and webapps and expect that kind of look and feel everywhere. The OS manufacturers definitely seem to approve and comply. You saw this happening in other places, before. Just look at enterprise Windows applications that were targeted to people used to terminal UIs (3270, VT220). Current UI trends are the same, just with spurious rounded corners instead of closely-grouped form elements…
- SiVal 7y ago
  Yes, major desktop GUIs 20 yrs ago had more in common with each other than they have with web apps. They also had more in common with each other than with iOS and Android phones. Yet today, most people in the more-developed economies use desktop apps, web apps on desktop, phone apps and web apps on phone every day. Some even have GUI apps in their cars and on their wrists. And among the new desktop apps, they have apps that work with touch UI or keyboard and/or mouse, that are available on multiple platforms with significant UI differences, and that have mobile versions. The result for most users is that they use a whole medley of different UIs daily and are far more flexible about UIs than back in the day when you were either a Mac person or a Windows person exclusively and all of your apps were native apps on your one machine. As clients continue to diversify, as Web apps spread, as companies like Apple keep bumping the Mac UI to lower and lower priority and claim Mac (which mustn't have touch)/iPod/iPhone/AppleWatch all need different UIs and all must have some sort of web support, and Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon apps in their wide and ever-changing variety are used more and more...the demand for consistent UI in the fine details is not nearly as big an issue for most people as it used to be.
amelius 7y ago
Also, as a user, I expect the UI of my apps to be somewhat inconsistent. If the app is perfectly consistent with the native guidelines, then that's a small plus. But any slightly inconsistent behavior can be quickly learned, and I don't consider it a big deal (again, as a user). Of course, if every app out there was perfectly consistent, then perhaps it would be a different story.
jpwgarrison 7y ago
> like disabling selecting text when you shouldn't be able to This is the worst thing in computers. Why would you EVER _block_ the ability to select text? I am engaged enough to want to select something you made! Embrace that, don't stop it!
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  This is one of the reasons I despise touching Windows. Why on earth are error dialog boxes not selectable??
  - dflock 7y ago
    Yeah. However, when the dialog is focused you can press ctrl+c to copy it's contents to the clipboard.
    - j6m8 7y ago
      WHAT?! This changes everything.
    - jniedrauer 7y ago
      Who thought this was a good UX?
      - dflock 7y ago
        The same people who wrote the Windows API, I guess.
- automathematics 7y ago
  I got one. Because my electron app is a game. I don't want you interacting with text as text, it's supposed to be more of a "texture" like one would expect from a native DirectX implementation
- Lerc 7y ago
  On the other hand I hate apps that have user interface elements where you can select the text by accident instead of interacting with the element that contains the text. Imagine what it would be like if a click and drag on a window title bar moved the window but a click and drag on the text part of the title bar just selected text. Back in the Amiga days there was a nice little app that let you go into selection mode and then draw a rect around anything and it would pseudo-ocr it. Surely something like that exists on current machines, but I havn't seen it.

mhd 7y ago

I'd argue that despite all cries about non-native styling and behavior, MacOS Classic, OS X, Windows 95, OS/2, Next, Swing etc. had more in common with each other than they do with webapps (unless we're talking about ExtJS enterprise apps or the like). This won't matter as much for rich-text chat apps or the like, which always looked horribly non-native, over-styled, skeuomorphic (cf. Trillian)… But let's picture a database client or IDE. Those used to resemble regular desktop apps. Nowadays? Note that I'm not arguing about your article or even approach, I was just chiming in on the dislike for Electron in general, where I think bloat is the least of our worries. All this wasn't something new, the downturn of desktop UIs started way before, as people are now used to mobile and webapps and expect that kind of look and feel everywhere. The OS manufacturers definitely seem to approve and comply. You saw this happening in other places, before. Just look at enterprise Windows applications that were targeted to people used to terminal UIs (3270, VT220). Current UI trends are the same, just with spurious rounded corners instead of closely-grouped form elements…

SiVal 7y ago
Yes, major desktop GUIs 20 yrs ago had more in common with each other than they have with web apps. They also had more in common with each other than with iOS and Android phones. Yet today, most people in the more-developed economies use desktop apps, web apps on desktop, phone apps and web apps on phone every day. Some even have GUI apps in their cars and on their wrists. And among the new desktop apps, they have apps that work with touch UI or keyboard and/or mouse, that are available on multiple platforms with significant UI differences, and that have mobile versions. The result for most users is that they use a whole medley of different UIs daily and are far more flexible about UIs than back in the day when you were either a Mac person or a Windows person exclusively and all of your apps were native apps on your one machine. As clients continue to diversify, as Web apps spread, as companies like Apple keep bumping the Mac UI to lower and lower priority and claim Mac (which mustn't have touch)/iPod/iPhone/AppleWatch all need different UIs and all must have some sort of web support, and Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon apps in their wide and ever-changing variety are used more and more...the demand for consistent UI in the fine details is not nearly as big an issue for most people as it used to be.

amelius 7y ago

Also, as a user, I expect the UI of my apps to be somewhat inconsistent. If the app is perfectly consistent with the native guidelines, then that's a small plus. But any slightly inconsistent behavior can be quickly learned, and I don't consider it a big deal (again, as a user). Of course, if every app out there was perfectly consistent, then perhaps it would be a different story.

jpwgarrison 7y ago

> like disabling selecting text when you shouldn't be able to This is the worst thing in computers. Why would you EVER _block_ the ability to select text? I am engaged enough to want to select something you made! Embrace that, don't stop it!

jniedrauer 7y ago
This is one of the reasons I despise touching Windows. Why on earth are error dialog boxes not selectable??
- dflock 7y ago
  Yeah. However, when the dialog is focused you can press ctrl+c to copy it's contents to the clipboard.
  - j6m8 7y ago
    WHAT?! This changes everything.
  - jniedrauer 7y ago
    Who thought this was a good UX?
    - dflock 7y ago
      The same people who wrote the Windows API, I guess.
automathematics 7y ago
I got one. Because my electron app is a game. I don't want you interacting with text as text, it's supposed to be more of a "texture" like one would expect from a native DirectX implementation
Lerc 7y ago
On the other hand I hate apps that have user interface elements where you can select the text by accident instead of interacting with the element that contains the text. Imagine what it would be like if a click and drag on a window title bar moved the window but a click and drag on the text part of the title bar just selected text. Back in the Amiga days there was a nice little app that let you go into selection mode and then draw a rect around anything and it would pseudo-ocr it. Surely something like that exists on current machines, but I havn't seen it.