4 ms·

Part of the burden of building a cross platform desktop application is making sure the experience is consistent across platforms as users may need to be moving

by mroche 7y ago

Part of the burden of building a cross platform desktop application is making sure the experience is consistent across platforms as users may need to be moving between them. For example, most CG/VFX applications are multi-platform to various degrees. None of them are native by your standards as that would be an obscene amount of complexity to develop, maintain, and more importantly support. However, all of the applications behave identically on all the platforms they run on (sans some specific host platform features like D3D support, RTX/Optix, macOS menu bar, etc), which makes supporting vast user bases simpler, and enabling mixed OS environments without introducing cognitive load just to understand what’s different about the app. We have our own gripes with UI/UX of these apps because they are complex, but not because they are not "native". Building a "native" application only works when you choose to target a single platform (like the Chime Go text editor), or if you have the reasonable ability and resources to have and support separate teams for each platform and the organization to coordinate roadmaps and priorities across them. From my experience, the only group I really see complain about "native" appearance is macOS users. Windows users really don’t seem to care, and on Linux (there are some vocal people) I guess you could say GTK is the native toolkit above X/Wayland, but it’s really up to the DE/WM for determine what the "native" context is.

_jal 7y ago
This is hardly a new argument. I personally remember Mac users complaining about the Microsoft Word/Mac 4 -> 5 transition back in the early 90s, when big gray pseudo-3D button bars invaded. And you're right, Mac users are mainly the only ones to complain. That's because we do have a fairly consistent, unified experience and like it that way. Which is why I don't use apps that don't play nice on the Mac. If I wanted inconsistent, I'd use another platform. Developers have to make their own choices, of course. > but not because they are not "native". This is incorrect, and contradicted by your next paragraph. On my work machine, I use two non-native apps because I have to (Chrome is installed but only used for troubleshooting Chrome-specific issues). My home mac has zero. Adobe left a market gap for a few independent shops to step into on the graphics side, MS on the office app side. Here's hoping more do elsewhere. I like indies.
- mroche 7y ago
  > This is incorrect, and contradicted by your next paragraph. I’m not seeing the contradiction. In one section I’m talking about UI/UX gripes with a particular type of applications because of complexity required by workload, not based on host nativeness. The next about general platform user sentiments. The two are not the same. I almost never see anyone on any platform for these workhorse applications, that are essentially they’re own environments, ask for more "native" UI/UX outside of file dialogs. Because, for 98% of these users, it’s not important and has no effect on them getting their job done. > This is hardly a new argument. It will remain old, yet valid, as long as there are limited developer resources and multiple differently structured platforms to support. Hence toolkits and frameworks like Qt or Electron exist to make the developers lives easier. Are they perfect? No, but they do a heck of a great job in allowing developers to build applications that have a shared experience for all users within their business constraints. If that’s something you don’t enjoy dealing with and want to maintain a pristine, full native environment, then that’s good for you. But that puts you in an extremely selective minority of an already minority environment. I give credit where credit is due, Apple has done a great job of setting style guidelines and creating interfaces for developers wanting that native feel. Compared to Electron/web apps and cross-platform framework apps, though, that’s a very small slice of the pie.

by mroche 7y ago

_jal 7y ago

This is hardly a new argument. I personally remember Mac users complaining about the Microsoft Word/Mac 4 -> 5 transition back in the early 90s, when big gray pseudo-3D button bars invaded. And you're right, Mac users are mainly the only ones to complain. That's because we do have a fairly consistent, unified experience and like it that way. Which is why I don't use apps that don't play nice on the Mac. If I wanted inconsistent, I'd use another platform. Developers have to make their own choices, of course. > but not because they are not "native". This is incorrect, and contradicted by your next paragraph. On my work machine, I use two non-native apps because I have to (Chrome is installed but only used for troubleshooting Chrome-specific issues). My home mac has zero. Adobe left a market gap for a few independent shops to step into on the graphics side, MS on the office app side. Here's hoping more do elsewhere. I like indies.

mroche 7y ago
> This is incorrect, and contradicted by your next paragraph. I’m not seeing the contradiction. In one section I’m talking about UI/UX gripes with a particular type of applications because of complexity required by workload, not based on host nativeness. The next about general platform user sentiments. The two are not the same. I almost never see anyone on any platform for these workhorse applications, that are essentially they’re own environments, ask for more "native" UI/UX outside of file dialogs. Because, for 98% of these users, it’s not important and has no effect on them getting their job done. > This is hardly a new argument. It will remain old, yet valid, as long as there are limited developer resources and multiple differently structured platforms to support. Hence toolkits and frameworks like Qt or Electron exist to make the developers lives easier. Are they perfect? No, but they do a heck of a great job in allowing developers to build applications that have a shared experience for all users within their business constraints. If that’s something you don’t enjoy dealing with and want to maintain a pristine, full native environment, then that’s good for you. But that puts you in an extremely selective minority of an already minority environment. I give credit where credit is due, Apple has done a great job of setting style guidelines and creating interfaces for developers wanting that native feel. Compared to Electron/web apps and cross-platform framework apps, though, that’s a very small slice of the pie.