8 ms·

Unpopular opinion: optimising for "branding" is what killed theming. Everyone wants to have their own custom colour theme, brand-associated font or button style

Unpopular opinion: optimising for "branding" is what killed theming. Everyone wants to have their own custom colour theme, brand-associated font or button style, which clashes with uniformity of system controls. If everyone renders buttons in a custom way, they bypass the native, theming-capable, accessible-by-default system controls. As long as product managers are happy, it doesn't matter that users aren't.

pwdisswordfish5 6y ago
I thought this was obvious.
bitwize 6y ago
This was true in the 90s as well, or have you never used Kai's Power Tools? What's more recent is that the OS vendor now considers UI font and color choices part of their brand, and thus fixed them immutably for "consistency" i.e., to advertise the Apple-ness of the Apple UI even in screen shots of the OS in action.
- encom 6y ago
  >Kai's Power Tools Page curls. Page curls everywhere!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
II2II 6y ago
I suspect there is more to it than branding. You can still establish a brand through the design and texture of controls, while letting the end user have limited control over colour. That is evident in the classic Mac OS as well as modern Windows. What we are most likely seeing is push-back over some of the excesses of themes. Branding is likely part of that, but the astounding number of controls likely played a negative role in the user experience as well.
forgetfulness 6y ago
Theming was HUGE in Linux back in 2005-2010, consistency was paramount, adherence to toolkit was extremely important just like Apple claimed. For Apple it was about delivering a consistent branded experience, for the GNOME and KDE communities it was about being able to consistently customize the experience. In Windows? Always a free-for-all of such heavy customization on the side of the third-party applications that a Windows look and feel was never really a thing, nor was theming because of the same thing. Then GNOME 3.0 came and they went for the consistently branded experience approach, and you were left with a black and gray desktop environment that at best tolerated customization. And it works alright, but Desktop Linux at most you'll get to work alright, the third party app ecosystem is small, without the feeling of ownership and freedom that an end-user can have with their system, customizing not the kernel but the things they're actually interacting with, what's left? An unremarkable desktop environment with few applications, that you'll want to replace with macOS as soon as you have the money.
- bsdubernerd 6y ago
  I agree that theming was much more consistent a decade ago in linux-land. GTK2 + QT with GTK2-style would get you an almost seamless experience. The "dark or light" theme we have today is an absolute joke by comparison. Many Gtk-engines were also much faster in terms of pure rendering speed. Another issue as mentioned is that per-control CSS skinning breaks easily with custom themes. Instead of using system colors devs often hard-code a custom look. Finally, some programs go for a fully custom theme that doesn't even work properly without. Darktable is one example. Darktable looks cool, but a long time I had a hard time reading it's controls since it didn't respect system's font sizes nor it allowed to change it. The contrast was poor. It now comes with several themes, but nothing matches my system theme, which is more accessible. As much as I love darktable, I'd skip the custom UI any day.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > Another issue as mentioned is that per-control CSS skinning breaks easily with custom themes. Instead of using system colors devs often hard-code a custom look. Ironically, you used to be able to use system colors via CSS. Like it usually happens on the web, that feature was also removed because of security reasons - apparently it made it easier for scammers to render fake system popups.
u678u 6y ago
I remember when office came out late 90s with the custom DLL to make everything grey and 3d looking instead of white. It was cool, but yeah breaks the consistent theme.
jonpurdy 6y ago
As a Technical PM, I fought against a former boss when they wanted to forego native controls because they wanted their app to be branded, because without a custom look they felt that their app would not be unique and memorable. If an app can't survive on its usefulness alone, it probably shouldn't exist. As a user, if an app doesn't have a native UI, I disregard it unless I need it for a specific and mandatory use.
- virtue3 6y ago
  The only time you should NOT be using a native control is when you have UX that demands something very custom. Or you're doing some multiplatform thing, in which case you should try and use a toolkit that can at least pretend to be native controls on all the platforms.
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  I believe Winamp became so popular because it had such a unique UI, that was also incredibly customizable. Compare that to Windows media player at the time... On the flip side I want me email client, my desktop authoring tools and admin tools to all look and act the same.
  - deathanatos 6y ago
    Perhaps partly, but the UI was also useful compared to WMP. WMP was slow, bulky, and took up lots of screen real estate. WinAmp, while it was themed, was slim, but also packed far more control into a tinier space than WMP. (The blue/grey theme that came later was far less performant; I mean the original dark green/black theme.) And WinAmp would open & play literally any format under the sun. WMP was limited to something like MP3 and WMA. (And maybe WAV.)
    - RedShift1 6y ago
      WMP plays anything the system has a codec for.
      - 6y ago
InvisibleUp 6y ago
This MSDN article (which starts by recounting a day in 1995) backs your theory up: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/ms364048(v=vs.80) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/ms364048(...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 6y ago
Agreed. CSS is the worst thing to happen the web because it privileged advertising and designers over content and writers, and designers make more by going from client to client. Instead of the web being the world's library, it has ended up like an endless magazine stand, optimizing for sensationalist crap.

pwdisswordfish5 6y ago

I thought this was obvious.

bitwize 6y ago

This was true in the 90s as well, or have you never used Kai's Power Tools? What's more recent is that the OS vendor now considers UI font and color choices part of their brand, and thus fixed them immutably for "consistency" i.e., to advertise the Apple-ness of the Apple UI even in screen shots of the OS in action.

encom 6y ago
>Kai's Power Tools Page curls. Page curls everywhere!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

II2II 6y ago

I suspect there is more to it than branding. You can still establish a brand through the design and texture of controls, while letting the end user have limited control over colour. That is evident in the classic Mac OS as well as modern Windows. What we are most likely seeing is push-back over some of the excesses of themes. Branding is likely part of that, but the astounding number of controls likely played a negative role in the user experience as well.

forgetfulness 6y ago

Theming was HUGE in Linux back in 2005-2010, consistency was paramount, adherence to toolkit was extremely important just like Apple claimed. For Apple it was about delivering a consistent branded experience, for the GNOME and KDE communities it was about being able to consistently customize the experience. In Windows? Always a free-for-all of such heavy customization on the side of the third-party applications that a Windows look and feel was never really a thing, nor was theming because of the same thing. Then GNOME 3.0 came and they went for the consistently branded experience approach, and you were left with a black and gray desktop environment that at best tolerated customization. And it works alright, but Desktop Linux at most you'll get to work alright, the third party app ecosystem is small, without the feeling of ownership and freedom that an end-user can have with their system, customizing not the kernel but the things they're actually interacting with, what's left? An unremarkable desktop environment with few applications, that you'll want to replace with macOS as soon as you have the money.

bsdubernerd 6y ago
I agree that theming was much more consistent a decade ago in linux-land. GTK2 + QT with GTK2-style would get you an almost seamless experience. The "dark or light" theme we have today is an absolute joke by comparison. Many Gtk-engines were also much faster in terms of pure rendering speed. Another issue as mentioned is that per-control CSS skinning breaks easily with custom themes. Instead of using system colors devs often hard-code a custom look. Finally, some programs go for a fully custom theme that doesn't even work properly without. Darktable is one example. Darktable looks cool, but a long time I had a hard time reading it's controls since it didn't respect system's font sizes nor it allowed to change it. The contrast was poor. It now comes with several themes, but nothing matches my system theme, which is more accessible. As much as I love darktable, I'd skip the custom UI any day.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > Another issue as mentioned is that per-control CSS skinning breaks easily with custom themes. Instead of using system colors devs often hard-code a custom look. Ironically, you used to be able to use system colors via CSS. Like it usually happens on the web, that feature was also removed because of security reasons - apparently it made it easier for scammers to render fake system popups.

u678u 6y ago

I remember when office came out late 90s with the custom DLL to make everything grey and 3d looking instead of white. It was cool, but yeah breaks the consistent theme.

jonpurdy 6y ago

As a Technical PM, I fought against a former boss when they wanted to forego native controls because they wanted their app to be branded, because without a custom look they felt that their app would not be unique and memorable. If an app can't survive on its usefulness alone, it probably shouldn't exist. As a user, if an app doesn't have a native UI, I disregard it unless I need it for a specific and mandatory use.

virtue3 6y ago
The only time you should NOT be using a native control is when you have UX that demands something very custom. Or you're doing some multiplatform thing, in which case you should try and use a toolkit that can at least pretend to be native controls on all the platforms.
CodeGlitch 6y ago
I believe Winamp became so popular because it had such a unique UI, that was also incredibly customizable. Compare that to Windows media player at the time... On the flip side I want me email client, my desktop authoring tools and admin tools to all look and act the same.
- deathanatos 6y ago
  Perhaps partly, but the UI was also useful compared to WMP. WMP was slow, bulky, and took up lots of screen real estate. WinAmp, while it was themed, was slim, but also packed far more control into a tinier space than WMP. (The blue/grey theme that came later was far less performant; I mean the original dark green/black theme.) And WinAmp would open & play literally any format under the sun. WMP was limited to something like MP3 and WMA. (And maybe WAV.)
  - RedShift1 6y ago
    WMP plays anything the system has a codec for.
    - 6y ago

InvisibleUp 6y ago

This MSDN article (which starts by recounting a day in 1995) backs your theory up: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/ms364048(v=vs.80) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/ms364048(...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 6y ago

Agreed. CSS is the worst thing to happen the web because it privileged advertising and designers over content and writers, and designers make more by going from client to client. Instead of the web being the world's library, it has ended up like an endless magazine stand, optimizing for sensationalist crap.