4 ms·
> They try to emulate GUI but do it poorly I dispute that point. Firstly, because TUIs and GUIs were developed pretty much in parallel, as far as I‘m aware. Bu
by veddox 5y ago
> They try to emulate GUI but do it poorly
I dispute that point. Firstly, because TUIs and GUIs were developed pretty much in parallel, as far as I‘m aware. But secondly (and more importantly), because TUIs fill a different niche and follow a different philosophy to GUIs.
TUIs are primarily intended for environments where GUIs are either not available (e.g. SSH), unnecessary (e.g. servers), or overkill (e.g. very old computers). In terms of design and UX philosophy, they are much more concentrated on keybased rather than mousebased interaction, and bring their own set of conventions that are markedly different from GUI design philosophy.
So, while you are entitled not to like TUIs (they can be difficult to work with), calling them a bad emulation of GUIs really misses the point.
- badsectoracula 5y ago> TUIs are primarily intended for environments where GUIs are either not [...] or overkill (e.g. very old computers). You'd have to be using a very old computer considering Windows 3.0 worked even on an original IBM PC. Though granted, you needed at least a 386 for it to be usable. Chances are your GUI toolkit is too bloated, but that is the fault of the toolkit you chose, not GUIs themselves - use a more lightweight toolkit. > In terms of design and UX philosophy, they are much more concentrated on keybased rather than mousebased interaction This is up to the application, there is nothing that forbids GUIs to be fully keyboard controlled (in addition to mouse of course). > and bring their own set of conventions that are markedly different from GUI design philosophy. Pretty much every TUI either has its own set of conventions or mimics established GUIs or a mix of both, so not really.