4 ms·

I’m very sorry, but “native looking ui components” is a thing of the past. I might put some effort in if developing on Mac (but even Apple just does whatever),

by wredue 3y ago

I’m very sorry, but “native looking ui components” is a thing of the past. I might put some effort in if developing on Mac (but even Apple just does whatever), but on Windows and Linux, the components are a free for all. If even Microsoft won’t respect their own UI, why should I? I’m not advocating for breaking usability in your apps, just saying that we are well past not using this for desktop.

deaddodo 3y ago
Which is a shame, because those widgets work infinitely better than the rough-shod ones thrown together by these all-in-one libraries, for the user. If I have no choice, I'll use one of these apps. But if there's an alternative with a native UI, I'll switch in a heartbeat. Basically, the same as I feel about most electron apps.
- apitman 3y ago
  > for the user For which user? I prefer non-native apps. It makes me feel more immersed in the tool, and gives the developer complete control over their design, whether by choosing a GUI toolkit they like, or rolling their own from scratch to perfectly fit the domain.
  - treyd 3y ago
    I don't like it when developers break from the conventions and theming of my operating system because they feel entitled to. Sure, very sophisticated applications that have niche needs like Blender, Godot. Photoshop, etc may have a justification to do so. But most apps are not those and I expect them to be consistent with the rest of the software on my computer. It's very difficult to retrain nontechnical people to use apps when they break from the conventions and styles of the software they are familiar with.
    - ethanwillis 3y ago
      The only justification that's needed is simply, because that's what they wanted to make. You can incentivize them to make something you want with money, but if they don't choose to they're not unjustified.
    - apitman 3y ago
      > they feel entitled to They are entitled to. Just as you're entitled to use different software if you don't like it.
- bfrog 3y ago
  "native" widget sets have been dead and were killed off by the far worse electron/ad-hoc web designed apps
throwaway17_17 3y ago
I’d be inclined to agree, but I would tend to be critiquing what GP actually said, which is the the gui is totally ‘non-native’. I think you were in part correct to read the ‘native looking ui’ portion into the comment though, it would seem to be a common refrain that gui’s need to appear conforming to the OS’s chosen aesthetic and visual formatting. However, a very real complaint echoed in a sibling comment is the failure of non-native gui’s to respect or implement the OS’s operating behaviors for gui’s. I have no issue with visual differences between applications, but I want clicking and keyboard behavior to remain constant across my apps. As sibling implies, it’s a thousand small differences that build up, creating friction that foster the push to native GUI’s being the preferred, if not nearly mandatory, solution.

by wredue 3y ago

deaddodo 3y ago

Which is a shame, because those widgets work infinitely better than the rough-shod ones thrown together by these all-in-one libraries, for the user. If I have no choice, I'll use one of these apps. But if there's an alternative with a native UI, I'll switch in a heartbeat. Basically, the same as I feel about most electron apps.

apitman 3y ago
> for the user For which user? I prefer non-native apps. It makes me feel more immersed in the tool, and gives the developer complete control over their design, whether by choosing a GUI toolkit they like, or rolling their own from scratch to perfectly fit the domain.
- treyd 3y ago
  I don't like it when developers break from the conventions and theming of my operating system because they feel entitled to. Sure, very sophisticated applications that have niche needs like Blender, Godot. Photoshop, etc may have a justification to do so. But most apps are not those and I expect them to be consistent with the rest of the software on my computer. It's very difficult to retrain nontechnical people to use apps when they break from the conventions and styles of the software they are familiar with.
  - ethanwillis 3y ago
    The only justification that's needed is simply, because that's what they wanted to make. You can incentivize them to make something you want with money, but if they don't choose to they're not unjustified.
  - apitman 3y ago
    > they feel entitled to They are entitled to. Just as you're entitled to use different software if you don't like it.
bfrog 3y ago
"native" widget sets have been dead and were killed off by the far worse electron/ad-hoc web designed apps

throwaway17_17 3y ago

I’d be inclined to agree, but I would tend to be critiquing what GP actually said, which is the the gui is totally ‘non-native’. I think you were in part correct to read the ‘native looking ui’ portion into the comment though, it would seem to be a common refrain that gui’s need to appear conforming to the OS’s chosen aesthetic and visual formatting. However, a very real complaint echoed in a sibling comment is the failure of non-native gui’s to respect or implement the OS’s operating behaviors for gui’s. I have no issue with visual differences between applications, but I want clicking and keyboard behavior to remain constant across my apps. As sibling implies, it’s a thousand small differences that build up, creating friction that foster the push to native GUI’s being the preferred, if not nearly mandatory, solution.