3 ms·

I always find atleast one person making this or similar comment in threads on non native GUI libraries. I also respect the fact that this is just a statement o

I always find atleast one person making this or similar comment in threads on non native GUI libraries. I also respect the fact that this is just a statement of a personal preference. However I don't think most people care. Good applications with thoughtful UX and useful functionality will succeed whether they choose native widgets or not. Literally millions of people use applications like VSCode, Blender, OBS Studio. I bet the vast majority of them don't think what this here application needs is more native widgets. Heck, no one cares that Figma is a web app. From what I can see it beat out all similar desktop native competitors.

deaddodo 3y ago
I didn't say most people cared. I said "I disagree".
- hannofcart 3y ago
  I didn't claim you said "most people" either. Furthermore, in my prior comment, I acknowledge that you are expressing a personal preference/opinion and that I respect that.
okamiueru 3y ago
> However I don't think most people care. I think everyone cares, whether they know it or not. Which sounds like an oxymoron. But my point is that inconsistent UX might not be glaringly noticeable, but it can still give a feeling of messiness and add to cognitive load. "Native widgets" is just a way to achieve "consistent widgets". A good tradeoff IMO is to at handle as many things with native UX (e.g. window decorations, menus, etc.), as possible without compromising on function. To avoid the latter, custom GUI is arguably necessary, as is the case with Blender, while OBS arguably doesn't need its own handling of the menu / window decoration. These things matter very much to some people, as consistency affects how well certain accessibility tooling can understand the contents of applications. UI customization also matters for similar reasons. Certain things like scaling or theming, might rely on native GUI libraries. To summarize, if the discussion is what is "best", and you don't have a functional reason to justify custom UX, and you disregard development cost, then the best solution is a consistent UX, i.e. native widgets.

deaddodo 3y ago

I didn't say most people cared. I said "I disagree".

hannofcart 3y ago
I didn't claim you said "most people" either. Furthermore, in my prior comment, I acknowledge that you are expressing a personal preference/opinion and that I respect that.

okamiueru 3y ago

> However I don't think most people care. I think everyone cares, whether they know it or not. Which sounds like an oxymoron. But my point is that inconsistent UX might not be glaringly noticeable, but it can still give a feeling of messiness and add to cognitive load. "Native widgets" is just a way to achieve "consistent widgets". A good tradeoff IMO is to at handle as many things with native UX (e.g. window decorations, menus, etc.), as possible without compromising on function. To avoid the latter, custom GUI is arguably necessary, as is the case with Blender, while OBS arguably doesn't need its own handling of the menu / window decoration. These things matter very much to some people, as consistency affects how well certain accessibility tooling can understand the contents of applications. UI customization also matters for similar reasons. Certain things like scaling or theming, might rely on native GUI libraries. To summarize, if the discussion is what is "best", and you don't have a functional reason to justify custom UX, and you disregard development cost, then the best solution is a consistent UX, i.e. native widgets.