3 ms·

This indeed. Custom UI widgets for Windows apps are really not necessary most of the time, and fitting in with the system theme is all you ought to aim for, mos

This indeed. Custom UI widgets for Windows apps are really not necessary most of the time, and fitting in with the system theme is all you ought to aim for, most of the time. There are exceptions, for very rich dense UI, for UIs that need to be cross-platform, but if you're writing a Windows app, it should look and feel like a Windows app.

therein 2y ago
> and fitting in with the system theme is all you ought to aim for, most of the time Even Microsoft struggles with that.
- pc86 2y ago
  Only because they change the system theme every 45 minutes.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    Seriously, someone needs to reign in their UI department. No more refreshes until you actually finish one.
klabb3 2y ago
> There are exceptions, for very rich dense UI, for UIs that need to be cross-platform That’s not exceptional at all. That’s completely normal requirements that are probably in the majority. Does Microsoft themselves build their apps this way?
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Most applications would be fine with a button on Windows looking like a Windows button, a button on Mac looking like a Mac button, a button on Android looking like a Material Design button and a button on iPhone looking like a UIKit button. You need consistency in the icons, layouts and concepts, but you don't need every widget to look exactly the same on every platform.
  - MBCook 2y ago
    Right. I want your app to have consistency with the platform I’m using. Not between all platforms. With the exception of games try to use the native GUI. It’s the best choice most of the time.
    - flyingpenguin 2y ago
      Depends on the app size also. Is your app as large and important as the OS of the device (Chrome/facebook/etc...) you should probably have similar language across devices. Is your app very large but not that large? (Slack/teams come to mind) I think you can go either way. If you are smaller than that (hint: you are) then you should comply with the design language of the platform, even if that means somewhat large changes such as moving buttons from the left to the right. The likelihood that users are constantly using your app on a iphone and android is really low.
      - MBCook 2y ago
        I disagree. I think the only apps where a custom UI make sense are games and I’m willing to accept highly specialized business apps that have their own conventions. Thinks like Blender, AutoCad, Logic, etc. I’d still like to see them try to match a little, but they’re specialized enough I get that may be a better path. Chrome? Facebook? Slack? Teams? No. I’m not saying things need to look like MyFirstWin32App built with VB6 in 20 minutes. But use the system controls and conventions. Custom colors and layouts can be fine. But if you want to make your own UI toolkit then make your own OS too and leave my computer alone.
      - kergonath 2y ago
        > Is your app as large and important as the OS of the device (Chrome/facebook/etc...) you should probably have similar language across devices. No app is more important than the OS, and certainly not Facebook (which has no business being an app in the first place). I made a choice when I got the OS, and I like developers respecting it and not chase the fad of the day with poor approximations of the native widgets (text fields that do not support standard shortcuts, buttons that do not behave as they should, labels that do not support accessibility features, the list could go on). Even huge apps like Photoshop or Office get this wrong everywhere. I definitely agree on the default (use the native toolkit), but there are no applications big enough to get their own behaviour. Open Source or hobby applications get a pass if the UI is a bit wonky, but that’s about it.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > Does Microsoft themselves build their apps this way? I'm not sure anyone could really answer this question considering how fast Microsoft's various silos pinball between UI conventions. All of them are (I would hope) based on various iterations of their own internal tooling, but looking from Windows 7 to 8, 10, and then 11, you get such stark differences in UI language that you feel like you're looking at competing products. That being said, I would personally very much prefer apps that are built to mimic the system they are a part of. One of the worst sins of that one, IMO, being iTunes on Windows which has always been and continues to be a flaming dumpster fire for a number of reasons, but most especially it's UI. It is a Mac app that is parked in Windows. It looks like a Mac app, it operates like a Mac app, it's UI conventions are that of the Mac, with the one major difference being they stuffed the window controls in the window in an incredibly slapdash way to account for Windows not having the system bar. But yeah, for any marketing people here, I have not once nor will I ever give a single molecule of a shit about your brand identity. Make your software good. Ideally make it mesh with the system it's in. I couldn't fucking care less what color everything is.
threatofrain 2y ago
Or if you’re making games. All games seem to cherish a unique look even starting from the game menu or title screen.
- Arrath 2y ago
  I, for one, miss customized installers. We've kind of lost out on those what with the move to digital distribution. Gone are the days of my friend accidentally having his volume cranked when he inserted the Red Alert 2 disc, not knowing it would blast out "WARINING! Military Software Detected!"

therein 2y ago

> and fitting in with the system theme is all you ought to aim for, most of the time Even Microsoft struggles with that.

pc86 2y ago
Only because they change the system theme every 45 minutes.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  Seriously, someone needs to reign in their UI department. No more refreshes until you actually finish one.

klabb3 2y ago

> There are exceptions, for very rich dense UI, for UIs that need to be cross-platform That’s not exceptional at all. That’s completely normal requirements that are probably in the majority. Does Microsoft themselves build their apps this way?

wongarsu 2y ago
Most applications would be fine with a button on Windows looking like a Windows button, a button on Mac looking like a Mac button, a button on Android looking like a Material Design button and a button on iPhone looking like a UIKit button. You need consistency in the icons, layouts and concepts, but you don't need every widget to look exactly the same on every platform.
- MBCook 2y ago
  Right. I want your app to have consistency with the platform I’m using. Not between all platforms. With the exception of games try to use the native GUI. It’s the best choice most of the time.
  - flyingpenguin 2y ago
    Depends on the app size also. Is your app as large and important as the OS of the device (Chrome/facebook/etc...) you should probably have similar language across devices. Is your app very large but not that large? (Slack/teams come to mind) I think you can go either way. If you are smaller than that (hint: you are) then you should comply with the design language of the platform, even if that means somewhat large changes such as moving buttons from the left to the right. The likelihood that users are constantly using your app on a iphone and android is really low.
    - MBCook 2y ago
      I disagree. I think the only apps where a custom UI make sense are games and I’m willing to accept highly specialized business apps that have their own conventions. Thinks like Blender, AutoCad, Logic, etc. I’d still like to see them try to match a little, but they’re specialized enough I get that may be a better path. Chrome? Facebook? Slack? Teams? No. I’m not saying things need to look like MyFirstWin32App built with VB6 in 20 minutes. But use the system controls and conventions. Custom colors and layouts can be fine. But if you want to make your own UI toolkit then make your own OS too and leave my computer alone.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      > Is your app as large and important as the OS of the device (Chrome/facebook/etc...) you should probably have similar language across devices. No app is more important than the OS, and certainly not Facebook (which has no business being an app in the first place). I made a choice when I got the OS, and I like developers respecting it and not chase the fad of the day with poor approximations of the native widgets (text fields that do not support standard shortcuts, buttons that do not behave as they should, labels that do not support accessibility features, the list could go on). Even huge apps like Photoshop or Office get this wrong everywhere. I definitely agree on the default (use the native toolkit), but there are no applications big enough to get their own behaviour. Open Source or hobby applications get a pass if the UI is a bit wonky, but that’s about it.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> Does Microsoft themselves build their apps this way? I'm not sure anyone could really answer this question considering how fast Microsoft's various silos pinball between UI conventions. All of them are (I would hope) based on various iterations of their own internal tooling, but looking from Windows 7 to 8, 10, and then 11, you get such stark differences in UI language that you feel like you're looking at competing products. That being said, I would personally very much prefer apps that are built to mimic the system they are a part of. One of the worst sins of that one, IMO, being iTunes on Windows which has always been and continues to be a flaming dumpster fire for a number of reasons, but most especially it's UI. It is a Mac app that is parked in Windows. It looks like a Mac app, it operates like a Mac app, it's UI conventions are that of the Mac, with the one major difference being they stuffed the window controls in the window in an incredibly slapdash way to account for Windows not having the system bar. But yeah, for any marketing people here, I have not once nor will I ever give a single molecule of a shit about your brand identity. Make your software good. Ideally make it mesh with the system it's in. I couldn't fucking care less what color everything is.

threatofrain 2y ago

Or if you’re making games. All games seem to cherish a unique look even starting from the game menu or title screen.

Arrath 2y ago
I, for one, miss customized installers. We've kind of lost out on those what with the move to digital distribution. Gone are the days of my friend accidentally having his volume cranked when he inserted the Red Alert 2 disc, not knowing it would blast out "WARINING! Military Software Detected!"