3 ms·

The demo may have looked rough because it was recorded in some weird format. The images used were the same as 280, so it can't have looked too much different -

by trapper 17y ago

The demo may have looked rough because it was recorded in some weird format. The images used were the same as 280, so it can't have looked too much different - here, take a look at this comparison: http://i42.tinypic.com/2rqmx3o.jpg http://i42.tinypic.com/2rqmx3o.jpg Here is another version done with some different images I hacked up quickly: http://i43.tinypic.com/x5wjdt.jpg http://i43.tinypic.com/x5wjdt.jpg Obviously I could spend another hour fixing pixels. But that wasn't the point. The point is that GWT can be styled just like every other browser application/website, and it's trivial to do, just like it is for any other framework. If I can do this in a few hours everyone else can too.

boucher 17y ago
This is incredibly naive. If you think all of 280 Slides is two toolbars and a dozen or so icons, then you have missed the point. Even the point you are trying to make is invalid, because this is perhaps 2% of the layout involved in 280 Slides completely ignoring all the interaction.
- trapper 17y ago
  I never said that. The claim was that styling a gwt app is simple. "GWT is just html.Taking cappaccinos style and porting it to gwt would only be a couple of days work, if that." I never claimed that their interaction was easy to clone.
tolmasky 17y ago
I find it hard to believe that this point even has to be made, but there is a difference between designing something and implementing a design. There is also a difference between UI look and UI behavior. By replicating the 280 Slides look (by copying its existing design and images), the best you could do is prove that GWT makes it easy to implement a design, but I do not believe that even this was done in the demo you made. 1. I'm not sure what exactly is impressive about this demo, you have a couple buttons which pop up a window that has dummy content in it, and then expect people to think that it proves that making something that looks and behaves like 280 Slides is easy. For starters, this is the least impressive portion of 280 Slides. I don't for example see a slide navigator which shows a tiny version of the working area, and I also don't see a working area that has vector properties that works in all browsers. These are the components which would be hardest to build without Cappuccino in my opinion. I'm not sure even the toolbar works like the one in 280 Slides. For example, when you make the window too small does it auto place the items that aren't visible into a menu on the right based on their priority of importance? If your point was simply that you can make buttons with custom images in GWT, then I guess you've succeeded. 2. Beyond this, designing itself is also quite difficult, which I hope is not something we have to argue about, since to say otherwise would be to invalidate the designing profession as a whole. One thing we are trying to do with Cappuccino is provide a good set of base artwork and a HIG that will make this easier for people who can't afford a real designer. Large portions of this work will of course be usable outside of Cappuccino since we are making them open source, but others will be much easier as they will be built into Cappuccino.
- trapper 17y ago
  Show me where I said designing original content was easy. Show me where I claimed behaviour would be copied as well. The claim was that GWT is simple to style. Surely I proved that claim. It's HTML and graphics people!

by trapper 17y ago

boucher 17y ago

This is incredibly naive. If you think all of 280 Slides is two toolbars and a dozen or so icons, then you have missed the point. Even the point you are trying to make is invalid, because this is perhaps 2% of the layout involved in 280 Slides completely ignoring all the interaction.

trapper 17y ago
I never said that. The claim was that styling a gwt app is simple. "GWT is just html.Taking cappaccinos style and porting it to gwt would only be a couple of days work, if that." I never claimed that their interaction was easy to clone.

tolmasky 17y ago

I find it hard to believe that this point even has to be made, but there is a difference between designing something and implementing a design. There is also a difference between UI look and UI behavior. By replicating the 280 Slides look (by copying its existing design and images), the best you could do is prove that GWT makes it easy to implement a design, but I do not believe that even this was done in the demo you made. 1. I'm not sure what exactly is impressive about this demo, you have a couple buttons which pop up a window that has dummy content in it, and then expect people to think that it proves that making something that looks and behaves like 280 Slides is easy. For starters, this is the least impressive portion of 280 Slides. I don't for example see a slide navigator which shows a tiny version of the working area, and I also don't see a working area that has vector properties that works in all browsers. These are the components which would be hardest to build without Cappuccino in my opinion. I'm not sure even the toolbar works like the one in 280 Slides. For example, when you make the window too small does it auto place the items that aren't visible into a menu on the right based on their priority of importance? If your point was simply that you can make buttons with custom images in GWT, then I guess you've succeeded. 2. Beyond this, designing itself is also quite difficult, which I hope is not something we have to argue about, since to say otherwise would be to invalidate the designing profession as a whole. One thing we are trying to do with Cappuccino is provide a good set of base artwork and a HIG that will make this easier for people who can't afford a real designer. Large portions of this work will of course be usable outside of Cappuccino since we are making them open source, but others will be much easier as they will be built into Cappuccino.

trapper 17y ago
Show me where I said designing original content was easy. Show me where I claimed behaviour would be copied as well. The claim was that GWT is simple to style. Surely I proved that claim. It's HTML and graphics people!