[JDEV] UI opinions..

[arh14 at cornell.edu]

Um, I hope that is not the sound of bloat I hear.  I am admittedly 
somewhat ignorant of windows executable resource usage, but am I correct 
in not liking the sound of putting ALL possible UI interfaces as 
resources in the executable?  Wouldn't drag-n-drop solve this: the user 
drags and drops his/her interface around until they're happy?  AFAIK MFC 
is oriented towards this type of thing...pulling of bars and attaching 
them to other sides of the window, etc.

I apologize if I'm a bit spartan...maybe I should just go write myself a 
Perl front-end around the command line jabber ;)

Aaron


On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Thomas D. Charron wrote:

>   Actually, I was thinking about that, and it's ENTIRELY possible to make the client have several different 'UI modes' of operation.  Basically, in Windows development, dialogs are resources..  I can include several dialogs that all function 'differently', and allow a configuration option to choose which sets to use..
> 
>   If the Win32 client ever does support skins on a larger scale (Aka, round windows, etc..), I will probrably end up buying a theme library and building a seperate client off of that, so as not to add to the bulk of the basic client..
> 
> ---
> Thomas Charron
> 
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:38:24    Scott Robinson wrote:
> >Microsoft had the right idea when it allowed users to just drag and drop the
> >buttons they liked onto the tool bar.
> >
> >Configurability with simplicity is the way everyone _wants_ to go, but
> >getting there seems to be the problem. Bars or menus? Both?
> >
> >While the ICQesque interface is generally agreed to be evil, that is what
> >the user expects. At the very least, we should have a client that has a
> >similar UI.
> >
> >Skins? Customizable UI? If we wrote a standard (read portable) Jabber client
> >that supported radical modification of the UI with a few nice defaults that
> >we created, I would think this would solve all our problems. You may say
> >"but that would be to hard! Think of all the code we'd have write to
> >specialize the interface..."
> >
> >Scripting language? If we have a scripting language for the Jabber client,
> >then I would hope it could modify the UI. In fact, why just modify, why not
> >control! jabber.cfg points to a script which in effect is all the UI code.
> >This would drastically reduce our porting problems if we were to go the
> >standard client route. If we move as much as we can to our scripting
> >language, leaving the actual network code and VM to be ported it would make
> >our job much easier.
> >
> >While everyone on our Jabber list are techies, if we want Jabber to succeed
> >in "The Real World" then we need to make it easy for users. When that Jabber
> >install program boots up, its only question should be "How do you want
> >Jabber to look? ICQ/AIMesque? mIRCesqe? ..." and etc.
> >
> >As always, I'm officially "on crack" so anything I say can be disregarded.
> >
> >Scott.
> >
> >* Vivre Draco translated into ASCII [Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 12:23:36AM -0500][<VPOP31.3.0b.19990806002337.570.1d.1.130a3d50 at oakwind>]
> >> On 4 Aug 99,, Ben Apple sounded off on Re: [JDEV] UI opinions..:
> >> 
> >> > 	When given a choice, some users prefer buttons and some menu
> >> > bars... I think it's a good idea to have the complete bunch in the
> >> > menu bars, and the more basic (and frequently used) duplicated on
> >> > the list window. 
> >> 
> >>    Guess it's time to expand on my last message (which, for those of 
> >> you who are skimming, consisted entirely of the words  
> >> "Configurability, configurability, configurability!").
> >[snap]
> >
> 
> 
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
>