On 19 Aug 2007, at 23:53, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Micha got it correct on both counts. We were talking about bugs in OS shipped DLL's.
I only read something about not being able to set the color of a button. That may be an OS bug of course, but it may also be intentional.
As for the look and feel compared to the OS look and feel. I think that is over exaggerated by *way to many* people and is not that important at all.
I guess this may depend on the platform. On Windows, a lot of applications may indeed go their own way anyway, so there may not be much of a standard look&feel at all which people expect. OTOH, there are definitely some things which people do not want at all, given the large outcry which occurs any time Apple tries to emulate half of the Mac OS X look&feel in Windows ports of its applications (and not just because of the slowdown this causes).
As Micha stated, lets take MS Office as an example. Word, Excel and Outlook does NOT adhere to the normal OS GUI components and style. Yet every body (as in millions of users) are just fine with using Office that looks different compared to any other Windows based app.
To be honest, I know few people who consider MS Office easy to use (except for the things they know because they have done it so many times already) or an example of good usability. That's obviously not just because of the way it looks, but that doesn't help either.
Now what about the most popular media players - WinAmp and Windows Media Player. Again they do not adhere to the normal GUI look, yet is the most popular players around. The list goes on, but you get the point.
Such applications can be special cases. They emulate a special purpose (electronic) device, and in that case there is no problem with also emulating interface conventions of such devices (again, because it is something that people are used to). The same goes for e.g. a calculator or a video editing app. Similarly, games often can have a completely custom interface without any problems because it enhances the immersion factor, which is much more important there than interface conventions.
My employer already stated that they want a different look to standard Windows apps when we deploy to our 200+ centres, so that the application can stand out a bit. Just the look though, not how the components (application) works.
At least not in the OS versions you are basing the operation of your component on. And often things like accessibility functionality for e.g. the visually and hearing impaired come free with OS components, while they may require special purpose (and OS-specific) code in your own components.
Jonas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
