On 3 Feb 2009, at 08:12, Achim Schneider wrote:
"John A. De Goes" <j...@n-brain.net> wrote:
Perhaps I should have been more precise:
How do you define "layout" and "interaction semantics" in such a way
that the former has a *necessarily* direct, enormous impact on the
latter?
HTML/CSS is a perfect example of how one can decouple a model of
content from the presentation of that content. The developer writes
the content model and the controller, while UX guys or designers get
to decide how it looks.
HTML, or rather XML, would be layout to me. GUI's usually don't serve
static content, and allowing a CSS layer to position eg. a filter GUI
that supports chaining up any amount of filters by slicing them apart
and positioning them on top of each other (maybe because someone
didn't
notice that you can use more than one filter) wrecks havoc on both
usability and the semantics.
"Wrecks havoc on the semantics" in the sense of that if a thing is
editable, the semantics should guarantee that it is, indeed, editable.
Likewise, if something is marked as visible (and such things are
explicit in the model, not defined by an outer layer), the semantics
should guarantee that it is visible.
I mostly don't get how a topic discussing how to do GUIs in a
beautiful, consistent, composable, orthogonal, functional way got onto
the topic of "oh hay, you could do it with html and css". Sure, those
two may be declarative languages, but that doesn't make either of them
fill the list of features required above!
Bob
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
