On 04/08/2016 11:38 PM, Will Hill wrote: > Multiple tool kits with long term continuity that work well together are a > free software strength. I regularly use best of class applications from KDE, > Gnome, Trinity, Window Maker, and others on E16. I'm able to share > information between these programs, on multiple computers, in ways that are > impossible on non free platforms. UI and toolset whiplash is something I > hate and is regularly forced on non free software users. Those other > platforms are hardly more consistent and are almost always less functional. > Free software has given me both beautiful new things and UI continuity with a > time scale of decades. Here, have a look, > > http://50.80.140.55/photo_album/chron/desktop/trinity16.html > http://50.80.140.55/photo_album/chron/desktop/thinkpad/thinkpads.html > > Please do not call the software I love "ugly" or say that I do not care. I'm > going to some effort to keep things stable for myself. Your goals are better > than those negative terms. Talk about things you consider beautiful and tell > people specific things you consider helpful to people with disabilities.
Sorry Will, I did not want to offend anybody or make generalizations - I didn't mean that all GNU/Linux users don't care about their GUIs, but more along the lines that they are more tolerant of visual inconsistencies. I can only speak from my own experience as a user of many music production programs, and the average UI is not only what I would consider "ugly" but also offers zero accessibility: http://rakarrack.sourceforge.net/rakarrack.jpg http://guitarix.org/images/screenshots/gx_tuner-4.12.jpg https://a.fsdn.com/con/app/proj/yoshimi/screenshots/Collage.png Many music programs have quite pleasing UIs but they still not conform to any existing standards and draw their own widgets: http://milkytracker.org/screenshots/desktop/raina-Default.png http://bristol.sourceforge.net/mini.gif I don't think we should sweep this issue under the rug - I frankly think that it is an obstacle to the adoption these programs. And beauty was never something I cared about in programs: I regularly use a pretty minimalist i3 setup which most people would consider "ugly". What I care about is consistency, predictability, usability and accessibility, so when I say "ugly" I don't mean it as the opposite of "beautiful", but as a violation of those four parameters.