Though I agree with most of what you're saying, I think a lot of app
developers, at least the professional kind, will probably end up using
pure QML based UXs tailored to their apps. MeeGo/Qt/Harmatten Components
I suppose give certain developers/applications the ability to camouflage
themselves into the UX, which is indeed a good thing, and, if this is
only really happening on the QML layer, then it's arguably not a huge
deal as it should just be the thin UX layer on top of the proper
application code, whether in Python, JavaScript or Qt/C++, etc.
I think from my perspective, I'd probably be writing several QML UXs
for my apps anyway, one for tablets (large screen) and another for
handsets, the main reason being, though a perfect UX designed in QML
could be scalable across all screen dimensions. Separating the paradigms
into seperate QML UX profiles is just a lot simpler and probably a lot
less of a time investment.
That being said, Qt Components & MeeGo UX Components should really be
combined, and I hope they do. As I understand it Harmatten UX and MeeGo
Touch UX are essentially the same thing. It's just the recent MeeGo UX
Components have nothing to do with MTF, this will make theming double
the effort, where as using Qt Components, which should be using
MTF/Harmatten theming, means that 1.2 MeeGo is at least compatible with
Harmatten if Qt Components is used ...
But yeah .. Very confusing :(
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 13:23 +0100, Robin Burchell wrote:
> On 03/05/11 09:21, kate.alh...@nokia.com wrote:
> > Yes, they are in Harmattan. Does they have "real-world use" just depends
> > that do you like offer optimum user
> > experience for certain class of devices. Intel components offers best match
> > with Intel's tablet UX,
> > Harmattan components offer best user experience for handset.
>
> Without going into details of just how wrong I think this is, a short
> version of my opinion is: if you think that further fracturing a
> currently fledgling and immature developer community into arbitrary
> device categories after the last ~5 year's worth of disasters of
> rewrites and fragmentation is a good approach, we'll have to agree to
> disagree.
>
> I don't think hobbyists will be too happy to find out they have to
> rewrite the basics for every seperate device, either, given that is the
> #1 thing I hear Android developers complaining about. The
> netbook/handset/* differences certainly haven't done much except to
> confuse people, from my time watching #meego/forums/mailing lists.
>
> When you already have less appeal to developers, the last thing you want
> to do is to make it harder for them to write applications for you. And
> you want it easy to write applications that target a lot of devices.
> It's utter insanity to want to fragment what was finally starting to
> become a coherent and appealing developer story.
>
> --
> Robin Burchell
> http://rburchell.com
> ___
> MeeGo-dev mailing list
> MeeGo-dev@meego.com
> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
> http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
___
MeeGo-dev mailing list
MeeGo-dev@meego.com
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
