Ray G. Miller wrote: >> However, about Apple--I can no longer consider them to be the >> ultimate example of good interface, as they were before. > > Agreed, Curry, but what other consistent Guidelines are there? > Micro$lot? ;-)
The current mess confronting multi-platform developers is costly to us all, with incalculable time wasted by the majority using Revolution, Java, RealBASIC, Director, Flash, or other cross-platform development system. I wouldn't be surprised if the worldwide aggregate of productivity lost to such things came to several tens or possibly hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Some time ago I was considering an article with petition on a "Universal GUI", with the theme of "Put up or shut up." There's probably a more polite way to phrase that, but I believe the central idea is important: As more and more development becomes cross- or multi-platform, although most modern GUIs share a majority of UI elements (common window trimmings, menus, button types, etc.), each OS has enough distinctions to drive everyone crazy trying to be "HIG-compliant" across conflicting HIGs. So maybe we developers could turn the tables: rather than enslaving ourselves to sometimes arbitrary specifications, we take it upon ourselves to make one recommendation for a Universal GUI. Any OS vendor could make suggestions for deviations from common behaviors, but they would only be incorprated into the Universal GUI spec if it's supported by research, with methodologies and results available for review so we can distinguish the truly research-supported recommendations. We should never have to write two layout routines for dialog controls, in which Win and Mac reverse the order of default buttons, for example. We could pick one layout, based on research or, if such supporting documentation is unavailable, prevalence among current GUIs, making the odd one out either substantiate their difference with research or be ignored. One could rightly argue that a Universal GUI could lead to a "lowest common denominator" GUI. We'd have to be watchful of that, but at the same time the sum of common elements is not bad, and in its simplicity there may be great value. We could still keep unique appearances, since each OS provides a heathly set of hooks for rendering controls. But there's no reason layouts, behavior, and nomenclature couldn't be made consistent, with the option supported by the strongest research setting the standard others would be asked to comply with. I realize it would be an uphill battle and likely without victory. Worth pursuing, or better off left as a thought experiment? ;) -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Software Design and Development for Mac, Windows, Linux, and the Web ____________________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc Fax: 323-225-0716 _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution