Re: Dialog size in pixel
Well, you show a variety of skins, and some of them even keep the resizing
(which is the focus of this thread). You even seem to like some of them.
But the issue is, if a skin does not allow resizing to allow child controls
to be placed with pixel accuracy, is it worth it? You seem to think not,
but mainly because you just don't like the skin or can't see why various
graphic elements were chosen. That is highly subjective.
I've heard 2 reasons for non-resizable skins, over and over: 1) Good
looking skins make people want to use the product, and thus sell it; 2) Good
looking skins allow more freedom to guide the user (who is targeted as not
knowing Windows, for example, they don't know to right click to get a
context menu, don't know to press the Space bar to click the focused button,
will ignore anything smalller than 18 point type, etc.) And if
implementing a skin is easier if you forgo resizing (of course it is), then
it will be tossed simply because it does not impact #1 or #2. Heck, the
target user doesn't resize a window even if it allows it. How many times
have you seen someone type in a little Outlook Mail window because they are
too dumb to drag it bigger?
Personally, I agree with you and want a high priority on resizeability
(which improves usability for intermediate to advanced people). But if I'm
building a product for someone who won't resize anyway, well, my personal
values on the resizeability/skin issues just don't make one whit of
difference.
Thanks,
David
"Mihai N." <nmihai_year_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AC7F00305AD0MihaiN@207.46.248.16...
But I can bet without looking that a skinned application brings nothing
to the user, and is just cute thing to make a graphic designer that ended
up as UI designer feel like he still does some "creative work".
And I will win the bet 9 out of 10 (if not more)
Some examples.
I find this:
http://common.packardbell.com/itemnr/instr_createcdfromiso/nero66_express.jpg
and this
http://techgage.com/viewimg/?img=/reviews/software/nero/nero8ultra/nero_8_ult
ra_04.png&desc=Nero%208%20Ultra%20Edition
way more clear than this:
http://www.dvdburner.info/images/nero-6-ultra.jpg
or this:
http://www.dvdshrinknow.com/images/scr_Nero_StartSmart_AltConfigure_bg.jpg.jp
g
Why is a round glowy button with two people better than a gray square
button
with two people? Why is a question-mark with green laurels more clear than
a
question mark?
In both cases, the more clear dialogs use standard (or close to standard)
controls.
How is this:
http://www.atpm.com/7.07/images/t-toast-window.gif
worse than this:
http://motogrrl.com/replayTV/images/dvd-toast.jpg
except for a designer justifying his salary?
Why are the round buttons or the tabs here
http://www.dcsoft.com/images/airgo_gcu_ss.gif
more clear for the user than the standard, square buttons or tabs?
(especially since none of the custom controls don't seem to make it clear
which one has the focus)
The only situation that probably justifiues skinning is imitating a real
object (if the imitation is really good).
If I am programming a TV remote, it ok and natural if the thing on screen
looks exactly like the real thing.
--
Mihai Nita [Microsoft MVP, Visual C++]
http://www.mihai-nita.net
------------------------------------------
Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email