-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ian Clatworthy wrote: > Jean-Francois Roy wrote: > >> The problem is two-fold: it is one of appearance and one of behavior. >> >> The current UI of bzr-explorer obviously does not look native. And >> experience with Firefox and Eclipse tells us even with an astounding >> amount of work and a framework that uses native widgets, it is still >> hard to get a native look. > > My understanding is that Firefox is GTK based and GTK on OS X isn't > anywhere near as good as Qt on OS X? Eclipse is, well, Eclipse. It's UI > is lousy on Ubuntu as well. > >> However, the issue of behavior is typically much harder to address. A >> Mac application is simply designed differently and behaves differently >> than a Windows application or a Linux application (and it has been my >> observation many Linux applications behave somewhat like Windows >> applications, although there are many differences as well). > > Right. And believe it or not, I took the time to read/browse the OS X > design guidelines before I wrote a line of Explorer code. My thinking > was that OS X had the strictest guidelines and therefore I needed to > design Explorer to met them first and foremost. >
So I think the main counterpoint is the 'bzr-exclipse' versus 'qbzr-eclipse' debate. Namely, the former is meant as a 'native' plugin, and the latter is a wrapper around the 'qbzr' dialogs. At *this* point, the latter has more polish and is more functional, though it doesn't integrate quite as well. And the main reason for that is that you get *lots* of development from the qbzr guys if you layer on top of them. Versus having to implement everything from scratch. I honestly think that long-term having a OS specific GUI for Mac is a great idea. I don't think anyone writing that will be able to reimplement all of qannotate, qlog, qbrowse, etc, in a reasonable amount of time versus leveraging all the work that is already out there. It is possible that it is just a 'glue' that is needed, plus a bit of work to refactor the dialogs to be glued together more cleanly for Mac. (A dialog may be making assumptions about its menu that should be changed, etc.) Anyway, I'm happy to support people who want to make BazaarX, etc better. I think that with limited resources, focusing on getting Bazaar Explorer to be better on Mac is a better use of time. For *me*, I switched to using Firefox & Thunderbird precisely because when I switch from Windows to Mac to Linux it still works and looks like what I'm used to. And having consistency *across* OS's was far better than having consistency *with* the OS. I fully understand the other side, though, where you are immersed in a single OS and what local apps to all work together. John =:-> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrCFaIACgkQJdeBCYSNAAOCHgCdHg2V4ZJiV5My53SCZAsvg27u 1UoAn1ZnOBJ8vTk3d67AdB0Cqsq+OY+w =06Dg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~bzr-mac Post to : bzr-mac@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~bzr-mac More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
