Herman Robak wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:39:11 +0100, Hannu Vuolasaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:44:28 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Theoretically a nice Idea, but remember that a NLE can have very
>>> complex, custom Widgets, like the Timeline and Previews, these should
>>> ideally be written only once, putting together some buttons and basic
>>> widgets in different Toolkits is never a Problem.
Moreover when plugins want to provide gui's on themself (dialog window
for configuration, timeline rendering, mask overlays, patchbay
widgets,...) these should/must use the toolkit a upcoming gui uses. So
we have the choice of either decide on a tookit or we wrap an tookit
abstraction and some custom widgets we need into a glue layer.
The later would be a major task with much work to do for something which
likely never happens (porting the gui to another tookit).
We just don't have the developer resources to do so.
>>
>> Just one stupid question. What is wrong with current GUI?
>
> For you an me? Very little. But please realise how irrelevant that is.
> Potential users and developers think Cinelerra is "stuck in the 90s"
> because of its GUI. Users believe the whole application must suck at
> least as much as its GUI. Developers don't think it's worthwhile to
> learn about a GUI toolkit that is only used for _one_ application.
>
> Bottom line: To many users and coders, Cinelerra doesn't LOOK worthy
> of their time and effort.
The current tookit was written by HV when there was no other free
alternative which was suitable for the task. This was really great work
but cinelerra2 design is quite tightly coupled with this tookit. It has
some problems/workarounds which where prolly necessary that time
(multithreading on linux was pita) but which are now a major problem for
stabilizing and extending the cin2 codebase.
For me it is not the LOOK .. I somewhat like it, many people disagree.
The most important thing is, when we use a common toolkit we don't need
to care for maintaining our own, its easier to find programmers who are
familar with it, it will save *a lot* of work.
>
> To explain why this is so, and why it is futile to try and tell the
> rest of the world that it ain't necessarily so, I will refer to
> Joel Spolsky's article "The Iceberg Secret" (Joel on Software,
> February 2002):
>
>
> 'Important Corollary One. If you show a nonprogrammer a screen which has
> a user interface that is 90% worse, they will think that the program is
> 90% worse.
> ...
> What happened during the demo? The clients spent the entire meeting
> griping about the graphical appearance of the screen. They weren't even
> talking about the UI. Just the graphical appearance. "It just doesn't
> look slick," complained their project manager. That's all they could
> think about. We couldn't get them to think about the actual
> functionality. Obviously fixing the graphic design took about one day.
> It was almost as if they thought they had hired painters.'
LOOK and USABILITY are different things, the look has influence on the
usability, as in contrast, memorizeable icons, layout which is logical
and minimizes mouse movements,.. but usability defines much more than
what you just see, and this is an area where cinelerra2 could need some
improvements. We have many ideas and will brainstorm about this when it
is time (not yet!)
Christian
>
>
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000356.html
>
> --Herman Robak
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cinelerra mailing list
> Cinelerra@skolelinux.no
> https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
Cinelerra@skolelinux.no
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
