"Michel Fortin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 2010-05-08 18:34:02 -0400, retard <[email protected]> said: > >> Sat, 08 May 2010 18:22:37 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >>> Now that I find really surprising. On Windows, Chrome is one of the >>> biggest offenders of "To hell with native look & feel!" that I've ever >>> seen. >> >> Chrome, on the other hand, has consistent look & feel across all >> platforms. I guess the style comes from their own google web os system. >> It doesn't look bad in my opinion, e.g. compared to Java and Swing. > > I was mostly talking about the non-browser-window elements, such as the > preferences and the about box or any other windows. I specifically ignored > the browser window because I understand they include a lot of custom > controls which doesn't necessarily represent Qt or Cocoa fairly. >
Ahh, I was including the browser window. Regarding the dialog/preference windows: The dialog *body* has a very native look & feel, and I think it probably uses the native controls. The title/frame/border looks identical to non-accelerated Aero...but I'm on XP. One hell of a blatant gaffe. (And even if I were on Win7, I would definitely set the system to the "Classic" non-aero style anyway. There's a number of things I like better about it, aesthetics just being one reason). > > I wonder, what is wrong with Chrome on Windows? I mean, what is wrong that > is not by design but because of laziness or incompleteness? > The above. Other than that, most of my [long, long, long list of] issues with Chrome are by-design things. However, I don't normally distinguish between intentional bad designs and accidental bad designs. Bad design is bad design. If anything, accidental bad design is better because at least then there's a chance that the developer might be persuaded to fix it.
