>I agree. Rectangular buttons are already built into most graphics APIs.
>(eg win32, MFC)
Dylan,
you get me wrong: There are several types of buttons. "shape" buttons like
Transparent, Oval, which cover a certain shape but are otherwise
transparent. Then there are "visible shape" buttons like Opaque, Roundrect,
Rectangle, Shadow which cover what is underneath them, and then there are
"native" buttons like Standard, Default, Radiobutton, Checkbox and Popup.
We need all of them for different reasons. Application developers might be
satisfied with native buttons, but people doing multimedia will at least
need shape buttons, and might also enjoy an occasional visible shape button.
Later on we'll hopefully also add the bevel button on the Mac, I hope
(which would map to Windows' rectangular buttons just like Standard will),
but first we need our 100% HyperCard-compatible version, and with that I
mean 100%. If we do 80%, we'll be just like SuperCard or MetaCard. We need
an advantage, and one of those is that for better or worse we'll be
compatible with HyperCard. 100%.
Also, the different button styles aren't really a problem. The
implementation has to be flexible enough to draw *anything* inside a
button. This may be nothing for Transparent buttons, a filled rectangle +
shade for a Shadow button, or a Macintosh control/Windows Window/Unix
widget in a Standard button. It's a matter of a few minutes to add in more
button styles like Rectangle and Shadow.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
