People have come to expect a richer experience. I'm sure if you could install windows 3.1 onto todays hardware you'd be so impressed with the speed things run... but would you do it?
I think of all the times I've installed some tool or app and noticed an outdated UI and decided that I don't really need it, and uninstalled. It's standard UI knowledge that the acceptance of an application (especially in corporate environment) can make or break it's actual usage. If people don't like it they will do everything in their power to not use it. The user's perception of an app has little to do with if it actually does the job or not. (sure it's a component) Looking and feeling good is a driving force of human nature. It's not survival of the fittest, its survival of the prettiest!! WPF can deliver that desired look. People want round corners and gradients, and gratuitous animations. People want modern looking homes. If you go out and find an old house made of brown brick with floral curtains and carpet and retro decor... well, it may sell but not for as much. Good looking UI/UX gets an emotional reaction from people, which is a very powerful driving force. Actually bad UI does too but not the desired emotions. I guess users are shallow, it's all about the looks. No one wants a Fat app! :) On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Greg Keogh <[email protected]> wrote: > Why should anyone write an app in WPF? > > > > Serious question. If you have to create an app that looks beautiful with > gradients, shadows, smooth moving parts, menus containing videos, grids with > complex template cells ... then WPF is the only choice. Is there any other > compelling reason to use WPF to write a desktop app that doesn’t need such > beauty? > > > > Since Framework 3.0 was released I've had a single job offer to write a UI > that had to be "beautiful". We did a demo, then the project was canned and > they finished up doing it in a browser with Google Web Toolkit (and it looks > impressive, in the Google Mail page style, but fancier). Every other desktop > app I’ve had to write needed absolutely nothing that WPF provides and it > would have wasted time and money to use anything other than WinForms. > > > > WinForms apps might arguably be a bit “dull”, but more importantly, they > have a standard appearance. I strive to use standard menus, toolbar, status > bar, icons, shortcuts, etc, and WinForms encourages me to do the right > thing. WPF tempts you to write something strange and non-standard, which is > fine if that’s what you want, but if not? > > > > So even though I’m greatly impressed by what you can do with WPF, it takes > much longer to write anything with it, and most business apps requested of > me don’t gain anything. So why should anyone write an app in WPF if they > don’t have to? > > > > Greg > > > > P.S. Maybe in some future thread I can explain the reasons why I am so > unproductive in WPF, XAML, type converters and infrastructure. Perhaps > people will be able to point out ways of overcoming my speed bumps. I’m not > unfamiliar with WPF, I’m just slower with it. > > > > P.S. A few weeks ago I did actually start writing a significant app in WPF, > by deliberate choice, even though the app doesn’t technically need any WPF > features. We’re converting a VB6 app to .NET in stages. Progress is slower > than it would be in WinForms of course, but it will be interesting to see > what benefits result. There is a risk that we will use fancy visual effects > just because we can, and I wonder if other people fall for that trap. > > _______________________________________________ > ozwpf mailing list > [email protected] > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf > > _______________________________________________ ozwpf mailing list [email protected] http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf
