2010/12/8 <warwick.alli...@nokia.com>:
>> I hope "declarative" doesn't end up meaning "screw abstraction, we'll
>> make everything as painfully concrete as possible" ;-).
>>
>> Actions are a nice way to declare a bunch of things that the user can
>> do, which can later be moved around by the view developer to different
>> presentation (toolbar / app menu / context menu / shortcut / tv remote
>> control / whatever). Compared to just exposing a method, Action can
>> have icon, (translated) text, status tip, etc...
>
> And yet they bind the notions of "UIs are a bunch of commands" and "commands
> have static icons and test labels" into the design language of the user
> experience, while "abstracting" something that is trivial.
>
> Anyone trying to write applications by devising a traditional
> toolbar-menu-buttons UI and then expecting some magic "style" to be applied
> to their abstraction in order to make a pleasant UI is riding on the wrong
> bus.
>
> Start with the interaction design and the abstract logic engine, then bring
> the two together. Do not just add UI abstractions on the engine and expect
> success - that only "works" for SAP and Lotus Notes, and.... well, it doesn't
> actually work at all, does it?
Mini-{rant,remark}: If you argue about abstraction, one could say that
MouseArea does not have to have the "clicked" signal, as "pressed" and
"released" already provide everything one needs, and "clicking" is
something that comes from a traditional mouse-centered UI, and already
encourages designers to think in terms of "clicks". (Why isn't it
called TouchArea or InteractiveArea? Where are the gestures? onPinch?)
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Qt-qml mailing list
Qt-qml@trolltech.com
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-qml
